The Protocols of Zion Toolkit. The strongest arguments that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a forgery, and why they're inconclusive.

Write to me at contact.html.

You are at .

Peter Myers, September 22, 2002; update April 2, 2024.

My comments are shown {thus}.

Copyright: Peter Myers asserts the right to be identified as the author of the material written by him on this website, being material that is not otherwise attributed to another author.

NOTE: references to the Protocols at this site use the Nilus text.

The Jewish Lobby, so confident that they have proved the Protocols of Zion a forgery, keep likening any public criticism to the Protocols. For example, when Jimmy Carter wrote a book against Israeli Apartheid, the Lobby likened it to Mein Kampf, and to the Protocols of Zion

They dismissed the Mearsheimer/Walt book as "The New Protocols".

And when Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr said that the Australian Government had subcontracted its Mideast policy to Jewish Donors, the Lobby accused him of invoking the Protocols.

These cases are examined in more detail at protocols-debate.html.

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a small book dating from the 1890s which purports to record meetings of Masonic Jews setting out a program for overthrowing Christianity and introducing a Jewish one-world government.

It is called 'Zion' because of that Jewish-Masonic agenda, not because of any connection to the Zionist movement initiated by Herzl. There are no references to a Jewish state or an ingathering to Palestine in the Protocols. On the contrary, Protocol 11 talks of "our scattered tribe" and "the gifts of the dispersion".

The Protocols is commonly deemed a forgery because of extensive parallel passages to a book written by Maurice Joly in 1864, Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu. This is a satire which depicts Emperor Napoleon III of France as a Machiavellian (despot).

I placed all of the parallel passages at Joly-Prot-parallels.doc and Joly-Prot-parallels.pdf .

Napoleon's rule (1848-1870) was sandwiched between the Communist revolutions of 1848 and 1871, the latter being known as the Paris Commune. He kept the Communists at bay during that time, but followed the milder socialist policies of Saint-Simon, and was reasonably popular in France. In Communist circles, however, he was demonized; and that is the origin of Joly's book directed against him.

Jewish writers such as Israel Zangwill, Herman Bernstein and Norman Cohn insist that the Protocols is a forgery, plagiarised from Joly's book at the behest of the Czarist secret police in France.

The contrary view is that the Protocols was copied from a Masonic document in France, and that Joly's book was adapted from an earlier version of similar conspiratorial literature in Illuminati circles.

French Abbe Barruel and Scottish academic John Robison identified certain lodges of Freemasons as instigators of the French Revolution. There was no Jewish theme in their writings, although Adam Weishaupt, head of the Bavarian Illuminati, was often said to be an atheistic Jew.

Nesta Webster found no evidence that he was Jewish (Webster, Nesta. (1924/2000). Secret Societies and Subversive Movements. Omni Publications, Palmdale, 2000. First published in 1924., p. 128n1).

Yet Jewish author Bernard Lazare wrote (1894/1995), "There were Jews in the circle around Weishaupt, and a Jew of Portuguese origin, Martinez de Pasquales, established numerous groups of Illuminati in France" (p. 154). Lazare, Bernard. (1894/1995). AntiSemitism: Its History and Causes (tr. ). University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. Originally pub-lished: L _Antisémitisme, son histoire et ses causes: London: Britons Pub. Co., 1894.

Frederick Engels wrote that Buonarroti maintained the conspiracy after the execution of Babeuf during the French Revolution. By mid nineteenth century, atheistic Jews associated with Karl Marx were being depicted as leaders of the movement, with Masons as gentile dupes. Benjamin Disraeli and J. L. Talmon wrote of their role in the 1848 revolutions.

Kerry Bolton demonstrated Parallels between the Protocols of Zion and Illuminati documents: Bolton-Parallels-Prot-Illum.pdf.

Bolton provides evidence that the Protocols came from certain Masonic groups, and is dated no later than 1895; that is, prior to Herzl's First Zionist Congress in 1897. Bolton says that, had the Protocols been written after that Congress, it would have mentioned it. Also, Bolton says that the Protocols must predate the Dreyfus Affair (late 1894); that, too, would have got a mention, otherwise: Bolton-Prot-Context-Ed.pdf.

Since the Protocols mentions the Panama Scandal, which broke in France in 1892, the likely date at which the Protocols was authored ranges from late 1892 to late 1894.

Here is a debate about the Protocols between myself and Bolton (on one side) with John Birdman Bryant and others (on the other side): protocols-debate.html.

The publisher of the Protocols in Russia, Sergei Nilus, tried the warn Russians of the pending catastrophe, but was ignored. Only after the Bolshevik Revolution, led by atheistic Jews, did Russians take the Protocols seriously. The Red Terror seemed to have been predicted there.

Twenty years after the Protocols, an attempt was made to form a World Government at the Peace Conference of Versailles in 1919.

H. G. Wells, a Communist who later welcomed the Bolshevik Revolution, depicted World War I as "the War to End War", meaning that the victors would impose a World Government, with a world army and world court. There would be no more wars because there would be no more countries; they would become provinces instead.

In the United States, the League to Enforce Peace mobilized support for a similar "one world" program. Enforcing Peace meant that the world body would have an army, that there would be no more national armies.

The League of Nations was supposed to turn out like that. But the Senate of the United States refused to ratify the Treaty, concerned that the world body would abrogate American sovereignty.

Delegates at the Peace Conference noted the extensive Jewish lobbying there.

History books may be 99% accurate, but the 1% they omit makes all the difference. When "writing in" that 1%, one might give the impression that the other 99% does not count; but, of course, one is merely correcting what has been omitted or distorted.

This is Part 1 of the Toolkit. It deals with the arguments at the top level, and links to resources putting the case that the Protocols of Zion is a forgery, in particular a plagiarism of Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, by Maurice Joly, published in 1864. These arguments are critically examined.

Part 2 of the Protocols of Zion Toolkit deals with the Revolutionary background to Emperor Napoleon III of France, against whom Joly's Dialogues is pitched. The French Revolution, the Communist Revolutions of 1830, 1848 and 1871, and the Bolshevik Revolution are covered here.

As the Dialogues presents it, Napoleon III is the Machiavellian, fooling the people; as the Protocols present it, the Revolutionaries are the Machiavellians, causing chaos and turmoil, and aiming at totalitarian control and a Reign of Terror.

Part 3 of the Protocols of Zion Toolkit deals with the events from 1914 to the early 1920s, which seemed to have been predicted in the Protocols: the World War, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Balfour Declaration inaugurating the state of Israel, and the attempt to make the League of Nations a World Government: toolkit3.html.

PART 1 (in this webpage)

1. Introduction
2. The Case that the Protocols is a Forgery
3. Evaluating the Bernstein / Cohn Argument
4. Nesta Webster on Free Masonry, the French Revolution, and the Protocols of Zion
5. The Protocols of Zion compared to the Tanaka Memorial

PART 2 - at toolkit2.html

6. The Revolutionary background to Napoleon III
7. Napoleon III's Rule
8. Assessments of Napoleon III

PART 3 - at toolkit3.html

9. The Push for World Government at the Peace Conference of Versailles (1919)
10. One man stops World Government.
added March 6, 2018: 11. WWI as an Opportunity - Herzl wrote : 'we shall get [Palestine] not from the goodwill but from the jealousy of the Powers'
added March 6, 2018: 12. Benjamin H. Freedman discloses the huge Jewish delegation (117 Jews) at the Peace Conference of Versailles in 1919
13. The Protocols of Zion and the Peace Conference of Versailles
14. Douglas Reed on the ousting of Lord Northcliffe
15 More on the Ousting of Lord Northcliffe from The Times of London
16. Lloyd George explains why Britain made "a contract with Jewry"
17. Marranism and Universalism
18 Israel Zangwill on Zionism, the Peace Conference and the Protocols
19 Herman Bernstein for World Government
20. One World - Utopian or Totalitarian?
21. Stalin accused of endorsing the Protocols
22. Conclusion
23. Challenge to Jared Israel and Alexander Baron (November 28, 2002)
24. Dr. John Coleman on "Colonel" House
25. Lenin's Opposition to the Treaty of Versailles
added March 6, 2018: 26. Afterword

1. Introduction

My first article on the Protocols of Zion, titled Hiding Behind Auschwitz, was written in 1995, a few months after I encountered the Protocols. At the time, I had not read Joly's Dialogues, but I had read extracts of the parallel passages, plus the main arguments put by Norman Cohn.

Hiding Behind Auschwitz contains material which is not repeated here; the Protocols of Zion Tookit is written in conjunction with it: hiding.html.

The title of Norman Cohn's book, Warrant For Genocide, implies that the Protocols of Zion - the book itself - is responsible for Hitler's persecution of Jews.

The implication is that anyone who believes the Protocols genuine is guilty of this. What then of the Russians, like Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who opposed Bolshevik rule yet found the Nazi invasion most unwelcome (not to say deadly)? Must they, too, be branded Nazis?

Does Norman Cohn want the Protocols banned? Burned? Yet, one cannot understand twentieth century history without this book: it's in leading university and national libraries. Whereas Cohn blames this book for genocide, others regard it as a dire warning to distrust the World Government our beneficiaries seem determined to bestow on us.

The Protocols appears to shed light on the social revolutionary movement, and the One World forces.

Our task is not cheap propaganda, but a deep investigation of the "social revolution" afflicting the West at present, and tracing its roots back several centuries.

This requires study of not only the French and Bolshevik Revolutions, but the Revolutions of 1848 & 1871 (Paris Commune), and the regime of Emperor Napoleon III of France, against which Maurice Joly wrote his Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, published in 1864, which has much in common with the Protocols of Zion.

The reference to "hell" means the spirit world: the book is cast as a discussion between the ghosts of Machiavelli and Montesquieu.

Emperor Napoleon III of France was sandwiched between two attempted Communist Revolutions. Joly, one of the revolutionaries, directed his Dialogues book against the Emperor.

Karl Marx took part in the 1848 revolution, and supported the 1871 Paris Commune in his articles. After the failure of the 1848 revolution, he spent more than a decade "in exile" in England, studying at the British Museum, and writing.

So, the context of Joly's Dialogues is the choice between Revolution and Napoleon.

Napoleon III will thus become a central figure in our study.

The parallel passages in Joly's Dialogues, as listed by Bernstein, comprise 16.45% of the Protocols, by word-count. I found a few more too. This is substantial, but only one sixth of the total. Bernstein and Cohn do not mention the Protocols' extensive coverage of the world finance system, unmatched in the Dialogues.

Even the parallel passages, however, are not the same: the meaning is often quite different, despite the similarity.

Perhaps Joly modified an existing revolutionary text (precursor of the Protocols), reworking parts of it to suit his attack on Napoleon III.

My basic political philosophy has nothing to do with Jews. I formulated it in my article Living Without Utopia, dated March 22, 1994, as follows:

"One might argue instead that structure or form, on its own, does not guarantee quality or content. That one might have a good Monarchy or a bad one, a good or bad Republic, a good or bad Communist society. Revolution-borne experiments to create the perfect society, whether Stalin's, Hitler's, or the push for Matriarchy, are destructive and typically fail." utopia.html.

This is not exactly a pessimistic view; rather, it argues that any good government, of whatever type, is unlikely to last; it will be replaced with another, which may or may not be better. This is our fate.

Even though I have an opinion on the Protocols, as stated, it is not an unqualified one. I am not certain of it, and I accept that the evidence is not one-sided, but that there is a case each way. In presenting material arguing both sides, I hope to enable the reader to make an independent assessment.

Investigating this topic takes us on an odyssey into the undercurrents of modern history.

I invite quality refutations, and am prepared to add such material to this Toolkit: contact me at contact.html.

2. The Glinka-Stepanov-Nilus account of the Protocols stands

Peter Myers, March 9, 2018.

Debate about The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has been raging for over a hundred years. Mostly it has been between Zionists & Bolsheviks on one side and Anti-Communists (often branded 'antisemites') on the other.

Jewish authors insisted that the Protocols was a forgery plagiarized from Joly's Dialogues; they saw no need to examine Jewish actions which the Whites considered were predicted in the Protocols, such as the Jewish creation of the Bolshevik regime.

They denied the Jewish creation of Bolshevism; so they also had to deny that Stalin overthrew that Jewish Bolshevism. Their Denial is akin to Holocaust Denial.

These Jewish authors blamed the Whites for pogroms, but showed no sympathy for the mostly Christian victims of the Red Terror, whose toll was in the millions.

That stance applies to Israel Zangwill, Herman Bernstein and Norman Cohn.

It also applies to a more recent book by Cesare G De Michelis, The Non-Existent Manuscript: A Study of the Protocols of the Sages of Zion (tr Richard Newhouse, Lincoln and London, 2004; Published by The University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln and London for The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism (SICSA), The Hebrew University of Jerusalem).

De Michelis is a philologist who distinguishes a number of versions of the Protocols. But despite the science, he has an in-your-face style, and still gets caught up in simple dating issues.

For example, he writes:

'In the 12th Protocol, it is said that the final triumph of the plot will take place "probably not soon, perhaps towards the end of the century [K koncu veka]." Saying "towards the end of the [present] century" means that the writer is working at the beginning of the 20th century and not at the end of the 19th century.' (pp. 62-3).

The quoted text is in Protocol 15 of the Nilus edition. It says: "and not a little time will pass before that comes about, perhaps even a whole century".

Nothing there specifies a date.

With regard to the Panama scandal, mentioned in the Protocols, De Michelis insists that this must refer to Emile Loubet, elected President on February 18, 1899, whom the people of Paris, on his return from Versailles, greeted with shouts of "Panama, Panama." (p. 63).

And therefore that the Protocols must date after that time.

However, the Panama scandal was ongoing for years, beginning in late 1892. Any time after that would suffice to match the Protocols.

The problem with his late dating (1902), is that the Protocols makes no mention of the Dreyfus Affair (late 1894), which inflamed Jewish & anti-Jewish hostility and would surely have got a mention if written after that date.

Nor does the Protocols mention Herzl or the First Zionist Congress (1897). Such pivotal events would not have gone without mention.

Not only is the Protocols unaware of Herzl's call for ingathering; Protocol 11 talks of "our scattered tribe" and "the gifts of the dispersion".

The real point of trying to link the Protocols with Herzl's Zionist Congress, is to deny the Masonic derivation of the Protocols from the Mizraim lodge in France. Such an origin was attested by Stepanov in a sworn statement, also by Men'shikov, by Nilus and by Fry, and now it is backed by the more recent research of Jewish authors Lev Aronov, Henryk Baran, and Dmitri Zubarev.

In their paper Iustin'ia Dmitrievna Glinka and her letter to Emperor Alexander III (in Esther Webman, ed., The Global Impact of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion: A Century-Old Myth, Routledge, New York & London, 2011), they provide new evidence about Justine Glinka, the young woman who is alleged to have received the Protocols in French from a Masonic lodge, translated them into Russian, and brought them to Russia.

They state that the existence of The Protocols In Russia was attested by journalist Mikhail Osipovich Men'shikov on April 7, 1902. Men'shikov said he had received this document from a Russian lady who had been living in France. According to her, it "had been stolen from a secret Jewish repository in Nice ... thanks to a certain French journalist". (p. 25).

The lady was later identified by a Russian emigre noblewoman Paquita de Shishmareff, writing under the pseudonym "L. Fry", in her book Waters Flowing Eastward, published in 1931. Fry named the lady as Justine Glinka. In Russia she was known as Iustin'ia Glinka; she signed letters with the name Justine de Glinka.

Here is Fry's report about Glinka (ed. by the Rev Denis Fahey, TBR Books, Washington DC, 1999):

{p. 74} In 1884 the daughter of a Russian general, Mlle. Justine Glinka, was endeavouring to serve her country in Paris by obtaining political information, which she communicated to General Orgevskii in St. Petersburg. For this purpose she employed a Jew, Joseph Schorst, member of the Mizraim Lodge in Paris. One day Schorst offered to obtain for her a document of great importance to Russia, on payment of 2,500 francs. This sum being received from St. Petersburg was paid over and the document handed to Mile. Glinka.

{p. 75} She forwarded the French original, accompanied by a Russian translation, to Orgevskii, who in turn handed it to his chief, General Cherevin, for transmission to the Tsar. But Cherevin, under obligation to wealthy Jews, refused to transmit it, merely filing it in the archives.

Meantime there appeared in Paris certain books on Russian court life which displeased the Tsar, who ordered his secret police to discover their authorship. This was falsely attributed, perhaps with malicious intent, to Mile. Glinka, and on her return to Russia she was banished to her estate in Orel. To the marechal de noblesse of this district, Alexis Sukhotin, Mile. Glinka gave a copy of the Protocols. Sukhotin showed the document to two friends, Stepanov and Nilus; the former had it printed and circulated privately in 1897; the second, Professor Sergius A. Nilus, published it for the first time in Tsarskoe-Tselo (Russia) in 1901, in a book entitled The Great Within the Small. Then, about the same time, a friend of Nilus, G. Butmi, also brought it out and a copy was deposited in the British Museum on August 10, 1906.

Fry is mistaken about certain details. Glinka's father was a diplomat, not a general; his brother was the general. Glinka was in Paris in 1884, but the 1884 date for the Protocols is precluded by its mention of the Panama scandal of 1888, which became a hot topic in France in 1892.

Norman Cohn also got certain details wrong about Glinka. He gave her birth date as 1844, but Aronov, Baran and Zubarev found records giving the correct date as 1836.

Stepanov made a sworn statement, in Yugoslavia in 1927, about the origin of the Protocols. He had been a Privy Councillor, so he was a nobleman and familiar with legal practice.

Fry provides a photocopy of his 2-page sworn statement, and the text, which is as follows:

{p. 76} Mr. Stepanov's deposition relative to it is here given as corroboration.

"In 1895, my neighbour in the district of Toula, Major (retired) Alexis Sukhotin, gave me a manuscript copy of the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion. He told me that a lady of his acquaintance, whose name he did not mention, residing in Paris, had found it at the house of a friend, a Jew. Before leaving Paris, she had secretly translated it and had brought this one copy to Russia and given it to Sukhotin.

"At first I mimeographed this translation, but finding it difficult to read, I resolved to have it printed, making no mention of the date, town, or printer's name. In this I was helped by Arcadii Ippolitovich Kelepovskii, who at that time was chief of the household of Grand Duke Sergius.

{p. 77} He gave the document to be printed by the district printing press. This took place in 1897. Sergius Nilus inserted these Protocols in his work and added his own commentary.


Formerly Procurator of the Synod of Moscow, Chamberlain, Privy Councillor, and (in 1897) Chief of the Moscow Kursk Railway in the town of Orel. April 17, 1927.

President of the Russian Colony of Emigrants at Stari Fontag.

Herman Bernstein, in The Truth About "The Protocols Of Zion": A Complete Exposure (Ktav Publishing House, Inc. New York, New York 1971), quotes Stepanov's deposition from Fry's book, and states that this affidavit reveals "that the Russian translation of the spurious document had reached Russia two years before the first Zionist Congress was held in Basle" (p. 40).

I concur with Bernstein. But Cohn disputes Bernstein's claim, from Stepanov's affidavit, that the Protocols predated the first Zionist Congress in 1897:

"As for the date, internal evidence suggests that in saying he received the Protocols in 1895 and published them in 1897 Stepanov was erring no more than is to be expected after thirty years." (Warrant For Genocide, Pelican, Harmondsworth, 1970, p. 111).

Stepanov not only states that he received the Protocols in 1895; he also states that he printed it privately in 1897. It sounds as if the Protocols changed his life, as it has changed the lives of many people, and that he remembered the date for that reason. Having been a Chamberlain and a Privy Councillor, he would take legal matters very seriously. And he did take the trouble to make a sworn statement.

De Michelis finds Stepanov's story "highly suspect" - it does not fit with his late dating (1902), but

{quote - De Michelis} it finds confirmation in a note in Nilus, who had been introduced at Court through Stepanov's brother, Mixail, who introduced him to his future wife, a distant relative of his. This is found in the 1917 edition ("He is near, he is at the door") which indicates Suxotin as the "source":

{quote - Nilus 1917} In 1901, I had the occasion to gain access to a manuscript entitled ... The Protocols of the Meetings of the Sages of Zion, and it was brought to me by Aleksej Nikolaevic Suxotin now deceased (remember in your prayers, 0 God-fearing reader, the soul's repose of boljarin Aleksij), already Marshal of the Nobility for the District of Cern, and later governor of Stavropol'.... Incidentally, Suxotin informed me that he had also received a copy of the manuscript from a lady who lived permanently abroad, and that this lady was a landowner of Cern (I remember that he told me also the name, but I have forgotten) and that she had obtained it by very mysterious means (perhaps in fact by theft).
{endquote Nilus}

{endquote De Michelis} (op. cit., p. 24).

Aronov, Baran and Zubarev report that Iurii Konstantinovich Begunov, a historian of medieval Russia, holds the Protocols genuine, and says that Glinka 'received the Protocols from a "French journalist" (who had extracted them from the "Zion kahal"), who gave them to Sukhotin, to his neighbor Stepanov, to Minister Sipiagin, to Men'shikov, and to Nilus himself.' (p. 29).

Glinka was a lady-in-waiting at the Russian court. Previous researchers neglected to investigate her, because they were sure that she was irrelevant. But Aronov, Baran and Zubarev looked up official listings of the Russian bureaucracy and court, published each year. In 1871, Glinka's given name - Iustin'ia - appeared for the first time; from then until 1917, she appeared regularly in the gazetteers, progressing to the top of the list of ladies-in-waiting. Aronov, Baran and Zubarev used the Russian biographical dictionary to correct the error in Glinka's date of birth.

Glinka first served Empress Maria Aleksandrovna, then Empress Maria Fedorovna,and finally Empress Aleksandra Fedorovna, wife of Nicholas II.

In 1880, after the death of Empress Maria Aleksandrovna, Glinka moved to Paris.

The assassination of Emperor Alexander II in 1881 led Glinka to engage in political activities against Russian revolutionaries there. The radical Paris press sympathized with Russian revolutionaries and termed the assassination of Alexander II an "execution".

The Paris police compiled a dossier on Glinka's activities; there is a police report on her dated March 26, 1882.

The police also had a file on her Jewish assistant Theodore Joseph Shapiro, mentioned by L. Fry as the source of the Protocols.

In the summer of 1882, radical newspapers L'Intransigeant and Le Radical published articles about Glinka, naming her as "Mlle de G ..." and accusing her of being an agent of the Russian Secret Police in Paris. They also refered to an agent of "Mlle de G ...," labelled "S," obviously the Shapiro who supposedly stole the Protocols from the archives of the "Zion kahal." (p. 33).

The newspapers partly withheld Glinka's name, but her identity could be guessed from some of the details, e.g. her conflict with the Russian Ambassador, Nikolai Alekseevich Orlov. To head off retribution, Glinka's friend Juliette Adam sent a letter to Le Radical in her defense. In her letter she used Glinka's full name: Mademoiselle Iustin'ia Glinka.

Refuting the journalists' accusation, Aronov, Baran and Zubarev state that Russia did not possess a police service tracking political emigres until July 1883. But there was a voluntary association of "counterterrorists" called the Holy Brotherhood (Sviashchennaia Druzhina), established by a group of monarchists. Glinka could not join, because it was open to men only, but the members were part of her social circle.

Aronov, Baran and Zubare also discovered a French language newspaper published by Glinka herself, and they found hundreds of letters by her, to ministers, journalists and others.

In an undated letter to Emperor Alexander III she wrote:

{quote} [...] I will briefly add two points that might personally interest Your Majesty. The Chief Rabbi in Paris informed me that if freedom of conscience and equality before the law were granted in Russia, Your Majesty might count on full support from the "Alliance Israelite Universelle."

This Alliance is an immense power, possessed of enormous funds and having at its disposal a wide network of secret connections. [...]

I remain Your Majesty's humble and devoted subject
Justine de Glinka

In 1884, Glinka, residing again in Paris, joined the Theosophical Society and became a fanatical follower of Helene Petrovna Blavatsky.

Confirmation of the activities of Glinka and Shapiro in Paris lends weight to accounts they they were involved in procuring the Protocols .

It does not prove the Protocols genuine, nor explain the parallel passages with Joly. But it boosts the Masonic connection.

For Kerry Bolton's refutation of other accounts of the origin of the Protocols, see his paper The Protocols Of Zion In Context: Bolton-Prot-Context-Ed.pdf .

3. The Case that the Protocols is a Forgery

Many people claim that experts have proved the Protocols a forgery, but are unable to name those experts or name their books.

Philip Graves, a journalist employed by The Times of London in Constantinople and Jerusalem, and a non-Jew, was the first to argue, on the basis of parallel passages in Maurice Joly's book Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, that the Protocols was a forgery.

Journalism, however, is no substitute for scholarly analysis. The more scholarly treatments were begun by Israel Zangwill, extended by Herman Bernstein, then by Norman Cohn, all three being Jewish. The first two were Zionist, and Cohn was favourably cited in Who's Who In World Jewry.

Ironically, one or the best arguments that the Protocols is genuine, is that one is not allowed, in public places e.g. in bookstores (other than mail-order ones), to present the case that it's genuine. What is distinctive about the Protocols Toolkit is that it presents the arguments of both sides. I have yet to encounter a proponent of the forgery case who is prepared to allow the other side to present its case too - e.g. who is prepared to place a link to this Protocols Toolkit.

3.1 The arguments of Israel Zangwill

Zangwill pioneered the arguments later used by Bernstein: zangwill.html.

3.2 The arguments of Bernstein and Cohn

Bernstein's book - THE TRUTH ABOUT "THE PROTOCOLS OF ZION": A Complete Exposure - contains an English translation of Joly's Dialogues.

Bernstein's book was first published in 1935. A new edition of 1971 included an introduction by Norman Cohn.

Herman Bernstein (1935) argues that the Protocols of Zion is a forgery; with an Introduction by Norman Cohn (1971) : bernstein.doc or bernstein.pdf .

Bernstein's Exhibit A, Maurice Joly's book Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, is excluded from the Bernstein file above, but is at joly.doc or joly.pdf .

For Cohn's detailed arguments in Warrant For Genocide (1970), see cohn.html.

3.3 Bernstein, Goedsche and the Devil

Bernstein and Cohn indulge in hyperbole, exaggerating their opponents' case and thereby exposing it to ridicule.

In writing of the Protocols, they repeatedly beg the question by using the emotive expressions forgery, plagiaris[m], fantastic, spurious, notorious, fantasy, noxious fabrication, "needs no comment", "his imagination", "of course", and the like.

Perhaps it's understandable that they were unloosing their emotions; on the other hand, they claim academic objectivity, and emotion is a hindrance, not an aid, to it.

Twice in his book The Truth About the "Protocols of Zion", Herman Bernstein claims that the story "The Jewish Cemetery in Prague and the Council of Representatives of the Twelve Tribes of Israel", published by Goedsche, has the Devil present at the meeting.

On p. 21 Bernstein writes,

'According to Goedsche's fantastic story, the representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel meet once in a hundred years in the Prague cemetery ... The midnight meeting, depicted by Hermann Goedsche in the style of blood-curdling fiction, is secretly attended by a converted Jew and by a "large-sized man, with the pale serious face of Germanic type." The Devil himself, the son of "the accursed one," is also present at that midnight meeting of the representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel. And from time to time the Devil is quoted as making side remarks.'

On p. 265 Bernstein writes,

'Here follows a translation from the Russian of the German novelette by the notorious Hermann Goedsche, who used the pseudonym of "Sir John Retcliffe." This product of "Retcliffe's fantastic imagination" tells its own story, clearly foreshadowing the Protocols, with all its accompaniment of melodrama, not even omitting the Devil himself.'

This is incorrect.

Bernstein implies on p. 21 that the expression "son of the accursed" means the Devil.

But the text of the story, provided by Bernstein, reads:

{quote} {p. 272} Thirteen old men came over to the tombstone ... {p. 273} At that moment the clock struck twelve. A sharp metallic sound rang out on the grave, after which a blue flame appeared and illumined the thirteen kneeling figures.

"I greet you, Roshe beth Aboth (heads) of the twelve tribes of Israel," announced a dull voice.

"We greet you, son of the accursed."

{p. 274} {The representatives of the 12 Tribes introduce themselves, then the first speaker says:}

"And I am the representative of the unfortunate and exiles," said the man who asked the questions in a dull voice. "I am myself wandering about all over the world in order that I may unite you ... "

The man who was the first to arrive rose and then seated himself upon the tombstone. One by one the others came over to him and whispered in his ear a seven-syllabled word, and each time he nodded in approval. After that all returned to their former places. "Brethren," said the Levite, "our fathers formed a union ... To us belong the earthly god, which was made for us with such sorrow by Aaron in the desert ... the Golden Calf which the backsliders are worshipping!"
{end of quote}

Clearly, the figure addressed as "son of the accursed" is a man, a Levite, the convener of the meeting. He is not the Devil.

On p. 283 is stated, "It seemed to the doctor that on the top of the tombstone, in the bluish flame, there appeared a monstrous golden figure of an animal."

This is a reference to the Golden Calf story (above) and the worship of money. The doctor is a gentile German scientist introduced on p. 270.

There is no other statement that the Devil was present at the meeting in the cemetary.

Added September 10, 2008: I received the following letter on this matter:

{quote} From: F (name & email withheld) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:39:43 +0000

Regarding your "The Protocols of Zion Toolkit", first part, section "2.3 Bernstein, Goedsche and the Devil" and the question of the Devil in the cemetery scene, I agree with your argumentation on the matter: there is no reason to suppose the dull voiced person is meant to be understood as devil.

I feel that the mysterious character represents a completely another character, one of both Jewish and mythical origin: Ahasverus, the Wandering Jew.

"We greet you, son of the accursed. ... And I am the representative of the unfortunate and exiles," ... "I am myself wandering about all over the world in order that I may unite you ... "

Ahasverus is the cursed one, having been cursed to wander in exile until the second coming of the Jesus. Character fits the description completely. Being "son of the accursed" he might be meant to be understood within the story plot as the 19th century descendant (or follower) of the mythical Ahasverus.

It is interesting to note how this Christian myth of medieval origins ties the end of Jewish people's exodus in with the Messianic times of the Second Coming.

For more detailed information please see Wikipedia's article:

Perhaps the original author wanted to include the character as a subtle artistic detail by borrowing the then well-known stereotype. Was there self-irony involved in it? (The fictional character of Ahasverus is of a distinctively Christian origin. The Jewish religious authorities do not recognize Jesus as a Messiah and thus do not coincide his second coming with the end of the exodus.)

And a follow-up:

{quote} From: F (name & email withheld) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 20:06:16 +0000

Thinking about this Ahasverus, now I'm quite sure the writer used the legendary character to add colour and perhaps self-irony to the story. I think that by no means did he meant the dull-voiced one to be understood literally as "son of the accursed", that is son of the Ahasverus. I think it's just one of those small details which show the text's author was not a bad writer at all.

3.4 Gagging the debate - What Cohn implicitly rules out

In parliamentary procedure, to "gag" a debate is to curtail it, cut it short, "guillotine" it.

What Cohn implicitly rules out of the debate:

(a) He does not examine the Jewish domination in the early USSR, except cursorily, or the association between Jews and Revolution admitted by J. L. Talmon: talmon.html

In Warrant For Genocide he briefly addresses these questions as follows:

{p. 133} It remains true that Jews, in the sense of persons of Jewish descent, provided a disproportionate part of the leadership (though not of the total membership) of the two Marxist parties, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. The reason is not hard to find. These were people who had broken with the traditional Jewish community and abandoned the Jewish religion but who nevertheless suffered discrimination and persecution under the tsarist autocracy; and this was sufficient to lead them towards the parties of the Left. ... Such Jews are usually idealists inspired by a vision of a society from which all forms of discrimination are banished. In general they make poor politicians and they tend to be ousted soon after a successful revolution. ... As for the Jews among the Bolshevik leaders, they too were almost all shot in the 1930s. {endquote}

But Mensheviks such as Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks. As for the 1930s, what about Kaganovich and Beria, and the many Jews manning the Cheka? kaganovich.html

And Nahum Goldmann, Israel's "ambassador to the world", wrote in The Jewish Paradox (London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978):

{p. 167} After the Revolution of 1917 there was a very intense Jewish cultural life in Russia, both in Yiddish and in Hebrew. It should not be forgotten that Israel's present national theatre, Habima, was created in Russia. All that intellectual activity, fed by newspapers and books in Yiddish, only disappeared when Stalin became a half-mad dictator haunted by the menace of an international Jewish conspiracy. And a Jewish life goes on in various other Communist countries. In Romania, for example, where there are eighty thousand Jews, there are synagogues, a Yiddish theatre and ritual foodstuffs. The ritual slaughterers in Romania have some trouble in emigrating to Israel because the rabbis need them where they are, and the authorities persuade them that it is their duty to provide kosher meat for the Romanian Jewish community. ...

{p. 171} Before the war, most Russian diplomats were Jews. {endquote}

Isaac Deutscher wrote in his book The non-Jewish Jew and other essays, ed. Tamara Deutscher, OUP, London 1968:

{p. 71} In the Lenin era ... The Jews were allowed, and even encouraged, to publish their newspapers and their literature in Yiddish, and to develop their theatre - and the Yiddish theatre was one of the best I have known. It is now probably forgotten that the first great Hebrew theatre in history, the Habima, was founded in Russia on the initiative of the Commissar of Education, A. V. Lunacharsky. (Incidentally, the Habima soon left Russia for Palestine.) {endquote}

These reports hardly accord with Cohn's account.

(b) Cohn does not examine Jewish promotion of World Government at the Peace Conference of Versailles (1919), or in the Baruch Plan for World Government (1946): baruch-plan.html

For example, Nahum Goldmann wrote (op. cit.),

{p. 107} When the United Nations Organization was founded there ought to have been an attempt at least to abolish the sovereignty of states and to constitute a sort of world power. Remember that despite appearances the scale is beginning to tip that way. State sovereignty is only a dangerous theory, but the reality is the Common Market, the Warsaw Pact, the Organization of American States, the Organization of African Unity, and so on, proving that every state has to give up its vaunted sovereignty little by little because of the complexity of the threats that concern us all. ... {p. 109} In the same way, within a generation or two there will be a UN with real powers. In an organization of that kind, minorities - not just states - will have to be represented. {endquote}

Many more such quotes from Jewish leaders are provided below. This can hardly be accidental, yet Cohn avoids discussing it.

(c) He does not relate the Protocols' Jewish utopia to the Balfour Declaration, (Britain's "contract with Jewry" in order to win the First World War), or why the British Government might have thought that an alliance with Zionists would get the US into the war: l-george.html

(d) He does not relate the above points to the ideas and sense of mission of the Jewish religion, i.e. to intention and program. This omission is the more striking because Cohn has written (disparagingly) about nearly every kind of modern millenialism except the Jewish kind: zioncom.html

(e) He does not relate the above points to the Jewish tradition of Marranism. In particular, he does not relate Marranism to the Letter of the Jews of Arles and the Reply of the Jews of Constantinople

(f) He does not examine the politics of France before, during and after the reign of Napoleon III, against which Joly pitched his Dialogues

(g) He does not examine the parallels between Joly's Dialogues and Jacob Venedey's earlier book Machiavel, Montesquieu, Rousseau

(h) He does not examine the praise of Machiavelli, and appeal to Machiavelli, by Revolutionary writers and activists, such as Rousseau and Babeuf

(i) After saying that the Tsar dismissed the Protocols as a forgery, Cohn does not explain why the Tsarina had a copy of the Protocols with her at the time of her death.

The above considerations form the subject-matter of the rest of this investigation.

3.5 The Parallel Passages.

The Forgery Hypothesis rests largely on the parallels between the Protocols (c. 1897) and Maurice Joly's book of 1864, Dialogue aux Enfers entre Montesquieu et Machiavel (translated into English as Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu. The "hell" part refers to the spirit world: i.e. this is a debate between ghosts.

Herman Bernstein lists the parallel passages, side by side at pp. 371-396.

I placed all of the parallel passages at Joly-Prot-parallels.doc and Joly-Prot-parallels.pdf .

Norman Cohn writes in his book Warrant For Genocide: The Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Pelican, Harmondsworth, 1970),

{p. 82} In all, over 160 passages in the Protocols, totalling two fifths of the entire text, are clearly based on passages in Joly; in nine of the chapters the borrowings amount to more than half of the text, in some they amount to three quarters, in one (Protocol VII) to almost the entire text. Moreover with less than a dozen exceptions the order of the borrowed passages remains the same as it was in Joly, as though the adaptor had worked through the Dialogue mechanically, page by page copying straight into his 'protocols' as he proceeded. Even the arrangement in chapters is much the same - the twenty-four chapters of the Protocols corresponding roughly with the twenty-five of the Dialogue. Only towards the end, where the prophecy of the Messianic Age predominates, does the adaptor allow himself any real independence of his model. It is in fact as clear a case of plagiarism - and of faking - as one could well desire. {endquote}

Cohn's arithmetic is incorrect. The word-count of the parallel-passages from the Protocols, as listed by Bernstein (pp. 371-396), is 4,361, while the word-count of the Protocols is 26, 496. However, I have found a few other parallels not listed by Bernstein at pp. 371-396. Even so, this is only one sixth of the total.

I placed all of the parallel passages at Joly-Prot-parallels.doc and Joly-Prot-parallels.pdf .

What Cohn especially omits to mention, is the Protocols' extensive coverage of the world finance system.

Even the parallel passages, however, are not the same: the meaning is often quite different, despite the similarity.

There are also parallels between Joly's book and Jacob Venedy's book of 1850, titled Machiavel, Montesquieu, Rousseau (i.e. Machiavelli, Montesquieu and Rousseau).

The following quote is from

{quote} the passages quoted as being plagiarised from the Geneva Dialogues for the Protocols are remarkably similar to those in a book published in 1850, called, similarly, 'Machiavelli, Montesquieu and Rousseau' by Jacob Venedy. And Venedy was a Jew and a Freemason! He was a revolutionary and also a close associate of the Jew Karl Marx (real name Mordecai,) and Maurice Joly, the true author of the Geneva Dialogues!

Here is what L. Fry says about him in Waters Flowing Eastward, ed. Denis Fahey (TBR Books, Washington DC,1999):

{p. 99} Jacob Venedey, born in Cologne in May, 1805, was early engaged in revolutionary activities which caused his expulsion from Germany. He settled in Paris where, in 1835, he edited a paper of subversive character, called Le Proscrit. Driven from Paris by the police, he moved to Havre, until, thanks to the representations of Arago and Mignet, friends of Cremieux, he was allowed to return to the capital. Meanwhile his book, Romanisme, Christianisme et Germanisme, won the praise of the French Academy, Venedey was a close friend and associate of Karl Marx. After spending the years 1843-44 in England, the headquarters of continental revolutionaries, he worked in Brussels for the founding, with Marx in 1847, of a secret organization, " The Communist League of Workers" (later the " Societe internationale de la Democratic").

After the February revolution in 1848, Venedey joined Marx in Germany, where he became one of the chiefs of the revolutionary committee of Fifty (March, 1848), and was sent as commissar into the Oberland to stand against Hecker. Later elected as a member of the Left from Hesse-Homburg, he continued to serve on the Committee of Fifty. It was at this time that he brought out in Berlin his Machiavelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau, stressing the views attributed to Machiavelli and Rousseau in favour of despotism and oppression.

When order was restored in Germany, Venedey was expelled from Berlin and Breslau. He was an active member of the Free Masons and affiliated with the Carbonari; he was also closely associated not only with the revolu-

{p. 100} tionaries of his day, but (as might be expected) with the leading Jews, the founders of the Alliance Israelite Universelle.

Venedy's book is in some libraries - I have seen it - but there's no English translation, and it's written in the old Gothic German script, which few can read.

A bookshop selling Venedey's book at

described it as follows:

{quote} VENEDEY, Jacob. Machiavel, Montesquieu, Rousseau ... Erster Theil [-Zweiter Theil]. Berlin, Franz Duncker, 1850. First edition of this important study. The German intellectual and revolutionary Venedey (1805-1871) continued his struggle after the failure of the revolution of 1848. The purpose of this triple biography was to advance political thinking in Germany by explaining the doctrines of the three greatest modern theorists of the state. The three authors are depicted as the embodiment of the theories they advanced: Machiavelli as the representative of absolutism, Montesquieu for constitutional monarchy and Rousseau as the advocate of the democratic republic. For Venedey, Montesquieu, as a leading advocate of constitutional monarchy was decidedly not radical enough to erect a system of government of definitive theoretical and practical value. In all three cases political theory is mixed with biographical detail. {endquote}

A reader wrote (September 15, 2003) that Jacob Venedey was a Freemason.

A reader wrote (September 26, 2003): "By the way Jacob Vendey is a jew and he was admired in the German East Republic as a hero! There exists a diary of Jacobs second wife which I do not have but it is still available as it is from 1997/98! There are also a lot of short biographies in german and he was a famous figure in the 1848 revolution which failed! He was joining company with f.e. Heinrich Heine the famous Jew Writer and Poet! And Heine was joining company with Rothschild! I found a quote from his letters in my library by accident!"

A correspondent who is reading Venedey's book wrote to me (10 Mar 2018):

I worked trough Venedey's final chapters on 'Macchiavelli under der Neuzeit' and 'Montesquieu und der Neuzeit', i.e. his assessment of their applicability for Germany in the modern time (Neuzeit) of mid 19th Century, which indeed was a nation / state building era (see screenshot below).

Kindly note that reading 19th Gothic German is not the best of fun [...]

So far I do not see any connection of Venedey with the 'Protocols'. It seems Venedey is mainly concerned with formulating some principles for governance (rule) in Germany, by juxtaposing Macchiavelli in the negative sense against a more positive assessment of Montesquieu's Trias Politica and Rousseau (which I did not check). His main point is that Macchiavellian practices can only thrive in a 'People' ('Volk') that is rotten (faul) to the core, which anno 1850 he considers mainly to be the case in the Mediterranean context. In contrast he refers to 'healthy' nations who have passed through Reform and Revolution, like Holland, to some extent France, upcoming Germany and UK (Cromwell), USA (George Washington) where the spirit of Montesquieu would thrive. Although he has some reservation on France where the Revolution lapsed back into 'faulness' allowing for Macchiavellian practices, in spite of the enlighted views of people like Voltaire, Descartes, Montesquieu and Rousseau.

So so far I see no hidden agenda of Venedey to present Protocol like schemes under the guise of 'Macchivellism'. Later today and/or tomorrow I may select some telling phrazes.... However, I do see this agenda in Joly's writing [...].

Now it may be so that Joly copied from Venedey's Chapters II and III to pick some of the most blatant expressions by Macchiaveli, but this goes to far for me to check. Fact is that Joly wrote after Venedey's publication of 1850 and may, or may not have plagiarized thereof.

Karl Marx also wrote on Machiavelli and Montesquieu, in his newspaper Rheinische Zeitung No. 125, May 5, 1842, Supplement.

Karl Marx, Debates on Freedom of the Press and Publication of the Proceedings of the Assembly of the Estates. In In Karl Marx Frederick Engels Collected Works, Volume 1, Progress Publishers, Moscow 1975:

{p. 161} Montesquieu has already taught us that despotism is more convenient to apply than legality and Machiavelli asserts that for princes the bad has better consequences than the good. Therefore, if we do not want to confirm the old Jesuitical maxim that a good end - and we doubt even the goodness of the end - justifies bad means, we have above all to investigate whether censorship is by its essence a good means. {endquote}

3.6 Other Cases of Parallel Passages

In the Bible, the Book of Genesis contains parallel passages giving rival accounts of Creation, the Flood, and many other events: bible.html.

There are many parallel passages between the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke. These three are called the synoptic Gospels; the Gospel of John stands apart, having a more Platonic outlook. Most scholars think that there was an earlier document called Q, used by the authors of Mark, Matthew and Luke.

No one accuses these authors of plagiarism.

John Dominic Crossan writes in his book Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, (HarperSanFrancisco, 1994):

{p. x} If you read the four gospels vertically and consecutively, from start to finish and one after another, you get a generally persuasive impression of unity, harmony, and agreement. But if you read them horizontally and comparatively, focusing on this or that unit and comparing it across two, three, or four versions, it is disagreement rather than agreement that strikes you most forcibly. And those divergences stem not from the random vagaries of memory and recall but from the coherent and consistent theologies of the individual texts. The gospels are, inother words, interpretations. Hence, of course, despite there being only one Jesus, there can be more than one gospel, more than one interpretation.

That core problem is compounded by another one. Those four gospels do not represent all the early gospels available or even a random sample within them but are instead a calculated collection known as the canonical gospels. This becomes clear in studying other gospels either discerned as sources inside the official four or else discovered as documents outside them.

An example of a source hidden inside the four canonical gospels is the reconstructed document known as Q, from the German word Quelle, meaning "source," which is now imbedded within both Luke and Matthew. Those two authors also use Mark as a regular source, so Q is discernible wherever they agree with one another but lack a Markan parallel. Since, like Mark, that document has its own generic integrity and theological

{p. xi} consistency apart from its use as a Quelle or source for others, I refer to it in this book as the Q Gospel.

An example of a document discovered outside the four canonical gospels is the Gospel of Thomas, which was found at Nag Hammadi, in Upper Egypt, in the winter of 1945 and is, in the view of many scholars, completely independent of the canonical gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is also most strikingly different from them, especially in its format, and is, in fact, much closer to that of the Q Gospel than to any of the canonical foursome. It identifies itself, at the end, as a gospel but it is in fact a collection of the sayings of Jesus given without any compositional order and lacking descriptions of deeds or miracles, crucifixion or resurrection stories ... {end quote from Crossan} downing.html.

To study the debate about Q among New Testament scholars, refer to

Here are some samples:


"Burton Mack, a professor of Claremont School of Theology ...  published The Lost Gospel: the Book of Q and Christian Origins in 1993. Mack defended Q as the most reliable source for the reconstruction of the historical Jesus. Q in turn was believed to have gone through three different revisions or redactions before it was used as a source for Matthew and Luke. Mack here was relying on the brilliantly argued work of John Kloppenborg who believed that Q originally consisted of a collection of wisdom sayings ..."

(ii) The Search for a No-Frills Jesus, by CHARLOTTE ALLEN, Atlantic Monthly, December  1996

(iii) David Seeley, JESUS' DEATH IN Q {This article first appeared in New Testament Studies 38 (1992) 222-34 ...]

(iv) Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem

My argument, then, is that both the Protocols and Joly use a document like Q, unknown to us. This document would have circulated amongst leaders of some of the secret societies operating in Europe.

3.7 Differences between Dialogues & Protocols

3.7.1 Who are the Machiavellians?

In Joly, the conspirator is the monarch; in the Protocols, the conspirators are those trying to overthrow him.

In the Dialogues, Napoleon III is the Machiavellian, preventing the people, led by the Revolutionaries of 1848, from installing a People's Democracy along the lines of the French Revolution.

In the Protocols, the shadowy leaders lurking behind the Revolutionaries are the Machiavellians. They are tricking the people into trusting their leadership, but when in power they will institute the Red Terror.

In the Dialogues, Napoleon (the Machiavellian) is resisting the Revolutionaries; in the Protocols, the Machiavellians are sponsoring these Marxists, anarchists, and utopian activists.

3.7.2 Joly is written "after the event", i.e. to satirise Napoleon's existing regime; the Protocols is written "in advance", anticipating a regime yet to come.

3.7.3 Joly's despot is one man; the Protocols' conspiracy has many participants.

3.7.4 Joly's despotism is localised to one country and one time; the Protocols' despotism extends widely, over many countries, regimes and decades.

3.7.5 The Protocols' conspirators envisages themselves running a World Government, and instituting a new type of regime, unknown to past history.

Compare this with Trotsky on World Federation:

'We are of course talking about a European socialist federation as a component of a future world federation ... ' (Dmitri Volkogonov, Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary, tr. & ed. Harold Shukman, HarperCollinsPublishers, London 1996, p. 209).

3.7.6 Joly's despotism is achieved without violence. Machiavelli (speaking as the despot) says, "violence plays no role" (p. 174); and "I who have taken as final policy, not violence, but self-effacement" (p. 226). At p. 236 the despot (Machiavelli) admits "the use I have had to make sometimes of duplicity, sometimes of violence", but Napoleon III had no concentration camps or gulag, no death squads, no mass graves of victims executed by a bullet to the back of the head, no glorifying of violence.

By comparison, Protocol 1 says that the best results are obtained by violence & terrorization; also, "we must keep to the program of violence and make-believe"; Protocol 3 advocates "the violence of a bold despotism".

This is much closer to Trotsky's violence of the Kronstadt massacre: kronstadt.html

and his orders to use relatives as hostages, with the threat of executing them: worst.html.

3.7.7 Napoleon III (Joly's despot) is for religion; whereas the Protocols says its conspirators are against religion.

3.8 Timing & Future-orientation (Teleology)

Cohn admits that the Protocols was ignored until World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution, 20 or so years after it was written.

Cohn wrote in Warrant For Genocide: The Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Pelican, Harmondsworth, 1970):

"The myth of the Jewish world-conspiracy would have remained the monopoly of right-wing Russians and a few cranks in western Europe, and the Protocols would never have emerged from obscurity at all, if it had not been for the First World War and the Russian Revolution and their aftermath." (pp. 14-15)

"The success of the Protocols before the war was in fact limited. Zhevakhov tells how in 1913 Nilus complained to hlm: {quote} I cannot get the public to treat the Protocols seriously, with the attention they deserve. They are read, criticized, often ridlculed, but there are very few who attach importance to them and see in them a real threat to Christianity, a programme for the destruction of the Christian order and for the conquest of the whole world by the Jews. That nobody believes ... {endquote}" (pp. 124-5) More at cohn.html

If it were a forgery designed to stir up pogroms etc, one would think that the forgers had failed, since it had no effect for 20 years.

Given that these alleged forgers had been stirring up pogroms repeatedly, one would think that they would be better at it, than 20 years of failure implies.

It was only when World War I (1914-8), the Bolshevik Revolution (1917), the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the attempt to make the League of Nations a World Government at the Peace Conference of Versailles (1919) seemed to bear out predictions in the Protocols - predictions which are not in Joly's Dialogues - that the Protocols was taken seriously.

The same people who deny Jewish control of the Bolshevik Revolution (until Stalin stole their conspiracy), also deny the authenticity of the Protocols. Therefore, demonstrating this Jewish control is the first step in puncturing their argumnent: russell.html.

3.9 Control of Media

The London Times was not in Jewish hands during World War I; but its anti-Zionist owner Lord Northcliffe, was ousted soon after: toolkit3.html.

Robert Wilton wrote of the Russian media:

"Moreover, the Press, almost entirely in Jewish hands, had gone over to the Soviet, and Moderate organs that would not publish the Soviet proclamations glorifying spoilation and promoting Anarchy had been summarily "expropriated" on behalf of newly founded Socialist publications." (Russia's Agony, London, Edward Arnold, 1918, p. 174): wilton.html.

Benjamin Ginsberg, Professor of Political Science at John Hopkins University writes,

"Today, though barely 2% of the nation's population is Jewish, close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation's largest newspaper chain and most influential newspaper, the New York Times." (The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, University of Chicago Pres, Chicago 1993, p.1): ginsberg.html.

Michael Bakunin wrote:

Arthur P. Mandel, Michael Bakunin: Roots of Apocalypse, Praeger, New York 1981.

{p. 330} "I know very well," he went on, "that in frankly expressing my personal thoughts about the Jews I expose myself to enormous dangers. Many people share [these views], but very few dare to express them publicly, because the Jewish sect, far more formidable than Catholic Jesuits and the Protestants, constitute a real force in Europe today. They reign despotically in commerce and in the banks and have overrun three-quarters of the German press and a very significant part of the press of other countries. Too bad for anyone careless enough to displease them!" {endnote 86: Bakounine, Oeuvres, vol. V, pp. 243-4}. correctness.html.

Israel Shahak wrote:

"The bulk of the organized US Jewish community is totalitarian, chauvinistic and militaristic in its views. This fact remains unnoticed by other Americans due to its control of the media, but is apparent to some Israeli Jews. As long as organized US Jewry remains united, its control over the media and its political power remain unchallenged." (Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies, Pluto Press, London 1997, p. 139). More of Shahak at shahak1.html.

3.10 Guns of Japan

Protocol 7 says, "In a word, to sum up our system of keeping the governments of the goyim in Europe in check, we shall show our strength to one of them by terrorist attempts and to all, if we allow the possibility of a general rising against us, we shall respond with the guns of America or China or Japan."

Jacob Schiff and other Jewish financiers loaned a large amount of money to Japan to build a fleet with which to defeat the Russian Navy in 1905. This was because Czarist Russia was the Zionists' biggest enemy. More details are supplied below.

3.11 Finance - the Protocols' advanced theory of Money

The "forgery" hypothesis says that the Okhrana plagiarised the Dialogues of Maurice Joly. But the Protocols opposes the policy on government debt endorsed in the Dialogues.

Joly's despot says, "I will borrow" the funds for government expenditure (Dialogues, p. 209); borrow from the public (p. 215); but pay reduced interest (p. 217).

He speaks of the benefits of government debt: "I am afraid that you are somewhat prejudiced against loans; they are valuable for more than one reason: they attach families to the government; they are excellent investments for private people, and modern economists today expressly recognize that, far from impoverishing the state, public debts enrich it." (p. 214) .

The Protocols acknowledges that government debt is a trap; that governments need not borrow funds for their expenditure on goods & services available in the local currency, but can create the money by fiat, as the banks do (but for which the banks charge interest, in effect a private tax).

This was the way the finance system of the USSR operated. When taxes were insufficient for government expenditure, Gosbank (the state bank) issued fiat money to make up the difference:

Protocol 20 says:

Every kind of loan proves infirmity in the State and a want of understanding of the rights of the State. Loans hang like a sword of Damocles over the heads of rulers, who, instead of taking from their subjects by a temporary tax, come begging with outstretched palm of our bankers. Foreign loans are leeches which there is no possibility of removing from the body of the State until they fall off themselves or the State flings them off. But the goy States do not tear them off: they go on in persisting in putting more on to themselves so that they must inevitably perish, drained by voluntary blood-letting.

What also indeed is, in substance, a loan, especially a foreign loan? A loan is - an issue of government bills of exchange containing a percentage obligation commensurate to the sum of the loan capital. If the loan bears a charge of 5 per cent., then in twenty years the State vainly pays away in interest a sum equal to the loan borrowed, in forty years it is paying a double sum, in sixty - treble, and all the while the debt remains an unpaid debt.

From this calculation it is obvious that with any form of taxation per head the State is bailing out the last coppers of the poor taxpayers in order to settle accounts with wealthy foreigners, from whom it has borrowed money instead of collecting these coppers for its own needs without the additional interest.

So long as loans were internal the goyim only shuffled money from the pockets of the poor to those of the rich, but when we bought up the necessary person in order to transfer loans into the external sphere all the wealth of States flowed into our cash-boxes and all the goyim began to pay us the tribute of subjects.

In other words, the interest on foreign loans must be paid by the taxpayers. Governments could avoid that interest burden by issuing the money themselves; after all, the banks themselves create it ex nihilo.

The lesson is, that we need a finance system akin to the Communist one.

Protocol 20 also says:

"The present issue of money in general does not correspond with the requirements per head, and cannot therefore satisfy all the needs of the workers. The issue of money ought to correspond with the growth of population and thereby children also must absolutely be reckoned as consumers of currency from the day of their birth."

This is the way a welfare system operates (child endowment, pensions etc); i.e., the government issues money to parents for the care of their children, either directly via "family allowance" payments, or via additional wages or reduced taxes for workers with dependents. Yet it's unlikely that in 1897 any state had this type of money-issue.

"... the gold standard has been the ruin of the States which adopted it ... With us the standard that must be introduced is the cost of working-man power, whether it be reckoned in paper or in wood. We shall make the issue of money in accordance with the normal requirements of each subject, adding to the quantity with every birth and subtracting with every death." protocol.html

This accurately describes the sort of finance system the USSR had. I believe that, via such prescriptions, the Protocols contains not only the key to what is wrong with our finance system, but also the way to fix it.

The conspirators did not want such a solution to be implemented, until they controlled the state directly, not indirectly (through other people).

At the time the Protocols was written, Russia was getting deeply into foreign debt:

W. O. Henderson, The Industrialization of Europe 1870-1914 (Thames and Hudson, London 1969).

{p. 87} Foreigners also helped to build Russia's early railway lines. Much of the capital of the Great Russia Railway Company of 1857 was raised abroad. Three French banks were particularly active in providing money for the company and the necessary bridges, locomotives and rolling-stock were largely supplied by French firms.

However, Russia's industrial progress in the 1890s was to a great extent the achievement of Count Sergei Witte, Minister of Finance between 1892 and 1903. In the eleven years that he held office Witte pressed forward energetically with his plans to speed up the pace of industrialization. Since he considered the construction of a greatly improved railway system the key to future economic progress, he had the railways of Russia nearly doubled in length: Moscow was linked with the ports of Archangel and Riga and the textile centre of Ivanovo-Vognesensk; St Petersburg gained direct access to the Ukraine, while Kiev was joined to the Donetz valley, and Rostov, on the Don, was linked with the oilfield of Baku. Witte's most spectacular railway was the Trans-Siberian line, of which well over 3,000 miles had been completed by 1899. Heavy government investment in railways fostered the expansion of the iron, steel and engineering industries; there was great activity in the Krivoi-Rog ironfield, the Donetz coal basin and the Baku oilfield; the industrial resources of Siberia and Central Asia

{p. 88} began to be opened up, and even the remote Chinese provinces of Manchuria and Korea were subject to Russian economic penetration.

To finance an enormous programme of public works Witte relied heavily upon government borrowing from abroad and upon persuading foreign capitalists to invest in Russian industrial enterprises. In answer to his critics Witte insisted that in the past all underdeveloped countries had relied upon borrowed money to assist in financing the early phase of industrialization. But his financial policy undoubtedly placed heavy burdens upon the Russian taxpayers and consumers. Witte's critics complained that prices were rising, that grain was being exported even when there was a poor harvest and that 'Witte's system' could survive only so long as foreign - particularly French - investors were prepared to go on buying Russian State bonds and shares in new Russian joint-stock companies. They claimed that many of the new industries were being run by foreign entrepreneurs for the benefit of foreign investors, and that although some manufacturing regions (such as the Donetz valley) might appear to be flourishing, older industrial areas (such as the Urals) were declining. The critics also argued that if industry were to flourish there must be a heavy home demand for consumer goods.

Towards the end of his term of office Witte began to realize the need for overall State economic planning. With incomparable energy he extended his influence over the activities of one branch of the civil service after another. But in the Russia of his day he could never hope to gain decisive control over all aspects of economic life. Moreover, he came to see that the peasant problem lay at the root of Russia's difficulties in the 1890s. His recommendations for dealing with it fell upon deaf ears, though they foreshadowed the subsequent agrarian reforms of Stolypin. While Witte believed that an autocratic form of government was essential for Russia, he realized that Nicholas II lacked the understanding and will-power needed to carry out the crucial reforms.


The Protocols was written around the same time as Witte was finance minister.

If the Protocols was created by the Okhrana (Secret Police), then this arm of government was warning of the danger of foreign debt, at the same time as the finance branch of the Russian government was endorsing Russia's getting deeply into that same foreign debt.

The State Bank of the USSR financed Industrialisation in the USSR by money printing:

The State Bank of the USSR

[...] In the latter half of the 1920s the functions and activities of the State Bank changed dramatically. The change was mainly the result of the accelerated rates of industrialisation, which required vast capital investment in the basic industries within a short period of time.

It was impossible to industrialise the USSR by traditional methods, that is, by accumulating financial resources inside the country and using foreign loans. The population lacked the required savings, while foreign loans could not be obtained for economic (the world was in the grip of an economic crisis) and political reasons. As a result industrialisation in the USSR was financed by money emission. Throughout the entire period of phasing out the NEP the Soviet authorities tried to find the simplest means by which the state could distribute funds between the various sectors of the economy.


This sort of money-printing is not like that done by the Federal Reserve. The money that the FEd creates ex nihilo is loaned at low rates to the private banks, which use it for selfish and unproductive measures such as speculation, manipulation of the stock market and of currency exchange rates - anything to make a quick dollar. If the money was provided to the Federal, State and Local Governments, and used to fund infrastructure and other public-sector employment, it would have a beneficial outcome. The only drawback is that it is accounted a public debt (ie a debt of the Treasury to the Central Bank), and therefore repayable (with interest) out of taxation, even though the central bank created it ex nihilo.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, the UK Telegraph's economic commentator, called for Public Debt to Central Banks to be written off, to avoid a global depression:

Wednesday 22 August 2012

Weimar solution beckons as manufacturing crashes in US Fifth District?

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Last updated: July 25th, 2012

As Britain tanks by 0.7pc in the second quarter (much worse than Spain at 0.4pc), it is worth keeping a close eye on the very ominous turn of events in the US.

The Richmond Fed's twin indices of manufacturing and services ­ a very good indicator at the onset of the Great Recession ­ collapsed this month. ...

If so, we can all have a ferocious argument ­ yet again ­ about what to do next to avoid a global depression (if we are not in a "contained" variant already).

Needless to say, I will be advocating 1933 monetary stimulus à l'outrance, or trillions of asset purchases through old fashioned open-market operations through the quantity of money effect (NOT INTEREST RATE 'CREDITISM') to avert deflation ­ and continue doing so until nominal GDP is restored to its trend line, at which point the stimulus can be withdrawn again.

And the Austro-liquidationists (whom I love during bubbles, and hate during busts) can all hurl shoes at me.

We can also argue about another sneaky idea. If the central banks are able to buy fistfuls of bonds right now without a ripple effect on inflation ­ and investors are still rushing into the safe havens, Bunds, Gilts, Treasuries, JGBs, etc ­ why not just quietly write off those central bank holdings and seize the moment to slash public debt by non-inflationary fiat?


The point is, there is no need to reckon Government debt to its own central bank as real debt. Governments do not need to borrow money - they can create it, as central banks do.

Richard Werner, Professor of International Banking at the University of Southampton, wrote a book titled Princes of the Yen, about the Central Bank of Japan.

In it he commented on the paper money of Kublai Khnan, Emperor of China. Our information about it comes from Marco Polo, a merchant who spent twenty years there in the late thirteenth century.

{p. 40} He did not fail to give an account of the most advanced monetary system at the time.

The world's first paper money was launched in the tenth century in China by the ruling Sung Dynasty. In this advanced monetary system, there was no doubt about what money was: the paper money issued by the emperor and stamped by his seal. He was the central bank. No other institution was allowed to create money, on penalty of death.

The emperor was directly in control of the money supply. This meant that he could stimulate demand by creating more paper money, or cool the economy by taking paper out of circulation. ...

At the time, European kings and princes could only dream of such wealth or such power over the economy and their dominions. Things had developed quite differently for them in Europe. The rulers there failed to understand the true nature of money. To them, only gold or other precious metals could be money. But if gold is the main currency, it is impossible for a ruler to control the money supply. Gold cannot be created at will. Rulers tried, though in vain. Thanks to their efforts, chemistry got an early start in the form of the doomed attempts at creating gold through alchemy.

Compared to their colleagues in China, European rulers could not really be considered fully in charge. They could not control the resources in their countries. Kings had to compete with their own subjects for resources. A government that does not control the money supply has hardly any influence over its economy. Such a government is not sovereign. The great Kublai Khan, emperor of China and the Mongolian Empire, would probably have shaken his head in disbelief if he had known that European rulers could not issue money to implement public-sector projects. Instead, European governments had to rely on taxes. Often tax levels were already close to the pain threshold, and money was still needed for government investments or expenditures. If the kings and princes still wanted to build roads, hospitals, and castles or raise an army to defend their country, more often than not they had to borrow money. No matter how absolutist or all-powerful they may have called themselves, when it came to money most European rulers had to ask for help. ...

{p. 42} By about the thirteenth century, paper money therefore also had its debut in Europe. However, it was crucially different in its form, function, and implications from China's paper money. It was issued not by the government but by a private group of businessmen.

The Biggest Trick in History ...

{p. 43} They charged interest for issuing paper slips that cost them nothing to produce! They became wealthier and henceforth would be known as bankers.

The bankers had managed to do what kings, emperors, and alchemists had failed to do - they were creating money. They had found the philosopher's stone. They were the central bank of their time.

This had fundamental implications that were to change the course of history, for it meant that the allocation of new purchasing power was not under the control of the government. Europe's monarchs did not see through the deception. They naively believed that the bankers had large amounts of gold. When governments needed money and could not raise taxes further, they too thought they had to borrow from the bankers.

The irony was that the bankers were just doing what the kings could have done themselves: issue paper money. Yet because the monarchs came to rely on their bankers to fund large ventures, ultimately the bankers gained great influence over national policies. Soon it became doubtful who was really in charge of the country. The Old Testament says that the borrower is servant to the lender. Thus it came that the kings often had become servants. Bankers were the masters who created and allocated purchasing power.

{endquote) More at werner-princes-yen.html

3.12 Broadening the Topic

Cohn could have agreed, like Benjamin Ginsberg (above), that Jews created the Bolshevik Revolution (not all Jews, but Jews), and that they largely control the US media and government. He could have said, "yes, but", as Israel Shahak does. That would have been an acceptable position.

Instead, Cohn broadens the topic beyond the Protocols of Zion, to any material on Jews behaving in a conspiratorial way:

"Stalin in his last years produced a new version of the conspiracy-myth, in which Jews figured as agents of an imperialist plot to destroy the Soviet Union and assassinate its leaders; this was used to secure the execution of Rudolf Slansky and his Jewish colleagues on the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Communist party in 1952, and it also formed the basis for the story of the 'doctors' plot' in 1953." (Warrant For Genocide, p. 15).

Stalin was murdered soon after: death-of-stalin.html.

After Stalin, the contest between Zionists and anti-Zionists continued in the USSR. A
document called "The Catechism of the Jew in the [former] Soviet Union", circulated in
the last decades of the USSR, and was published there in a newspaper in 1990. A copy is at

Cohn wrote,

"New forgeries were also produced to supplement the Protocols and bring them up to date. The most celebrated of these was a document said to have been found on a Jewish Bolshevik commander in the Red Army, of the name of Zunder." (Warrant For Genocide, p. 130).

He rejects not only the Protocols, but any claim of Jews acting in a conspiratorial way, treating this as tantamount to the Protocols.

In thus overstating his case, he makes refutation easier. It can be refuted by any direct evidence, e.g. of Jewish domination of the US media.

Can one disclose such information in public, without being ignored, vilified, subjected to argumentum ad hominem? Then this also provides evidence of who is in power: those you cannot criticize, are those in control.

Cohn's book, and books arguing a similar viewpoint, can be sold in bookshops. Can one get a critique of Cohn and Bernstein into the bookshops? Why?

3.13 Procedure

The Protocols, on its own, cannot be used to establish a "One World" conspiracy, Jewish or otherwise.

But if such a conspiracy can be verified FROM OTHER SOURCES - such as H. G. Wells' affirmation of the Open Conspiracy for World Government (opensoc.html) or the 1946 Baruch Plan (baruch-plan.html) - then the Protocols can be examined to see if it provides extra information.

That is the only way to evaluate it.

Herman Bernstein & Norman Cohn do not evaluate it that way; instead they compare it with other like material, and say, "this is the old familiar literature".

The Protocols predicts that, after a world war, there will be an atttempt to form a world government, secretly orchestrated by Jewish financiers.

This happened at the Treaty of Versailles: wells-lenin-league.html.

The Prtotocols also predicted a despotic government in the guise of socialism, once again secretly Jewish. This happened when Lenin & Trotsky set up the USSR: lenin-trotsky.html.

It is this kind of "coincidence" that keeps the Protocols relevant. Is there any other literature that made such a prediction?

3.14 The Question of Socialism

By Socialism, I do not mean Communism, but rather mixed economies of the type Britain and Australia had in the postwar years.

I maintain that the USSR, if only we could study it properly, would offer both lessons to avoid and lessons to adopt. In saying so, I expect to win few friends; but I believe that Capitalism is on its last legs. Any future attempt at Socialism cannot be dominated by Jews, but neither can it exclude Jews; therefore the whole question of Jewish politics must be brought out into the open.

The secret Jewish control of Bolshevism was complicated by Stalin. After his ascendancy, there was a continuing struggle between the two factions, until most Jews left. This bitter struggle destroyed Communism, except in Asian countries where Jews were lacking.

Stalin overthrew Jewish control, but still had to use Jews in his administration. He could not admit that the USSR had been established by Jews, for fear that the regime he had inherited would be delegitimated. Similarly, Christians are often embarrassed about the Jewish origins of Christianity, and try to deny it.

If today's proponents of One World are benevolent as they claim - if they only wish our good - why do they not admit the truth about the USSR?

4. Nesta Webster on Free Masonry, the French Revolution, and the Protocols of Zion

Let us begin with Leon Trotsky's observations on Freemasonry, which he studied when in Odessa prison:

From Leon Trotsky, My Life, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1975.

{ p. 124} It was during that period that I became interested in freemasonry. ... In the eighteenth century freemasonry became expressive of a militant policy of enlightenment, as in the case of the Illuminati, who were the forerunners of the revolution; on its left it culminated in the Carbonari. Freemasons counted among their members both Louis XVI and the Dr. Guillotin who invented the guillotine. In southern Germany freemasonry assumed an openly revolutionary character, whereas at the court of Catherine the Great it was a masquerade reflecting the { p. 125} aristocratic and bureaucratic hierarchy. A freemason Novikov was exiled to Siberia by a freemason Empress. ...

{ p. 126} I discontinued my work on freemasonry to take up the study of Marxian economics. ... The work on freemasonry acted as a sort of test for these hypotheses. ... I think this influenced the whole course of my intellectual develop- {p. 127} ment.

{end quotes}

Nicholas Best on Templars, Freemasons and the French Revolution: correctness.html.

Nesta H. Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, Omni Publications, Palmdale Ca; no publication date supplied, but the title pages say "first published 1924".

{p. 252} After the death of Babeuf, his friend and inspirer Buonarotti with the aid of Marat's brother founded a masonic lodge, the Amis Sinceres, which was affiliated to the Phila delphes, at Geneva, and as "Diacre Mobile" of the "Order of Sublime and Perfect Masons" created three new secret degrees in which the device of the Rose-Croix I.N.R.I. was interpreted as signifying "Justum necare reges injustos." {footnote 1: Archives Nationales, Piece remise par le Cabinet de Vienne (1824), F7.7566.}

The part to be assigned to each intrigue in preparing the world-movement of which the French Revolution was the first expression is a question on which no one can speak with certainty. But, as at the present moment, the composite nature of this movement must never be lost to sight. Largely perhaps the work of Frederick the Great, it is probable that but for the Orleanistes the plot against the French monarchy might have come to nought; whilst again, but for his position at the head of illuminized Freemasonry it is doubtful whether the Duc d Orleans could have commanded the forces of revolution. Further, how far the movement, which, like the modern Bolshevist conspiracy, appears to have had unlimited funds at its disposal, was financed by the Jews yet remains to be discovered. Hitherto only the first steps have been taken towards elucidating the truth about the French Revolution.

In the opinion of an early nineteenth-century writer the sect which engineered the French Revolution was absolutely international:

{quote} The authors of the Revolution are not more French than German, Italian, English, etc. They form a particular nation which took birth and has grown in the darkness, in the midst of all civilized nations, with the object of subjecting them to its domination.2 {footnote 2: Chevalier de Malet, Recherches politiques et histoiques, p. 2 (1817).}

It is curious to find almost precisely the same idea expressed by the Duke of Brunswick, formerly the "Eques a Victoria" of the Stricte Observance, "Aaron" of the Illuminati, and Grand Master of German Freemasonry, who, whether because the Revolution had done its work in destroying the French monarchy and now threatened the security of Germany, or whether because he was genuinely disillusioned in the Orders to which he had belonged, issued a Manifesto to all the lodges in 1794, declaring that in view of the way in which Masonry

{p. 253} had been penetrated by this great sect the whole Order must be temporarily suppressed. It is essential to quote a part of this important document verbatim:

{quote} Amidst the universal storm produced by the present revolutions in the political and moral world, at this period of supreme illumination and of profound blindness, it would be a crime against truth and humanity to leave any longer shrouded in a veil things that can provide the only key to past and future events, things that should show to thousands of men whether the path they have been made to follow is the path of folly or of wisdom. It has to do with you, VV. FF. of all degrees and of all secret systems. The curtain must at last be drawn aside, so that your blinded eyes may see that light you have ever sought in vain, but of which you have only caught a few deceptive rays....

We have raised our building under the wings of darkness; ... the darkness is dispelled, and a light more terrifying than darkness itself strikes suddenly on our sight. We see our edifice crumbling and covering the ground with ruins; we see destruction that our hands can no longer arrest. And that is why we send away the builders from their workshops. With a last blow of the hammer we overthrow the columns of salaries. We leave the temple deserted, and we bequeath it as a great work to posterity which shall raise it again on its ruins and bring it to completion. {endquote}

Brunswick then goes on to explain what has brought about the ruin of the Order, namely, the infiltration of Freemasonry by secret conspirators:

{quote} A great sect arose which, taking for its motto the good and the happiness of man, worked in the darkness of the conspiracy to make the happiness of humanity a prey for itself. This sect is known to everyone: its brothers are known no less than its name. It is they who have undermined the foundations of the Order to the point of complete overthrow; it is by them that all humanity has been poisoned and led astray for several generations. The ferment that reigns amongst the peoples is their work. They founded the plans of their insatiable ambition on the political pride of nations. Their founders arranged to introduce this pride into the heads of the peoples. They began by casting odium on religion. ... They invented the rights of man which it is impossible to discover even in the book of Nature, and they urged the people to wrest from their princes the recognition of these supposed rights. The plan they had formed for breaking all social ties and of destroying all order was revealed in all their speeches and acts. They deluged the world with a multitude of publications; they recruited apprentices of every rank and in every position: they deluded the most perspicacious men by falsely alleging different

{p. 254} intentions. They sowed in the hearts of youth the seed of covetousness, and they excited it with the bait of the most insatiable passions. Indomitable pride, thirst of power, such were the only motives of this sect: their masters had nothing less in view than the thrones of the earth, and the government of the nations was to be directed by their nocturnal clubs.

This is what has been done and is still being done. But we notice that princes and people are unaware how and by what means this is being accomplished. That is why we say to them in all frankness: The misuse of our Order, the misunderstanding of our secret, has produced all the political and moral troubles with which the world is filled to-day. You who have been initiated, you must join yourselves with us in raising your voices, so as to teach peoples and princes that the sectarians, the apostates of our Order, have alone been and will be the authors of present and future revolutions. We must assure princes and peoples, on our honour and our duty, that our association is in no way guilty of these evils. But in order that our attestations should have force and merit belief, we must make for princes and people a complete sacrifice; so as to cut out to the roots the abuse and error, we must from this moment dissolve the whole Order. This is why we destroy and annihilate it completely for the time; we will preserve the foundations for posterity, which will clear them when humanity, in better times, can derive some benefit from our holy alliance. {endquote} {footnote 1: Eckert, La Franc-Maconnerie dans sa veritable signification, II. 125.}

Thus, in the opinion of the Grand Master of German Freemasonry, a secret sect working within Freemasonry had brought about the French Revolution and would be the cause of all future revolutions. We shall now pursue the course of this sect after the first upheaval had ended.

Three years after the Duke of Brunswick issued his Manifesto to the lodges, the books of Barruel, Robison, and others appeared, laying bare the whole conspiracy. It has been said that all these books "fell flat." {footnote 2: Mr. Lucien Wolf, "The Jewish Peril," article in the Spectator for June 12, 1920.} This is directly contrary to the truth. Barruel's book went into no less than eight editions, and I have described elsewhere the alarm that his work and Robison's excited in America. In England they led to the very tangible result that a law was passed by the English Parliament in 1799 prohibiting all secret societies with the exception of Freemasonry.

{The books by Barruel and Robison are: (a) Abbe Barruel, Memoire pour servir a l'histoire du jacobinisme (1797) (b) John Robison, Proofs of a Conspiracy against All the Religions and Governments of Europe}

It is evident, then, that the British Government recognized the continued existence of these associations and the danger

{p. 255} they presented to the world. This fact should be borne in mind when we are assured that Barruel and Robison had conjured up a bogey which met with no serious attention from responsible men. For the main purpose of Barruel's book is to show that not only had Illuminism and Grand Orlent Masonry contributed largely to the French Revolution, but that three years after that first explosion they were still as active as ever. This is the great point which the champions of the "bogey" theory are most anxious to refute. "The Bavarian Order of the Illuminati," wrote Mr. Waite, " was founded by Adam Weishaupt in 1776, and it was suppressed by the Elector of Bavaria in 1789. ... Those who say that 'it was continued in more secret forms' have never produced one item of real evidence." {footnote 1: A. E. Waite, "Occult Freemasonry and the Jewish Peril," in The Occult Review for September, 1920.} Now, as we have seen, the Illuminati were not suppressed by the Elector of Bavaria in 1789, but in 1786 - first error of Mr. Waite. But more extra ordinary confusion of mind is displayed in his Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, where, in a Masonic Chronology, he gives, this time under the date of 1784, "Suppression of the Illuminati," but under 1793: "J. J. C. Bode joined the Illuminati under Weishaupt." At a matter of fact, this was the year Bode died. These examples will serve to show the reliance that can be placed on Mr. Waite's statement concerning the Illuminati.

We shall now see that not only the Illuminati but Weishaupt himself still continued to intrigue long after the French Revolution had ended.

Directly the Reign of Terror was over, the masonic lodges, which during the Revolution had been replaced by the clubs, began to reopen, and by the beginning of the nineteenth century were in a more flourishing condition than ever before. "It was the most brilliant epoch of Masonry," wrote the Freemason Bazot in his History of Freemasonry. Nearly 1,200 lodges existed in France under the Empire; generals, magistrates, artists, savants, and notabilities in every line were initiated into the Order. {footnote 2: Deschamps, op. cit., II. 197, quoting Tableau historique de la Maconnerie, p. 38.} The most eminent of these was Prince Cambaceres, pro Grand Master of the Grand Orient. It is in the midst of this period that we find Weishaupt once more at work behind the scenes of Freemasonry. ...

{p. 408} APPENDIX II


Contrary to the assertions of certain writers, I have never affirmed my belief in the authenticity of the Protocols, but have always treated it as an entirely open question. The only opinion to

{p. 409} which I have committed myself is that, whether genuine or not, the Protocols do represent the programme of world revolution, and that in view of their prophetic nature and of their extraordinary resemblance to the protocols of certain secret societies in the past, they were either the work of some such society or of someone profoundly versed in the lore of secret societies who was able to reproduce their ideas and phraseology.

The so-called refutation of the Protocols which appeared in the Times of August 1922, tends to confirm this opinion. According to these articles the Protocols were largely copied from the book of Maurice Joly, Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu, published in 1864. Let it be aid at once that the resemblance between the two works could not be accidental, not only are whole paragraphs almost identical, but the various points in the programme follow each other in precisely the same order. But whether Nilus copied from Joly or from the same source whence Joly derived his ideas is another question. It will be noticed that Joly in his preface never claimed to have originated the scheme described in his book; on the contrary he distinctly states that it "personifies in particular a political system which has not varied for a single day in its application since the disastrous and alas! too far-off date of its enthronement." Could this refer only to the government of Napoleon III, established twelve years earlier? Or might it not be taken to signify a Machiavellian system of government of which Napoleon III was suspected by Joly at this moment of being the exponent? We have already seen that this system is said by M. de Mazeres, in his book De Machiavel et de l'influence de sa doctrine sur les opinions, les moeurs et la politique de la France pendant la Revolution, published in 1816, to have been inaugurated by the French Revolution, and to have been carried on by Napoleon I against whom he brings precisely the same accusations of Machiavellism that Joly brings against Napoleon III. "The author of The Prince," he writes, was always his guide," and he goes on to describe the "parrot cries placed in the mouths of the people," the "hired writers, salaried newspapers, mercenary poets and corrupt ministers employed to mislead our vanity methodically " - all this being carried on by "the scholars of Machiavelli under the orders of his cleverest disciple." We have already traced the course of these methods from the Illuminati onwards.

Now precisely at the moment when Joly published his Dialogues aux Enfers the secret societies were particularly active, and since by this date a number of Jews had penetrated into their ranks a whole crop of literary efforts directed against Jews and secret societies marked the decade - Eckert with his work on Freemasonry in 1852 had given the incentive; Cretineau Joly followed in 1859 with L'Eglise Romane en face de la Revolution, reproducing the documents of the Haute Vente Romaine; in 1868

{p. 410} came the book of the German anti-Semite Goedsche, and in the following year on a higher plane the work of Gougenot Des Mousseaux, Le Juif, le Judaisme, et la Judaisation des Peuples Chretiens. Meanwhile in 1860 the Alliance Israelite Universelle had arisen, having for its ultimate object "the great work of humanity, the annihilation of error and fanaticism, the union of human society in a faithful and solid fraternity" - a formula singularly reminiscent of Grand Orient philosophy; in 1864 Karl Marx obtained control of the two-year-old "International Working Men's Association," by which a number of secret societies became absorbed, and in the same year Bakunin founded his Alliance Sociale Democratique on the exact lines of Weishaupt's Illuminism, and in 1869 wrote his Polemique contre les Juifs (or Etude sur les Juifs allemands) mainly directed against the Jews of the Internationale. The sixties of the last century therefore mark an important era in the history of the secret societies, and it was right in the middle of this period that Maunce Joly published his book.

Now it will be remembered that amongst the sets of parallels to the Protocols quoted by me in World Revolution, two were taken from the sources above quoted - the documents of the Haute Vente Romaine and the programme of Bakunin's secret society, the Alliance Sociale Democratique. Meanwhile Mr. Lucien Wolf had found another parallel to the Protocols in Goedsche's book. "The Protocols," Mr. Wolf had no hesitation in asserting, "are, in short an amplified imitation of Goedsche's handiwork" {footnote: Spectator for June 12, 1920} and he went on to show that "Nilus followed this pamphlet very closely." The Protocols were then declared by Mr. Wolf and his friends to have been completely and finally refuted.

But alas for Mr. Wolfe's discernment! The Times articles came and abolished the whole of his carefully constructed theory. They did not, however, demolish mine; on the contrary, they supplied another and a very curious link in the chain of evidence. For is it not remarkable that one of the sets of parallels quoted by me appeared in the same year as Joly's book, and that within the space of nine years no less than four parallels to the Protocols should have been discovered? Let us recapitulate the events of this decade in the form of a table and the proximity of dates will then be more apparent:

1859. Cretineau Joly's book published containing documents of Haute Vente Romaine (parallels quoted by me)

1860. Alliance Israelite Universelle founded.

1864. 1st Internationale taken over by Karl Marx

" Alliance Sociale Democratique of Bakunin founded (parallels quoted by me).

" Maurice Joly's Dialogue aux Enfers published (parallels quoted by Times).

{p. 411} 1866. 1st Congress of Internationale at Geneva.

1868. Goedsche's Biarritz (parallels quoted by Mr. Lucien Wolf).

1869. Gougenot les Mousseaux's Le Juif, etc.

" Bakunin's Polemique contre les Juifs.

It will be seen, then, that at the moment when Maurice Joly wrote his Dialogues, the ideas they embodied were current in many different circles. It is interesting, moreover, to notice that the authors of the last two works referred to above, the Catholic and Royalist Des Mousseaux and the Anarchist Bakunin, between whom it is impossible to imagine any connexion, both in the same year denounced the growing power of the Jews whom Bakunin described as "the most formidable sect" in Europe, and again asserted that a leakage of information had taken place in the secret societies. Thus in 1870 Bakunin explains that his secret society has been broken up because its secrets have been given away, {footnote 1: James Guillaume, Documents de l'Internationale, I, 131} and that his colleague Netchaieff has arrived at the conclusion that "in order to found a serious and indestructible society one must take for a basis the policy of Machiavelli." {footnote 2: Correspondence de Bakounine, published by Michael Dragomanov, p. 325} Meanwhile Gougenot Des Mousseaux had related in Le Juif, that in December 1865 he had received a letter from a German statesman saying:

{quote} Since the revolutionary recrudescence of 1848, I have had relations with a Jew who, from vanity, betrayed the secret of the secret societies with which he had been associated, and who warned me eight or ten days beforehand of all the revolutions which were about to break out at any point of Europe. I owe to him the unshakeable conviction that all these movements of "oppressed peoples," etc., etc., are devised by half a dozen individuals, who give their orders to the secret societies of all Europe. The ground is absolutely mined beneath our feet, and the Jew provide a large contingent of these miners. ... " {endquote} {footnote 3: Le Juif, etc., pp. 367, 368}

These words were written in the year after the Dalogues aux Enfers were published.

It is further important to notice that Joly's work is dated from Geneva, the meeting-place for all the revolutionaries of Europe, including Bakunin, who was there in the same year, and where the first Congress of the Internationale led by Karl Marx was held two years later. Already the revolutionary camp was divided into warring factions, and the rivalry between Marx and Mazzini had been superseded by the struggle between Marx and Bakunin. And all these men were members of secret societies. It is by no means improbable then that Joly, himself a revolutionary, should during his stay in Geneva have come into touch with the members of some secret organization, who may have betrayed to him their

{p. 412} own secret or those of a rival organization they had reason to suspect of working under the cover of revolutionary doctrines for an ulterior end. Thus the protocols of a secret saciety modelled on the lines of the Illuminati or the Haute Vente Romaine may have passed into his hands and been utilized by him as an attack on Napoleon who, owing to his known connexion with the Carbonari might have appeared to Joly as the chief exponent of the Machiavellian art of duping the people and using them as the lever to power which the secret societies had reduced to a system.

This would explain Maurice Joly's mysterious reference to the "political system which has not varied for a single day in its application since the disastrous and alas! too far-off date of its enthronement." Moreover, it would explain the resemblance between all the parallels to the Protocols from the writings of the Illuminati and Mirabeau's Projet de Revolution of 1789 onwards. For if the system had never varied, the code on which it was founded must have remained substantially the same. Further, if it had never varied up to the time when Joly wrote, why should it have varied since that date? The rules of lawn tennis drawn up in 1880 would probably bear a strong resemblance to those of 1920, and would also probably follow each other in the same sequence. The differences would occur where modern improvements had been added.

Might not the same process of evolution have taken place between the dates at which the works of Joly and Nilus were published? I do not agree with the opinion of the Morning Post that "the author of the Protocols must have had the Dialogues of Joly before him." It is possible, but not proven. Indeed, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone embarking on such an elaborate imposture should not have possessed the wit to avoid quoting passages verbatim - without even troubling to arrange them in a different sequence - from a book which might at any moment be produced as evidence against him. For contrary to the assertions of the Times the Dialogues of Joly is by no means a rare book, not only was it to be found at the British Museum but at the London Library and recently I was able to buy a copy for the modest sum of 15 francs. There was therefore every possibility of Nilus bein suddenly confronted with the source of his plagiarism. Further, is it conceivable that a plagiarist so unskilful and so unimaginative would have been capable of improving on the original? For the Protocols are a vast improvement on the Dialogues of Joly. The most striking passages they contain are not to be found in the earlier work, nor, which is more remarkable, are several of the amazing prophecies concerning the future which time has realized. It is this latter fact which presents the most insuperable obstacle to the Times solution of the problem.

To sum up then, the Protocols are either a mere plagiarism of Maurice Joly's work, in which case the prophetic passages added

{p. 413} by Nilus or another remain unexplained, or they are a revised edition of the plan communicated to Joly in 1864, brought up to date and supplemented so as to suit modern conditions by the continuers of the plot.

Whether in this case the authors of the Protocols were Jews or whether the Jewish portions have been interpolated by the people into whose hands they fell is another question. Here we must admit the absence of any direct evidence. An International circ!e of world revolutionaries working on the lines of the Illuminati, of which the existence has already been indicated, offers a perfectly possible altemative to the "Learned Elders of Zion." It would be easier, however to absolve the Jews from all suspicion of complicity if they and their friends had adopted a more straightforward course from the time the Protocols appeared. When some years ago a work of the same kind was directed against the Jesuits, containing what purported to be a "Secret Plan" of revolution closely resembling the Protocols, {see footnote 1 below} the Jesuits indulged in no invectives, made no appeal that the book should be burnt by the common hangman, resorted to no fantastic explanations, but quietly pronounced the charge to be a fabrication. Thus the matter ended.

But from the moment the Protocols were published the Jews and their friends had recourse to every tortuous method of defence, brought pressure to bear on the publishers - succeeded, in fact, in temporarily stopping the sales - appealed to the Home Secretary to order their suppression, concocted one clinching refutation after another, all mutually exclusive of each other, so that by the time the solution now pronounced to be the correct one appeared, we had already been assured half a dozen times that the Protocols had been completely and finally refuted. And when at last a really plausible explanation had been discovered, why was it not presented in a convincing manner? All that was necessary was to state that the origin of the Protocols had been found in the work of Maurice Joly, giving parallels in support of this assertion. What need to envelop a good case in a web of obvious romance? Why all this parade of confidential sources of information, the pretence that Joly's book was so rare as to be almost unfindable when a search in the libraries would have proved the contrary? Why these allusions to Constantinople as the place "to find the key to dark secrets," to the mysterious Mr. X. who does not wish his real name to be known, and to the anonymous ex-officer of the Okhrana from whom by mere chance he bought the very copy of the Dialogues used for the fabrication of the Protocols by the Okhrana itself, although this fact was unknown

{footnote 1} 1. Revolution and War or Britain's Peril and her Secret Foes, by Vigilant (1913). A great portion of this book exposing the subtle propaganda of Socialism and Pacifism is admirable; it is only where the author attempts to lay all this to the charge of the Jesuits that he entirely fails to substantiate his case. {end footnote}

{p. 414} to the officer in question? Why, further, should Mr. X., if he were a Russian landowner, Orthodox by religion and a Constitutional Monarchist, be so anxious to discredit his fellow Monarchists by making the outrageous assertion that "the only occult Masonic organization such as the Protocols speak of" - that is to say, a Machiavellian system of an abominable kind - which he had been able to discover in Southern Russia "was a Monarchist one"?

It is evident then that the complete story of the Protocols has not yet been told, and that much yet remains to be discovered concerning this mysterious affair.

{p. 370} 15. The Real Jewish Peril

In considering the immense problem of the Jewish Power, perhaps the most important problem with which the modern world is confronted, it is necessary to divest oneself of all prejudices and to enquire in a spirit of scientific detachment whether any definite proof exists that a concerted attempt is being made by Jewry to achieve world-domination and to obliterate the Christian faith.

That such a purpose has existed amongst the Jews in the past has been shown throughout the earlier chapters of this book. The conception of the Jews as the Chosen People who must eventually rule the world forms indeed the basis of Rabbinical Judaism.

{p. 402} It is this solidarity that constitutes the real Jewish Peril and at the same time provides the real cause of "anti-Semitism." If in a world where all patriotism, all national traditions, and all Christian virtues are being systematically destroyed by the doctrines of International Socialism one race alone, a race that since time immemorial has cherished the dream of world-power, is not only allowed but encouraged to consolidate itself, to maintain all its national traditions, and to fulfil all its national aspirations at the expense of other races, it is evident that Christian civilization must be eventually obliterated. The wave of anti-Jewish feeling that during the last few years has been passing over this country has nothing in common with the racial hatred that inspires the "anti-Semitism" of Germany; it is simply the answer to a pretension that liberty-loving Britons will not admit. Those of us who, sacrificing popularity and monetary gain, dare to speak out on this question have no hatred in our hearts, but only love for our country. We believe that not only our national security but our great national traditions are at stake, and that unless England awakens in time she will pass under alien domination and her influence as the stronghold of Christian civilization will be lost to the world.

{p. xii}
{footnote 10} 10. I use the word "anti-Semitism" here in the sense in which it has come to be used--that is to say, anti-Jewry, but place it in inverted commas because it is in reality a misnomer coined by the Jews in order to create a false impression. The word anti-Semite literally signifies a person who adopts a hostile attitude towards all the descendants of Shem--the Arabs, and the entire twelve tribes of Israel. To apply the term to a person who is merely antagonistic to that fraction of the Semitic race known as the Jews is therefore absurd, and leads to the ridiculous situation that one may be described as "anti-Semitic and pro-Arabian." This expression actually occurred in The New Palestine (New York), March 23, 1923. One might as well speak of being "anti-British and pro-English."

{end of quotes} Nesta Webster's book Secret Societies and Subversive Movements is online at these websites:,,,

Trotsky on the Illuminati penetration of Freemasonry at the time of the French Revolution: worst.html.

Nicholas Best on the link between Templars and Freemasons, and the Freemasons' role in the murder of the King during the French Revolution, as payback for the execution of Templar leader Jacques de Molay: correctness.html.

The secret Zionism of the Freemasons and Rosicrucians; includes a photo of Karl Marx giving what is claimed as a Masonic handsign: rosicrucian.html.

5. The Protocols of Zion compared to the Tanaka Memorial

Ben-Ami Shillony, The Jews and the Japanese: the Successful Outsiders, Charles E. Tuttle Company, Rutland, Vermont, 1991.

The Tanaka Memorial was a blueprint for the invasion of Asia: tanaka.html.

Professor Shillony, who bills himself as "a Jew, an Israeli" (p. 10), combines Zionism with Marxism (Trotsky's, not Stalin's). Here, he explains the Jewish religion to Japanese readers, perhaps more frankly than he would to Westerners:

{p. 224} The Japanese and the Jews complement each other in many ways. While the Jews have developed much of the "software" of Western civilization: great philosophical constructs, new theories, and revolutionary ideologies, they often failed to act prudently on these ideas, becoming themselves the victims of their own contributions, as in the case of Marxism {an allusion to Stalin}. The Japanese

{p. 225} are now providing the "hardware" of modern civilization: the machines and the material assets, but they have not yet produced any grand theories that could deploy material abundance in a new way. These two kinds of mastery, if combined, could provide new and unforseeable achievements. ... In an economically and culturally integrated world, in which people enjoy unrestricted mobility and access to each other's cultural assets, the labels "Jews" and "Japanese", as well as those of other ethnic and religious groups, may lose their validity. When every human being becomes heir to the whole cultural heritage of mankind, there will be no more outsiders.

{Is this what Zionism has striven for ... its own disappearance?}

{p. 64} ... the Jews sought to revise, redraw, and replace the basic tenets of the West.

{p. 64} It is difficult to imagine the world today without the contributions of Karl Marx {note that he is placed first, although the list is not chronologically ordered}, Leon Trotsky {tribute to Trotsky is the mark of a Trotskyist: Stalinists never do it}, Sigmund Freud ... Many of these eminent persons were iconoclastic geniuses ... all shared the Jewish trait of challenging accepted truths and searching out new ways of understanding the world. Carrying on the tradition of nonconformism and argumentation, they came to shatter accepted doctrines and to offer new theories and concepts.

{but if Jewish iconoclasm is mainly directed at non-Jewish culture, may it not be a type of propaganda - especially if scrutiny and criticism of Jewish politics is stymied as "anti-semitic"?}

{p. 65} Unlike Marx, Freud never abandoned Judaism, even though he was not a practising Jew. ...

{p. 68} The strong moral element in Judaism, and the fact that they had long been the victims of persecution and discrimination, made the Jews sensitive to all forms of injustice. {what about the Red Terror, established by Lenin & Trotsky?} The conspicuous role Jews plasyed in socialist and communist movements in many countries was a clear expression of this moral sensitivity. {but the Palestinians and the Arabs have not noticed it} In Germany one finds Moses Hess, Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Eduard Bernstein, and Rosa Luxembourg. In the Russian revolution one finds Leon Trotsky {here's a Zionist supporting Trotsky}, Maxim Litvinov, Grigori Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Karl Radek, and Lazar Kaganovich.

{Kaganovich's nephew Stuart Kahan wrote, "Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich ... orchestrated the deaths of 20 million people" (The Wolf of the Kremlin, pp. 14-15): kaganovich.html}

{p. 70} To be Jewish in the ethnic sense and to be Jewish in the religious sense were considered one and the same. In modern Hebrew the single word yahadut stands for both Jewry and Judaism. {i.e. Jews are a religion}

{p. 17} Like most other peoples in the world, the Jews and the Japanese have regarded themselves as unique nations.

{Shillony claims that the Jews are a nation, but I argue that Jews, like Moslems, are a religion. The quote from p. 70 (above) supports this case; below (p. 19), Shillony says that Abraham was not born a Jew, but became one through adopting the Jewish religion. On p. 30, below, Shillony says that to become a Jew involves religious conversion}

... in Judaism, the concept of a Chosen People ... referred to a particular ethnic group, the Children of Israel, who were bound by blood ties, and at the same time was conditional on their behaviour towards God and one another.

{but not conditional on their behaviour to those not of their faith; has this not also been a mark of Christianity and Islam, Judaism's daughters?}

{p. 19} Abraham was not born a Jew.

{p. 20} Both the Jews and the Japanese regarded themselves - and still do - as categorically different from any other peoples. ...

From what did this sense of separateness derive? In the case of the Jews, the cause was originally religious: Jews believed that God had chosen them above all other peoples, established a covenant with them, and entrusted to them his holy commands. ... Other nations that were not chosen for this special covenantal relationship were called "gentiles" or "the other nations of the world". The Bible puts the following description of Israel in the mouth of the gentile prophet Balaam: "There is a people that dwells apart ..."

{p. 22} The religion that was subsequently called Judaism started as a spiritual revolution. ... The reduction of the number of deities from many to one ... was an affirmation of the basic unity of the universe and of the moral purposiveness that underlies it

{thus put, Judaism would develop non-theistic variants too, as in the case of Marx and Freud}

... Judaism and Shinto have treated other religions and creeds in opposite ways. The strict monotheism of Judaism excludes the belief in any other divinity.

{p. 23} This religious exclusivity was transmitted to Christianity and Islam.

{as a result, clashes between them are titanic and uncompromising} ...

Shinto ... has been tolerant towards other religions and deities. ...

Judaism sets strict moral rules ... there are hundreds of injunctions regarding how one should bahave toward God and toward one's fellow human beings, what one should eat, and what one should wear. ...

{p. 24} Shinto does not have such a strict moral code. ... it presents no specific injunctions ... there is no Satan, or ultimate evil, in Shinto.

{p. 25} The Jews, however, were the first to sanctify the week ... based on the biblical story of creation ...

{Shillony implies that Judaism invented the seven-day week. But the number seven had long been venerated in Babylonia because there were Seven Planets, each considered a god: Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Sunday is the Sun's day, Monday the Moon's day, Tuesday Mars' (Teutonic Tiu's) day, Wednesday Mercury's (Teutonic Woden's) day, Thursday Jupiter's (Thor's) day, Friday Venus' (Freya's) day, Saturday Saturn's day. Gilbert Murray writes, "Secondly, all the seven planets. ... Even Plato in his old age had much to say about the souls of the seven planets. Further, each planet had its sphere. The Earth is in the centre, then comes the sphere of the Moon, then that of the Sun, and so on through a range of seven spheres" (Five Stages of Greek Religion, Watts & Co., London 1935, p. 140).}

{p. 26} Different as these two religions are in their fundamental spirituality, they are both interested in this world rather than in the next.

{p. 27} Shinto and Judaism are religions that affirm life and shun suffering and death. There are no Jewish monks or nuns, as there are no Shinto monasteries. Neither of these religions considers sex to be a sin or a weakness of the flesh as Christianity and Buddhism do. Both Shinto and Judaism reject celibacy. Abraham had both a wife and a concubine ... The Japanese emperors ... used to have many wives and concubines, as did the Jewish kings. It was only in the twentieth century

{p. 29} In Shinto not only mortals have weaknesses, but so do the gods. {like the old Indo-European tribal gods}

... Judaism and Shinto ... have both remained national religions. Belonging to the Jewish people and to the Jewish religion are synonymous; a

{p. 30} Jew who converts to another religion ceases to be a member of the Jewish community, and a convert to Judaism automatically joins the Jewish people. Most of the Jewish festivals relate to the history of the nation ...

{i.e. the Jews are a religion, not a nation in the normal sense; Jews constitute "a nation" only in the way Moslems do. That's why non-Jews i.e. goyim are called "the nations"; it follows that, within Judaism, there is no separation between "church" and "state". This contributed to Marx's concept of Praxis, the unity of thought and action, which led to the stifling of dissent under communism.}

{p. 31} ... Judaism was the first religion to make world peace a central element in its eschatology. {borrowed from Zoroastrianism}

{p. 32} Yet quite often peace implies domination, and in many languages the word "pacify" also means "conquer". King Solomon could afford to be a king of peace because he ruled "over all the kings from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt."

{this quote is from 1 Kings 4:21. At Genesis 15: 18, Exodus 23: 30-31, Deut 11: 24, and Josh 1:4, Jews are promised that they will rule these lands again}

... The peaceful world that the Jewish prophets envisioned was to be ruled over by a scion of the House of David, later called the Messiah.

The Jews ... were always inspired by the belief that in the future world of peace and justice they would serve as spiritual leaders {i.e. rulers}. This vision of a world mission gave them the strength to suffer severe persecution and propelled them to the forefront of various messianic and "idealistic" movements in modern times like those of human rights, socialism, and communism.

{i.e. Jewish Internationalism is partly motivated by the desire to rule}

{p. 38} Versed in languages, familiar with different cultures, and with relatives or associates scattered throughout many towns and countries, the Jews were well suited to engage in international trade. Indeed, their trading expertise made them asssets to rulers of countries wishing to advance their own economies, such as the kings of Poland in the sixteenth century, who, to this end, invited Jews to come and settle there. {from where they later went to Russia}

{p. 40} Despite the fact that for almost two thousand years there has been no Temple, the hereditary Jewish priests still enjoy a special religious status and a Jewish male usually knows if he is a priest or not. This is often apparent in his

{p. 41} last name, for if it is Cohen, Kuhn, Kaplan, or any of the derivatives of these, it is highly probable that he is a kohen. As the distinction between priests and ordinary Israelites is transmitted from one generation to the next, those who are kohanin are usually aware of their status even if their names do not suggest it. ... The Jews have preserved the identity not only of their hereditary priests, but also of the whole tribe of Levi, of which the priests were a part. Descendants of that tribe, the Levites, still tend to carry such last names as Levy, Levinson, Segal (an abbreviation of segan Levi, or deputy Levite), or derivatives of these. ... various traditions and regulations that have no immediate relevance ... are retained in reverence for the past, as a substitute for the rites of the Temple, and in anticipation of the eventual return to the Holy Land and the rebuilding of the Third Temple there.

{and in the endnotes to this chapter (Chapter 4), on p. 229, he adds: '"Kaplan" is "chaplain", i.e. "priest". As "Kahn" in German means "ship", some German Jews who were called Kahn changed their name to the other German word for "ship", which is "Schiff."'}

{p. 71} Many ... famous Jews ... were apostates, but some of these converts, like Heine and the British statesman Benjamin Disraeli, remained proud of their Jewish origins and continued to consider themselves ethnically and spiritually Jewish people despite their conversions.

{i.e. were Marranos, practitioners of Marranism}

{p. 74} Christianity embodied the spiritual essence of the West; it was the religion of the white man. ... both the Jews and the Japanese rejected Christianity out of conviction that it was unnecessary for achieving modernization and out of fear that it might destroy their self-perceived uniqueness.

{Shillony implies that Jews do not think of themselves as "whites", even if widely regarded as such; presumably "whites" means "Aryans" to him}

{p. 77} Anti-Semitism is as old as the Jewish people {why? why don't other religions have the same problem?} ... The great anti-Semites in modern times were often those who also feared and hated the "yellow race."

{p. 78} By the beginning of the twentieth century the racists claimed that Western civilization was under double attack from the inscrutable Japanese without and the cunning Jews within.

{p. 79} World War I ... advanced the international status of both the Japanese and the Jews due to Britain's dire need for support in the war. In 1914 Japan acceded to Britain's request to join the war against Germany and was promised, as the spoils of victory, part of the German empire in Asia and the Pacific. ... Britain also needed the support of the Jews, especially those in the United States and in post-revolutionary Russia, for fighting the war against Germany. ...

{p. 80} But in 1922 Britain abrogated its treaty with Japan, and in its White Paper of 1930 it reneged on much of its committment to a Jewish national home in Palestine, slaps in the face that both groups would not forget.

The suspicion with which large segments of Western society viewed Jews and Japanese after World War I was reinforced by the

{p. 81} appearance of two forged documents ... One of these was the Protocols of the Elders of Zion ... The other forged document was the Tanaka Memorial.

{To the contrary, I argue that both are genuine; the Tanaka Memorial (July 25, 1927) was a blueprint for Japan's conquest of China and then Asia: tanaka.html. Ironically, the strongest reason for having a the UN, or even "One World" government, is our fear of each other - fear of domination by any nation, race, religion, or class}

{p. 85} Cordell Hull, whose 1941 note, demanding a complete Japanese withdrawal from China as a condition for lifting the embargo on Japan, finally pushed Japan toward war.

{p. 86} After World War II the Jews and the Japanese became the two most upwardly mobile ethnic minorities. with the highest levels of education and the lowest rates of crime.

The Japanese who emigrated to the United States assumed new identities. ... they transfered their committments and allegiances from their former nation to their new one.

{p. 87} It is significant that Americans of Japanese ancestry call themselves Japanese-Americans, whereas the Jews living in America refer to themselves as American Jews. ...

Unlike the Japanese-Americans who gave up allegiance to Japan, American Jews later became vigorous supporters of Israel. ... American Jews lobby for Israel.

{p. 95} Auschwitz and Hiroshima thus represent new kinds of modern atrocities ... The fact that these horrors were perpetrated against the Jews and the Japanese puts these two peoples in the unique position of having experienced the worst that modern science enables human beings to do to human beings.

{yet Shillony lists Trotsky and Kaganovich as heroes, on p. 68 above, without any hint of compassion for their victims}

{p. 103} The difference between Israel's earnings and its greater expenditures is covered by U. S. grants, which are larger than those to any other country. ... Israel has become a major exporter of armaments.

{p. 106} Germany's trade surplus in 1988 was larger than that of Japan ... but the resentment against Japan was much stronger ...

{p. 107} Like the Jews in the Protocols, they are depicted as strongly knit aliens ("Japan Inc.") plotting world domination.

{p. 108} Ever since the wars between the Greeks and the Persians in the fifth century BCE, the West has been haunted by the specter of domination by Orientals. During the Middle Ages and for most of the modern period the Jews constituted the Oriental element ... In the twentieth century the Japanese assumed the position of Oriental menace to Western civilization.

{this is a repudiation of the Liberal view emphasising the virtues of Athens; but George Soros warned against Japan, in his book The Alchemy of Finance (pp. 350-4), and many other Jewish leaders did likewise, such as Daniel Burstein, author of the book Yen: The Threat of Japan's Financial Empire. Another Jew, Ezra Vogel, presently heads the American Government's intelligence agencies' Japan specialists}

{Shillony, somewhat odiously, keeps playing the "whites" (i.e. Aryans to him) against the Japanese. But another Jew, Samuel Roth, wrote "America ... will expel us, just as Spain expelled us ... Before America will have realized her loss in the loss of the Jews the yellow peoples will be on her back and at her throat. ... But we still have a century or so in America - perhaps more, perhaps less." (Now and Forever: A conversation between Israel Zangwill anbd Samuel Roth, Robert M. McBride & Company, New York, 1925, p. 138}

{p. 112} In the sixteenth century

{p. 129} the word "Portugese," when referring to people in Europe outside of Portugal, was often taken as synonymous with "Jew." One of the first Portugese to arrive in Japan was Fernao Mendes Pinto, a merchant, adventurer, and for a short time a Jesuit, whose written accounts of his travels stirred the imagination of many Europeans. According to the editor of the English translation of his Travels, Pinto may have been related to the wealthy Mendes family of former Jews. Luis de Almeida, a merchant and physician who arrived in Japan in 1556 and later joined the Society of Jesus, may also have been a former Jew, as former Jews were prominent among Portugese physicians at that time. There were several former Jews among the founders of the Society of Jesus, and some of them engaged in propagating the faith in the Middle East, but as the order grew, former Jews were gradually forced out of its ranks, and by the seventeenth century they were forbidden to join.

{p. 147} The Japanese victories ... were hailed by American Jews ... Shortly after the war broke out, on February 26, 1904, the London newspaper Jewish Chronicle reported that the Jews of Atlanta, Georgia, were collecting three million dollars in order to purchase a battleship for Japan, to be named the Kishineff.

The Jewish resentment against czarist Russia produced financial support for Japan. The phenomenon of Jewish financiers raising loans for Japan out of a special attraction to that country started in 1894, when Albert Kahn, director of the French bank Goudchaux and later head of his own bank, helped to float a Japanese loan in Paris to finance the Sino-Japanese War, which broke out that year ...

When the Russo-Japanese War broke out Jewish financiers in Europe and the United States, including the Rothschilds, refrained from extending assistance to Russia but were willing to give aid to Japan. This assistance, crucial in preventing a Japanese defeat, was initiated and engineered by Jacob H. Schiff (1847-1920), a leading

{p. 148} Jewish-American figure and president of the banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb, and Co., one of the major investment banks in the United States. ... Schiff convinced his own firm as well as the First National Bank and the National City Bank to sponsor the Japanese war loans in the United States. His efforts helped Japan raise nearly two hundred million dollars on American markets, about half of the total war loans floated abroard to buy the warships, cannons, and ammunition needed to win the war.

In March, Jacob Schiff and his wife visited Japan. Emperor Meiji hosted them at a luncheon at the imperial palace, and conferred upon Schiff the Order of the Rising Sun, having earlier awarded him the Order of the Sacred Treasure. He was the first foreigner to be awarded the Order of the Rising Sun.

{p. 149} Although the Japanese feared socialism and anarchism at home, during the war they looked favorably on the Russian revolutionaries, among whom were many Jews.

{p. 150} While Jews regarded the victory of Japan as divine retribution for Russian anti-Semitic policies, the great Russian writer Leo Tolstoy viewed it as precisely the opposite: as a punishment of Russia for its being too influenced by Jews. In a 1905 letter to a friend he explained his country's defeat:

{Tolstoy quote} This debacle is not only of the Russian army, the Russian fleet and the Russian state, but of the pseudo-Christian civilization as well ... The disintegration began long ago, with the struggle for money and success in the so-called scientific and artistic pursuits, where the Jews got the edge on the Christians in every country and thereby earned the envy and hatred of all. Today the Japanese have done the same thing in the military field, proving conclusively, by brute force, that there is a goal which Christians must not pursue, for in seeking it they will always fail, vanquished by non-Christians. {end Tolstoy quote}

Although Tolstoy disapproved of anti-Semitism, his analysis of the Russian defeat reflected the anxiety of those Christians at the time, who viewed the victory of Japan and the ascendancy of the Jews as two aspects of the same phenopmenon. According to their interpretation, the infidel Jews were undermining Western society from within while the heathen Japanese were eroding it from without. From that erroneous perspective, the Jewish moral and financial support for Japan during the Russo-Japanese War was seen as further proof of the complicity of these two peoples in a plot directed against the Western world.

{p. 153} In 1927 on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Balfour Declaration Baron Tanaka Giichi, prime minister and foreign minister of Japan (whose name had been appropriated in the same year in the forged Tanaka Memorial), instructed the Japanese

{p. 154} consul general in Shanghai to convey to the Shanghai Zionist Association "hearty congratulations on the steadily progressing organizations of the Zionists, and on the remarkable advancement of the Jewish nationalist institutions, which they have achieved in Palestine."

{p. 209} Ishihara Shintaro, ... known for his support of nationalist causes, was elected in 1988 as president of the Japan-Israel Friendship Association.

{p. 218} In the 1980s the Protocols of the Elders of Zion came to enjoy a new popularity. In 1986 Yajima Kinji, professor of political science at the Christian Aoyama Gakuin University, published a book about how to read the "hidden meaning of the Jewish protocols." He called the Protocols the most mysterious document of the twentieth century, because all its prophecies had been fulfilled, in spite of its being regarded as a forgery. Yajima advised the Japanese to take the Protocols seriously in order to be prepared for the future. His book was a great success with fifty-five printings.

{p. 224} On September 26, 1988, Ibuka Masaru, honorary president of Sony, wrote an article ... in which he cited education as the reason that Jews, contributing only three-tenths of one percent of the world's population, had received 10 percent of all Nobel prizes.

{That's 30 times as many as the world per-capita average! The Jewish participation rate in the anti-Vietnam War protest movement in the U.S. was also about 30 times the rate for non-Jews, according to Philip Mendes, a Jewish author, in his book The New Left, The Jews, and the Vietnam War 1965-1972, pp. 21-22: new-left.html), and their entry into New Age sects (Buddhist, Hindu) was up to 16 times the non-Jewish rate at that time (The Jew in the Lotus, p. 7 & p. 9.: lotus.html).}

{end of quotes}

Part 2 of the Protocols of Zion Toolkit covers

6. The Revolutionary background to Napoleon III 7. Napoleon III's Rule 8. Assessments of Napoleon III

Part 2 is at toolkit2.html.

Part 3 of the Protocols of Zion Toolkit covers

9. The Push for World Government at the Peace Conference of Versailles (1919) 10. One man stops World Government. 11. The Protocols of Zion and the Peace Conference of Versailles 12. Douglas Reed on the ousting of Lord Northcliffe 13. More on the Ousting of Lord Northcliffe from The Times of London 14. Lloyd George explains why Britain made "a contract with Jewry" 15. Marranism and Universalism 16. Israel Zangwill on the Protocols 17. Herman Bernstein for World Government 18. One World - Utopian or Totalitarian? 19. Stalin accused of endorsing the Protocols (added August 11, 2003) 20. Conclusion  21. Challenge to Jared Israel and Alexander Baron (November 28, 2002)

Part 3 is at: toolkit3.html. ==

ALSO SEE Debate with Victoria on Holocaust matters: Debate-Victoria-Holocaust.doc .

Write to me at contact.html.