The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion, a document detailing the 1800’s minutes of meetings where
Are the Protocols Authentic?
“In the matter of the authorship, the American writer *F. Fry, following upon investigations carried out in Russia by Henry Ford, states that the Protocols are the work of the Jewish writer and leader Achad Haam (Ascher Ginsberg), and that they originated in Odessa. Certain circumstances go to show that the Protocols – perhaps following upon the lines of a concept by Achad Haam – formed the subject of a lecture in French Masonic Lodges. The bases for this supposition are the following, namely: that Freemason policy follows the lines of the Protocols, and that S.A. Nilus tells us that the copy which came into his hands in 1901 bore the following inscription: ‘Signed by the Representatives of Zion of the 33rd Degree.‘”
Tremendous efforts have been made by the conspirators to claim the papers as fraudulent and by painting those involved with exposing the documents as anti-Semitic. However research seems to indicate otherwise, and history proves the blueprint is certainly authentic in itself. Challenging this denial, Henry Ford stopped all Jewish mouths for all time when he stated: “The Protocols are too terribly real for fiction, too well-sustained for speculation, too deep in its knowledge of the secret springs of life for forgery. They fit what’s going on now.”
But, let’s assume they are a forgery. Whoever wrote them was certainly aware of the plan for global dominance by the elite just as George Orwell was when writing the novel 1984. Dr. David Duke thinks that is just the case:
The Forgery Claim
According to Wikipedia:
“According to writer Peter Grose, Allen Dulles (consider the source here), who was in Constantinople developing relationships in post-Ottoman political structures, discovered “the source” of the documentation and ultimately provided him to The Times. Grose writes that The Times extended a loan to the source, a Russian émigré who refused to be identified, with the understanding the loan would not be repaid. Colin Holmes, a lecturer in economic history at Sheffield University, identified the émigré as Michael Raslovleff, a self-identified antisemite, who gave the information to Graves so as not to “give a weapon of any kind to the Jews, whose friend I have never been.”
We are told that The Protocols of Zion is a hoax, a “proven forgery” concocted by the Tsarist Political Police (the Okhrana) to incite anti Semitism and discredit revolutionaries. But the “proof” is far from convincing. It consists of three articles published in The London Times (August 16-18, 1921) by Philip Graves. According to Graves, Protocols is a crude, chapter-by-chapter plagiarism of Maurice Joly’s Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu (1864).
It was easy to make this claim while Joly’s book was unavailable. Napolean III’s police confiscated it as soon as it was published. But it is available now and I invite you to compare the two texts. In my opinion, they are entirely different in tone, content and purpose. At 140 pages, Dialogues is twice as long as Protocols. Most of it finds no echo in the Protocols.
The crux of Graves’ argument is that certain references and passages in Protocols were lifted from Dialogues. He claims there are 50 of these and produces about a dozen. Their striking resemblance to Protocols leaves little doubt that the author did refer to the Dialogues as part of his research. He had no compunction about borrowing or reshaping a few passages that struck his fancy.
Indeed Philip Graves is “struck by the absence of any effort on the part of the plagiarist to conceal his plagiarisms.” That’s because he had nothing to hide. He was not Graves’ “unimportant precis-writer employed by the court or by the Okhrana” to construct a hoax. He was a diabolical genius crafting an original work. It is simplistic and disingenuous to characterize Protocols as a hoax.
Graves’ article smacks of a Zionist propaganda operation. Graves “expose” of Protocols appeared in August 1921 when Zionists were pressing the League of Nations to turn Palestine into a Jewish homeland under British Mandate. Philip Grave tells the unlikely story that a “Mr. X” brought the Dialogues to him in Constantinople where he was the Times’ correspondent. Mr. X presented it as “irrefutable proof” that the Protocols are a plagiarism.
Mr. X was a White Russian, which seems incredible given the Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution. He claims he bought the book from, get this, “a former member of the Okhrana” who had fled to Constantinople. In The Controversy of Zion, (Chapter 34) Douglas Reed, a Times’ staffer at the time, provides additional background. In May 1920, Lord Northcliffe, a part owner of The Times, printed an article about the Protocols entitled “The Jewish Peril, A Disturbing Pamphlet, A Call for an Enquiry. ” It concluded:
“An impartial investigation of these would-be documents and their history is most desirable…are we to dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of such a book as this work unchecked?”
Then in May 1922 Northcliffe visited Palestine and wrote that Britain had been too hasty to promise it to the Jewish people when in fact it belonged to 700,000 Muslim Arab residents.
Mr. Wickham Steed, the editor of The Times of London in 1921 refused to print the article and Northcliffe tried to get him fired. Somehow Steed was able to have Northcliffe declared “insane” and committed. Later Northcliffe complained he was being poisoned and died suddenly in 1922. Douglas Reed was Northcliffe’s secretary but didn’t learn of these events until they appeared in the Official History of the Times in the 1950’s.
Clearly Northcliffe had offended some “big boys” when he opposed the British Mandate in Palestine. Why was it so important? Israel is intended to be the capital of the Masonic World Government. They are already constructing the infrastructure. See “The Roots of Evil in Jerusalem.”
Philip Graves and the other apologists are incorrect to claim the Protocols plagiarize the Dialogues chapter by chapter. Graves writes that,
“the Seventh Dialogue…corresponds with the fifth, sixth, seventh and part of the eighth Protocol.”
At eight pages, these Protocols are twice as long as the Seventh Dialogue. They mostly contain material not in the Seventh Dialogue, or anywhere else. I will list a few examples from Protocol Five alone. Protocol Five says “our kingdom will be distinguished by a despotism of such magnificent proportions” that it will “wipe out any goyim who oppose us by deed or word.”
In contrast Seventh Dialogue says, “Death, expropriation and torture should only play a minor role in the internal politics of modern states.” Protocols Five says we “robbed [the goyim] of their faith in God” and “insinuated into their minds the conception of their own rights” thereby undermining the authority of Kings. There is nothing comparable in Dialogue Seven. Protocol Five says,
“we shall so wear down the goyim that they will be compelled to offer us international power [allowing us] gradually to absorb all State forces of the world and to form a Super-Government.”
There is nothing comparable in Dialogue Seven. Protocol Five says the “engine” of all states is “in our hands” and that engine is “Gold.” “We were chosen by God Himself to rule over the whole earth.” There is nothing comparable in Dialogue Seven.
The author of Protocols does select a few passages or references from Dialogues that appear unaltered (see Graves) or in different form. For example, the Dialogues’ say: “Everywhere might precedes right. Political liberty is merely a relative idea. The need to live is what dominates states as it does individuals.”
In Protocols this becomes,
“From the law of nature right lies in might. Political freedom is an idea but not a fact, and one must know how to use it [political freedom] as a bait whenever it appears necessary to attract the masses … to one’s party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority.” (Protocols 1)
Graves leaves out the last part to make the resemblance seem greater than it is. Dialogues (7) say, “Revolutionary ferment which is suppressed in one’s own country should be incited throughout Europe.”
In Protocols (7) “Throughout all Europe … we must create ferments, discords, hostilities.” There is no reference to suppressing these in one’s own country. The author of Protocols is not a forger creating a hoax, but a conspirator forging an original work.
Both books belong to the “immoral school” of political theory. Machiavelli pays homage to a long list of rulers “who are progenitors of my doctrine.” Both preach might makes right, “good” comes from evil, and the end justifies the means.
But the similarity ends there. The tone of the Dialogues is dry and theoretical. It is a debate between fictional political theorists: Montesquieu a champion of democracy and Machiavelli, a champion of tyranny. Dialogues is considered a critique of the reign of Napoleon III.
Montesquieu asks how to quell the spirit of anarchy in society. Machiavelli prescribes a “monster called the state” which maintains a democratic artifice but is actually controlled by the “Prince.” He talks about how to suppress secret societies. On the other hand, the tone of Protocols is frankly conspiratorial and subversive and pays homage to
Since Graves’ articles, there have been a few books arguing the “forgery” thesis. The latest is Norman Cohn, Warrant for Genocide (1970). Graves and Cohn admit that “the Financial Programme” (Protocols 20-24) which the author calls “the crowning and decisive point of our plans” is largely original.
For serious researchers, Australian researcher Peter Myers presents pro and con views.
I would like to be proven wrong, but in the case of Protocols, the “forgery” argument is propaganda.
History of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
Emerging from deep secrecy, portions of the Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion were brought to light in the late 19th Century in France. It is a fascinating story, presented here in a unique, unprecedented and thoroughly documented fashion. Months of intense research have gone into this work. In 1884, a Mademoiselle Justine Glinka, the daughter of a Russian general, was engaged in Paris in gathering political information for the court of Tzar Alexander III.
Glinka employed a Jewish agent named Joseph Schoerst, alias Shapiro, who had passed himself off as a Freemason and a member of the Mizraim Lodge, a Jewish Masonic order with its own particular rites and protocols. None other than Solomon Rothschild, scion of the Jewish banking dynasty, was a prominent member of the French Freemasons. Schoerst offered to Glinka for the sum of 2,500 francs, a document which he said would interest her greatly. This document contained extraordinary dictated writings from assorted speeches which would later be included in the final compilation of the Protocols of Zion.
Glinka quickly passed the document to her immediate superior in Paris, General Orgeyevski, who sent them, in turn, to General Cherevin, Minister of the Interior, for transmission directly to the Imperial Court in St Petersburg. Upon Cherevin’s death in 1896, he willed a copy of his memoirs containing the Protocols to Tzar Nicholas II. (View Sources Here, Here & Here.)
Glinka’s information eventually found its way into the hands of one Sergei Nilus, a highly educated Russian mystic attached to Tsar Nicholas II’s court who served as Minister of Foreign Religions. In 1902, Nilus published, “The Rule of Satan on Earth – Notes of an Orthodox Believer,” in which he cites excerpts from this early aggregation of the material first purchased by Madame Glinka.
Next stop for the Protocols occurred in 1903 when a prominent publisher by the name of Pavel Krusheva quoted writings from the Protocols in his daily newspaper, Znamya. After its publication, Krusheva suffered an attempt on his life and from that moment on, he lived in constant fear and had to carry weapons for his own protection. He also took the step of being accompanied by a personal cook to prevent being poisoned.
In 1905, Sergei Nilus published a new edition of his “Rule of Satan” which included a complete version of the Protocols as the final chapter. This was the first time a full compilation of the Protocols had been made available to the general public in book form.
In 1917, (the same year of the final Russian Revolution), Nilus had prepared a final edition – fully documented – but before he could distribute it, Kerensky, a half-Jew, who had succeeded to power after the Revolution and ordered the slaughter the Christian Tsar and his family in 1918, had most of the copies of the protocols destroyed. Anyone caught by the Bolsheviks in possession of The Protocols was shot on the spot.
In 1918, the Protocols appeared again in a Moscow periodical, The Sentinel, marked by the Jewish-led Bolsheviks as a counter-revolutionary newspaper. In February, 1919, the Bolsheviks ordered the newspaper shut down.
In 1924, Professor Nilus was arrested by the Jewish-dominated “Cheka,” imprisoned, and then tortured. He was told by the president of the court (who was Jewish) that this treatment was meted out to him for “having done them (the Zionist Bolshevik Jews) incalculable harm in publishing the Protocols.” (View Sources Here, Here, Here, Here & Here.)
The Protocols of Ginsberg and Pinsker
The dominating figure of the growing Zionist movement of the late 1800’s, was a Jew by the name of Asher Ginsberg, who adopted the pseudonym, “Achad Ha’am,” meaning “one of the people.” The son of a Jewish tax collector, Ginsberg was born in Kiev and later settled in Odessa, the Jewish center of activist agitation. Here he established in 1889 his Zionist group,“Sons Of Moses.” Steeped in the works of Nietzsche, it was to the Sons of Moses that Ginsberg delivered his “protocols” for the annihilation of Christian culture and the ascendancy of Jewish nationalism based on Nietzsche’s own nationalistic vision for Germany.
The meetings of this secret society were held in Ginsberg’s house. Among the first members were: Ben Avigdor, Zalman Epstein, Louis Epstein, and Jacob Eisenstaat. In early 1889, Ginsberg had broken with the more conservative forces of Zionism and moved into a radical position with his pamphlet, “This Is Not The Way.”
The intent of Ginsberg’s pamphlet was to oppose the “politically expedient” views of his former mentor, Leon Pinsker, a leader of the Lovers of Zion movement. Ginsberg wanted to first form a “national consciousness” in diaspora Jewry and the revival of conversational Hebrew prior to using political influence, as Pinsker promoted, for the establishing of a Jewish state.
Differences notwithstanding as regards timing, Pinsker did not differ from Ginsberg in the use of power to achieve their shared Zionist goals. In his book, “Auto-Emancipation,” Pinsker described the master-method to bring about this “self-emancipation” and to “restore the Jewish nation”:
A striking similarity to Pinsker’s political program is found in Protocol No. 1:
“Only force and cunning conquers in political affairs. Therefore we must not stop at bribery, deceit, and treachery for the attainment of our end. In politics one must know how to seize the rule of others if by it we secure submission and sovereignty.”
Following in the footsteps of his mentor, Ginsberg’s forceful rhetoric, yet with a novel and direct appeal to fanaticism, also resembled the style of The Protocols when he insisted:
Ginsberg’s call for an aggressive Jewish nationalism is clearly mirrored in Protocol No. 5:
“We shall so wear down the Goyim that they will be compelled to offer us an international authority which by its position will enable us to absorb all the governmental forces of the world and thus form a super-government.”
It is through persons who lived in Odessa at that time that information was obtained that a manuscript of the “Protocols” in Hebrew was circulated among the Jews.
Later, a Jew by the name of Herman Bernstein, publisher of the “Free Press” of Detroit, while claiming the Protocols to be a forgery, admitted in the presence of William Cameron secretary to Henry Ford, that he had personally read the Protocols in their published Hebrew form in Odessa.
During the Jewish-led Bolshevik Revolution, few towns were so torn as Odessa, where Ginsberg taught the destruction of Christian society, a basic tenet of The Protocols. Among other outrages such as the raping of Christian women and girls, a Christian orphanage was destroyed and all the children shot to death. Racism and a deadly mockery of non-Jewish life was already an established practice of world Zionism. (View Sources Here, Here, Here & Here.)
CLASSIFIED US INTELLIGENCE DOCUMENTS investigating international financial issues surrounding WWI were compiled in August 1919. These sensitive documents were given SECRET classification until 1973. A hard copy of this document may be obtained from US National Archives in Washington DC – its number is 245-1. On page 5 of the document, the public writings of Theodore Herzl, hailed as the father of world political Zionism, are cited as having “identity of thought found in the Protocols.” This long-suppressed, finally declassified document, displays striking similarities between Herzl’s essay published in 1897 titled “The Jewish State” and Protocols 1 and 20:
“Every point which arises in the relations between nations is a question of might. I do not here surrender any portion of our prescriptive right when I make this statement.
In the world as it now is and will probably remain, might precedes right. For us to be loyal patriots as were the Huguenots who were forced to emigrate is therefore useless. The Jews must acquire economic power sufficiently great to overcome prejudice against them.
From The Protocols:
“According to the law of being, might is right. Our right lies in force. Through our financial dominance we will manipulate capital, create depressions, and bankrupt Gentile states.
In our hands is the greatest power of our day — gold. We shall not fail with such wealth to prove that all the evil we have had to commit has served to bringing everything into order.
We shall contrive to prove that we are benefactors who have restored to the mangled earth the true good of the person, on the condition, of course, of strict observance of the laws established by us.”
Closely associated with Theodore Herzl, was Max Nordau, who convinced the Zionist leader to organize the First Zionist Congress of 1897. Nordau was born Simcha Sudfeld in 1849 in Budapest and later changed his name to create a “Gentile” public face. It was at the First Zionist Congress, held in Basel, Switzerland, that Nordau was elected to serve as Vice President to the Presidency of Herzl. At the Sixth Zionist Congress in 1903, Nordau announced the Zionist plan as a fait accompli for the next two decades:
“The rungs of our ladder lead upward and upward: The First Zionist Congress – The English Proposition For A Jewish Homeland – The Future World