The Protocols of Joly

Anyone who starts looking into the Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion will frequently encounter the old chestnut about a "hoax" or a "forgery". When Philip Graves made the allegation in 1921, long before the days of the internet and all the pages detailing the various logical fallacies, his target audience had never heard of a circular argument or a non sequitur. Debunking Graves is as easy as falling off a log.

Proponents of the "forgery" theory have an argument that runs like this: 1) Several passages within the Protocols of Zion were plagiarised from a previous work: Maurice Joly's The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu. 2) Only evil, racist, hate-filled anti-Semites could have resorted to plagiarism, since Jews are as innocent as newborn lambs. 3) This proves that evil, racist, hate-filled anti-Semites fabricated the Protocols of Zion, and the work is a fraud, a forgery and a hoax.

The forgery theorists will frequently not even bother to include part 2). By going from their premise 1) directly to their conclusion 3), their argument becomes a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. In order to get from 1) to 3), they must include other postulates such as 2). Although premise 1) is true, premise 2) and conclusion 3) are both false. Clearly, the hypothetical "anti-Semites", alleged by Jews to have authored the Protocols with the help of a bit of plagiarism, do not have a monopoly on copying other people's work. Jewish supremacists who were plotting world conquest had more motives for plagiarism than the alleged "anti-Semites". Both would have saved time and effort. Jewish supremacists also had a powerful motive in that if the Protocols was discovered, they would be able to blame "anti-Semites", citing the "forgery" charge as their 'proof'.

Ultimately, as we shall see, the decision to have the Protocols writers deliberately copy previous works in such a way that a number of parallel passages were strikingly obvious was taken by Alphonse de Rothschild. His inspiration for this contingency plan, of crying "forgery" in the event of discovery, can be traced to the fact that around 1889, at the time of his Protocols project, he discovered that merchants from countries such as Russia were bottling cheap wine and selling it with "Lafite Rothschild" labels on the bottles. Thus, with the pirates forging Rothschild's labels, the concept of forgery would have been playing on his mind. And whatever his views were on Russians, the experience would hardly have changed them for the better!

When the Protocols Deniers put up their non sequitur argument and don't explicitly state 2), they are aware that many of their dupes will implicitly assume 2), given how the mainstream media has conditioned many people to perceive Jews - and "anti-Semites". Alternatively, if they do include 2), they have inserted a false postulate, and thus their argument is circular. They have started out with their desired conclusion, and have set up a false proposition in order to obtain their conclusion.

Philip Graves states four "conclusions" as his 'evidence' of "forgery":

  1. The Protocols are largely a paraphrase of The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, or as Graves calls it, the Geneva Dialogues. As shown above, that is not evidence of forgery. Moreover, Graves is forced to concede that "there is no evidence as to how the Geneva Dialogues reached Russia", which is consistent with the Protocols originating somewhere other than Russia. How odd that when the Russians are supposed to be "forging" a document, instead of Russians in Russia writing it in Russian, it is supposed to be Russians in Paris writing it in French, according to the "forgery" proponents' own conspiracy theory!
  2. The Protocols "served as a weapon against the Russian Liberals". Again, this is not evidence of forgery, since the Protocols would have served as a political "weapon" irrespective of who authored them. In order for "forged" Protocols to be as useful to the Russian conservatives as the genuine article, the forger would need to do an excellent job - and forgery proponents contend that the easily spotted parallel passages occurred as a result of a "rush job", as opposed to a deliberate planting of 'evidence' that was intended to be so obvious that it could hardly be missed in the event of the Protocols' discovery.
  3. "The Protocols were paraphrased very hastily and carelessly." Again, if the paraphrasing was sloppy, that doesn't prove who did it. However, Jewish supremacists would be aware that the work might be discovered, and would plan accordingly. They would have a powerful motive to do a hasty job of paraphrasing, so that the plagiarism would detected within two or three decades, would be more evident upon discovery, and "anti-Semites" could be blamed for the "forgery". Any hypothetical "anti-Semites" would have more motive to do a good job, so that their "fraud" might remain undetected and the Protocols would continue to serve a political purpose.
  4. Where the Protocols are not derived from the Geneva Dialogues, they "were probably supplied by the Okhrana" (the Russian secret police). This is simply wishful thinking and baseless speculation on the part of Graves. As we shall see, the Okhrana's archives were saved, shipped to the US, and opened in 1957, and there was zero evidence of a plot to forge the Protocols. Moreover, there is ample evidence that the Okhrana did not create the Protocols.

Amusingly, the former French Chief Rabbi Gilles Bernheim, an Ashkenazi Jew, was recently exposed as a plagiarist who lied about his credentials. The Jewish Daily Forward tells of how Bernheim's 2011 book Forty Jewish Meditations was found to have "long passages [that] repeated word for word an earlier book by the eminent philosopher Jean-François Lyotard." Bernheim first attempted to invert the accusations, blaming Lyotard - who'd died in 1998 - for having plagiarised one of Bernheim's earlier works. This claim soon fell apart, and then Bernheim tried to blame a research assistant. But it gets even better - Bernheim was found to have plagiarised several other people, including Elie Wiesel! And then it turned out that Bernheim was not the intellectual that he purported to be; he claimed to have a doctorate in philosophy, but had never finished his degree.

RabbiBernheimPlagiarist photo RabbiBernheimPlagiarist_zps58c55b57.png

Source: The Jewish Daily Forward

The actor Shia LaBeouf, born to a Jewish mother, which according to Jews makes him "a Jew" whatever he might believe, has got himself into a few scrapes. In February 2005 he rammed his car into the back of his neighbor's car, rather than wait a minute for the neighbor to finish chatting to his girlfriend and move out of the way, and later appeared at the neighbor's front door waving a kitchen knife. A little later at the age of 19, LaBeouf went to a neighbor's apartment with a knife to confront him for insulting his mother, taking a friend for backup. They were seen off by the guy and six of his friends. Labeouf got into a fight and threatened to pull a knife in Vancouver in 2011, and in 2014 head-butted a man after an argument in a London pub.

But it gets better. LaBeouf proved to be quite a plagiarist. His short film, released December 2013, was found to have close similarities with a 2007 comic by Dan Clowes, including an identical opening monologue. When LaBeouf apologized to Clowes, it was noted that the apology itself was lifted from a 2010 post on Yahoo! Answers. LaBeouf's comic books were later found to have been plagiarised from Benoît Duteurtre's The Little Girl and the Cigarette and Charles Bukowski's Assault. Eventually, LaBeouf's plagiarism was so prevalent that Time Magazine ran a piece entitled A Brief History of Shia LaBeouf Copying the Work of Others, citing no less than fourteen examples.

According to Rabbi Avraham Yosef, son of the late Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, it is acceptable under Jewish law to plagiarise academic papers. If a student takes someone else's paper, copies it, and changes the wording in an attempt to conceal the plagiarism, Jewish law not only permits it, but the plagiarist would be doing "the mitzvah of charity".

Professor Lewis Wolpert, a British developmental biologist who was born into a South-African Jewish family, apologised after it was found that more than twenty passages in his 2011 book on aging, You're Looking Well, had been lifted from Wikipedia, academic websites and other online sources. He also apologised for having plagiarised other online sources for another unpublished book, and said, "after a gap of maybe weeks or sometimes months, I simply did not recall that I had not written these passages myself".

In short, anyone who continues to claim the Protocols is a "forgery" because parts of it were plagiarised might as well have a tattoo branded on their forehead. There are two choices: "CRETIN", or "LIAR".

There is no denying that parts of the Protocols were plagiarised, and the plagiarism is strikingly obvious - exactly as if the writer had intended it to be found. For example, Joly's First Dialogue says:

"...bad instincts among men are more powerful than the good ones. Man has more enthusiasm for evil than for good; fear and force have more control over him than reason. [...] All men aspire to domination and there is none who would not be an oppressor if he could; all or almost all are ready to sacrifice the rights of others for their own interests.
What restrains the devouring animals that one calls men? At the origin of society, there was brutal and unchecked force; later it was the law, that is to say, force still, ruled by forms. You have consulted all the sources of history; everywhere force appears before rights.
Political liberty is only a relative idea; the necessity to live is what dominates the States as well as individuals."

And from Protocol No. 1:

"It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorisation, and not by academic discussions. Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who would not be willing to sacrifice the welfare of all for the sake of securing their own welfare.
What has restrained the beasts of prey who are called men? What has served for their guidance hitherto?
In the beginnings of the structure of society, they were subjected to brutal and blind force; afterwards - to Law, which is the same force, only disguised. I draw the conclusion that by the law of nature, right lies in force.
Political freedom is an idea but not a fact."

And some of those little differences arise from translation. Only the most diehard coincidence theorist would claim that the similarities are merely coincidental.

The Protocols writer used Joly's metaphor from the Twelfth Dialogue about the hundred arms or hands of the god Vishnu, in Protocol Nos. 12 and 17.

And in the Thirteenth Dialogue, Joly's Machiavelli is discussing how he would deal with secret societies. Those that could be infiltrated would be used as "a useful channel of information and a means to influence affairs", because the "underground world of secret societies is filled with empty-heads who [...] can take directions [and] represent a force that can be put in motion." Referring to those "empty-headed" secret society members, the fictional Machiavelli says: "These tigers have the souls of sheep. They're airheads." Protocol No. 15, referring to the "goyim" in the Masonic lodges, says: "These tigers in appearance have the souls of sheep and the wind blows freely through their heads."

However, if paragraphs where the plagiarism is strikingly obvious are taken out, that still leaves about 95% of the Protocols. Another source that's been plagiarised is a chapter of a book by Hermann Goedsche, but after allowing for that, along with copying where the paraphrasing is more creative, there is still much original material in the Protocols. Rather than a simple plagiarism job, as the Jews love to pretend it is, it's mostly a superb blueprint for world conquest, but padded with some blindingly obvious plagiarism, the purpose of which was to allow the Jews to cry "forgery" in the event of discovery. Thus, their blueprint for world domination could be documented, and could exist in plain sight, yet anyone who pointed out the reality would be denounced as an "anti-Semite" or a "conspiracy theorist" who was citing nothing more than a "proven" "forgery".

It's been suggested that Joly himself plagiarised a previous document, but no one has been able to present any evidence for that. (The claim that Joly plagiarized Jacob Venedey cannot be substantiated, and was correctly refuted by Ronald S. Green; see below.) If Joly and Goedsche were employed by Jewry and working from some still undiscovered template that was also used to write the Protocols, that would account for their books happening to be available at the right time. However, it doesn't explain why the conspirators would wait a quarter of a century to write the Protocols, after Joly's Dialogue was published in 1864. And in that case, if Joly or Goedsche departed too far from the template, one of the Protocols writers would have still needed to plagiarise Joly, in order to make the plagiarised passages quite obvious, so they could have some newspaper 'expose' the parallel passages and the "forgery". There's no evidence that Joly or Goedsche were agents of Jewry, and there really is no need to postulate a conspiracy to account for the existence of Joly's and Goedsche's books. The best account of events is simply that the conspirators were aware of both books at the time they made the decision to plagiarise, and they chose to take advantage of them.

Protocols deniers and anti-Gentile Jewish supremacists have made several other clumsy attempts at refutation, of which the most recent features a rehash of earlier claims that Matvei (Mathieu) Vasilyevich Golovinski was the "forger". It turns out that their Golovinski conspiracy theory would require a suspension of the laws of causality, a willingness to see evidence where none exists, and a deliberate avoidance of the preponderance of evidence that refutes it, which makes it exactly the same as the official 9/11 conspiracy theory - absolute nonsense! But to see the Golovinski gambit in its proper context, we should first look into the program described in the Protocols and see how it corresponds with future events and Jewish behavior. That investigation yields some clues as to when and how the grand conspiracy was born, who is behind it, and what it involves. Then we can evaluate the Jews' conspiracy theories regarding the Protocols' creation, and compare with "anti-Semitic" accounts of how the work was apparently discovered, brought to Russia and published. Pro- and anti-Gentile alike mostly agree that the Protocols originated in Paris and was brought to Russia, but the character of witnesses who testify in defense of the Jews, and the sheer ineptness of their claims, provides evidence of deceit on the part of anti-Gentile propagandists.

Amusingly, the Jews' star witness for their assertion that the Protocols is a "forgery" turns out to be a convicted forger, fraudster, blackmailer, briber and jailbird, who had been married to a German, and had to spend two hours at Ellis Island persuading (and most likely bribing!) the authorities to let her into the US twenty-three days after the US declared war against Germany in 1917, by telling them a bizarre story about having a "dead" "double" who was the forger, and about having a husband who was a German engineer who gave up his career to become an importer, and gave up his German citizenship to become a Swede. From 1921 to 1935, Jewry continued to channel their physically impossible conspiracy theory through this proven fraudster after her antics had been thoroughly exposed, e.g., in The New York Times. It is inconceivable that Jewry's leaders were incapable of seeing through her deception throughout that time, rather like supporters of the War in Iraq were supposed to be too foolish to know that documentary 'evidence' of Saddam trying to obtain uranium yellowcake from Niger was a forgery, long after it had already been pointed out by those of a more rational - and honest - persuasion. It could hardly get much better than that!

(See here for an alternative version of the Protocols in modern English.)

Protocol No. 12 tells of a plan to control the Press.

"Not a single announcement will reach the public without our control. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them. [...] All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions— aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical—for so long, of course, as the constitution exists .... Like the Indian idol Vishnu they will have a hundred hands, and every one of them will have a finger on any one of the public opinions as required. When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them."

In March 1893, The New York Times wrote, "Owing to the leading position of the Jews in the money markets of Europe...". For some, that's taking honesty too far. In 1896, Adolph Ochs, of Jewish descent, acquired The New York Times. Nowadays, the Jews themselves love to remind everyone about all the "Jews In The American Media". The situation is the same in Britain, for example, where the Jews admit they were already "a major factor in British journalism" by the middle of the 19th century.

Here are a few "Jews In The American Media", from the hyperlink above:

JewsAmericanMedia photo JewsAmericanMedia_zps1fc18194.png


(That's only a tiny sample of those listed on that page alone.) Some skeptics might be asking, "Is a 'conspiracy' website that has made this up?" Apart from the fact that the information can be verified, anyone who checks out the site will immediately see that it is a pro-Judaism website.

SimpleToRemember photo SimpleToRemember_zpsdeceb1f2.png

In some cases, a verification of information shows it to be sufficiently accurate to prove the point, but it is not 100% correct. For instance, the example above has a pro-Judaism website carrying the claim that Rupert Murdoch's mother was "Jewish", but the issue of Murdoch's "Jewish" heritage is hotly contested. The assertion that Elisabeth Joy Murdoch née Greene was Jewish cannot be verified, although it is admitted that her mother Marie Grace de Lancey Forth was "a descendant of Nathaniel Parker Forth, the diplomat and secret agent who worked as a British spy during the French Revolution". And it is undeniable that Rupert Murdoch is a long-time friend of Benjamin Netanyahu, a long-time friend of Jacob Rothschild (ever since Murdoch came to Britain in the Sixties, when Rothschild helped Murdoch buy the News of the World), had a Jew (Peter Chernin) as his second-in-command for many years, and has consistently served as an outlet for pro-Jewish, pro-Zionist, pro-Israel views. When the piper helps to finance someone's career, the protégé will dance to the piper's tune. Murdoch serves as a conservative 'opposition' to the liberal Jewish media, but those who imagine that Murdoch is in "their own camp" and thereby repeat the views expressed in his media are merely choosing to "follow the flag which [Jews] hang out for them." And it is undeniable that Jewish representation in the American media vastly exceeds their percentage of the American population.

It would be the easiest thing in the world to compile a load of fantastic, unreferenced claims from conspiratorially-minded websites and use them to 'prove' that some group - the "Vatican", the "Nazis", the "Islamists", the "lizards" or whatever - was secretly running the world. But that would be pointless. The internet contains some great information that cannot be found in daily newspapers or local bookstores, and thereby is irreplaceable as a superb tool for self-education. The more nonsense that is put online, the worse the signal to noise ratio on the internet, and the less valuable it becomes. The information on this page is based on mainstream sources and verifiable facts.

Protocol No. 2 tells of a plan to establish puppets, under the control of the real rulers, as presidents or prime ministers. They will be chosen for their inability to lead and their capacity for obedience, and will be told what to do by their "advisers".

"The administrators, whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers, specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world. As is well known to you, these specialists of ours have been drawing to fit them for rule the information they need from our political plans from the lessons of history, from observations made of the events of every moment as it passes. The goyim are not guided by practical use of unprejudiced historical observation, but by theoretical routine without any critical regard for consequent results. We need not, therefore, take any account of them - let them amuse themselves until the hour strikes, or live on hopes of new forms of enterprising pastime, or on the memories of all they have enjoyed."

And Protocol No. 10 adds:

"Then it was that the era of republics became possible of realization; and then it was that we replaced the ruler by a caricature of a government - by a president, taken from the mob, from the midst of our puppet creatures, our slaves. [...] the responsible president, a puppet in our hands."

George "Dubya" Bush, a "dry drunk", was not even capable of swallowing a pretzel, had several mishaps with bicycles, and even managed to drop his dog. The Bush Administration was riddled with Jews, who are 2.2% of the US population. Obama has also had plenty of Jewish advisors. He thinks that Hawaii is in Asia, America is "the country that built the Intercontinental Railroad", and if his teleprompter is a minute late when he's starting a speech, he says "Just waiting, here", followed by a minute of unexplained, embarrassing silence. According to The Times of Israel, "Far more than any previous president, Obama spent his adulthood in the company of Jews. His most important professional mentors were Jews; most of his big donors were Jews; many of his neighbors were Jews; his chief political consultant was a Jew. As [Rabbi Arnold Jacob] Wolf himself would later say, Obama was 'embedded in the Jewish world'."

In Britain, the suitably psychopathic and career-oriented Tony Blair was introduced to the Jewish businessman Lord (Michael) Levy in 1994 at a dinner in the Israeli Embassy, and the rest is history. The inescapable conclusion is that Levy agreed to do all he could to get Blair elected, provided Blair agreed never to act against Israeli interests whilst he was leader. The Zionist Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation strongly supported Blair, whose closest ally Peter Mandelson, of Jewish descent, was at the heart of the "New Labour" project. Mandelson had originally backed Gordon Brown to become party leader, but switched his support to Tony Blair, who went on to win the 1997 election with the biggest majority held by any government since 1935. Blair had such a close relationship with the Zionist press that Murdoch divorced his third wife Wendi Deng, after Blair had been secretly meeting her around the world and Deng had written a secret note praising Blair's "good body", "good legs" and various other attributes. Blair is an interesting example of the Protocols' "puppet creatures", as nowadays, every time Blair opens his mouth, you may be sure his rants are simply Zionist lies and propaganda that are almost the polar opposite to the truth. A former friend described him as a "narcissist" with a "Messiah complex" who is "quite disconnected from reality". The friend suggests Blair went mad as a result of his time in office. That's certainly how it would appear, and he could be right. Blair's mentors and paymasters had fed him such a massive web of lies to regurgitate that the only remaining question is, does he still understand that he is lying for profit, or have the lies become, for him, 'reality'?

In 2005, David Davis was initially the popular favorite to win the leadership contest for the opposition Conservative party. However, Davis was a relatively rare type of politician who regarded principles such as serving the public and the defense of liberty as more important than career, whereas David Cameron, the great-great-great-great-great-grandson of King William IV, the fifth cousin twice-removed of Queen Elizabeth II, and the great-great-grandson of Emile Levita from a Jewish family, could be relied upon to represent the powers-that-be rather than the electorate. After the Zionist press touted how brilliant Cameron supposedly was, he was elected opposition leader, and then prime minister. Protocol No. 1 states that "Great national qualities, like frankness and honesty, are vices in politics...".

This is how the system works in a Rothschildian "democracy". It's not what they know, but who they know, and it's why voters are lumbered with a never-ending barrage of mediocrity, incompetence, warmongering, narcissism and even psychopathy. Time and again, the Jewish press will excitedly proclaim how great some president or prime minister is, how clever they are at understanding policy, how they're in touch with the ordinary people, etc. That's just before, or just after, they've been elected. You can bet it won't be long before the "honeymoon period" is over, the 'leader' totally ignores the wishes of most of the people, and instead takes the policy that best serves the shadow government - such as declaring war against Iraq.

Protocol No. 3 says:

"We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces - Socialists, Anarchists, Communists - to whom we always give support in accordance with an alleged brotherly rule (of the solidarity of all humanity) of our social masonry. The aristocracy, which enjoyed by law the labor of the workers, was interested in seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy, and strong. We are interested in just the opposite - in the diminution, the killing out of the goyim."

The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution was a Jewish coup d'état. The 1939 book A Program for the Jews and An Answer to all Anti-Semites; A Program for Humanity by Rabbi Harry Waton, a Marxist Jew, admitted that Communism is Jewish and the Jews aim to conquer the world. Waton wrote, "Since the Jews are the highest and most cultured people on earth, the Jews have a right to subordinate to themselves the rest of mankind and to be the masters over the whole earth."

The composition of the first Soviet government was 80-85% Jewish, according to Russian President Vladimir Putin. In other research published in The Cause of World Unrest (various authors), a list of fifty Bolshevik leaders either in government or responsible for establishing the regime shows that forty-three of them (86%) were Jewish. There was also a document drawn up in the Kremlin in 1918 containing detailed instructions to Bolshevist agents abroad; the plans closely corresponded with parts of the Protocols. Leon Trotsky was a Jew whose real name was Lev Davidovitch Bronshteyn (or Bronstein). Vladimir Lenin's maternal grandfather, the son of Moses Blank, was from a Jewish family. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn told of how Jews were perpetrators as well as victims, and were not treated as harshly in the camps.

In the collection of reports in this 70 MB .pdf, Report No. 6, Sir M. Findlay to Mr. Balfour, for example, states - after accounts of shootings, and of prisoners crowded twenty in a cell twenty by ten feet with one bed and no food provided by authorities: "I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world, as it is organised and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."

BolshevikJews photo BolshevikJews_zpsff0b6151.png

Source: (70 MB .pdf)

In other reports, e.g., No. 15 states "All trade and commerce - except illicit trading which is still carried on by the Jews - is at a complete standstill." No. 32 states "The Bolsheviks comprised chiefly Jews and Germans, who were exceedingly active and enterprising." No. 33 says "Witnesses further stated that Bolshevik leaders did not represent Russian working classes, most of them being Jews. 'As a result of refusal of 4,000 labourers near Ekaterinburg to support local Bolsheviks many were arrested, and twelve were suffocated alive in slag gas-pit, their mutilated bodies being buried afterwards, and ninety peasants taken out of Ekaterinburg prison, where they had been thrown because they objected to Bolsheviks requisitioning their cattle, &c., were brutally murdered.'" No. 38 states "WITH regard to the murder of Imperial family at Ekaterinburg, there is further evidence to show that there were two parties in the local Soviet, one which was anxious to save Imperial family, and the latter, headed by five Jews, two of whom were determined to have them murdered. These two Jews, by name Vainen and Safarof, went with Lenin when he made a journey across Germany. [...] The massacre was carried out with revolvers. The doctor, Botkine, the maid, the valet, and the cook were murdered in this room as well as the seven members of the Imperial family. They only spared the life of the cook's nephew, a boy of fourteen." Report No. 56 forwards "...the following details with reference to Bolshevism in Russia:- [...] It originated in German propaganda, and was, and is, being carried out by international Jews. [...] Their tenets. Radically to destroy all ideas of patriotism and nationality by preaching the doctrine of internationalism which proved successful amongst the uncultured masses of the labouring classes. [...] The Results. All business became paralysed, shops were closed, Jews became possessors of most of the business houses, and horrible scenes of starvation became common in the country districts. The peasants put their children to death rather than see them starve."

Or see these reports on Bolshevik barbarity. And, for example, Rev. B. S. Lombard writes, of Bolshevism in Russia, "It originated in German propaganda, and was, and is being, carried out by international Jews."

The Bolshevik Revolution was financed by "American" Jewish banker Jacob Schiff, who was head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co.; he provided Trotsky with $20,000,000 in gold. "German" Jewish banker Max Warburg provided Lenin with $6,000,000, with the logistical support of the Jewish Marxist Alexander Parvus aka Israel Gelfand. (Warburg's brother Paul married Nina Loeb, the daughter of Solomon Loeb. Felix Warburg married Frieda Schiff. And Otto Kahn, whose banker father Bernhard participated in the German revolution in 1848, married Addie Wolff, the daughter of Solomon Loeb's old partner Abraham Wolff.) Once the Bolsheviks had assumed control, Christian wealth was looted, in what has been described as "history's greatest heist". Jewish Bolshevik "looting included everything from the cash savings of private citizens to gold, silver, diamonds, jewelry, icons, antiques, and artwork". Some of this was, no doubt, transferred back to Jewish banks overseas. One report states that Kuhn, Loeb, alone, received "600 million roubles in gold" between 1918 and 1922. Thus, apart from achieving their political objectives, the Jews made an excellent return on their investment.

Protocol No. 5 states:

"In place of the rulers of to-day we shall set up a bogey which will be called the Super-Government Administration. Its hands will reach out in all directions like nippers and its organization will be of such colossal dimensions that it cannot fail to subdue all the nations of the world."

European governments chose to forsake their national interests for a political project that was first deceptively touted as the "Common Market" or the European Economic Community, and claimed to be solely an economic arrangement. Later, the pretense was abandoned, and in 1993 it morphed into the European Union, aka the European Community. Some bizarre EU laws were quite amusing, such as the banning of bananas with "abnormal curvature", although that particular directive was repealed in 2008. In Britain, it became a criminal offense to sell bananas by the pound rather than in metric units.

On a more serious note, the European Commission's vice-president Viviane Reding admitted in February 2014 that the plan was to build a "United States of Europe", with the Commission as government.

British ministers admitted they were "powerless" to stop new European legislation forcing the installation of eCall tracker devices in all new cars from October 2015. The spy gadget, which is supposed to improve safety, will allow police and insurance companies to monitor drivers' every move whilst adding at least £100 to the cost of cars. The EU anti-nationalist program also helped to promote collective madness such as the banning of incandescent light bulbs, allegedly to counter "man-made global warming". The latter is easily debunked from the fact that Mars has more carbon dioxide than Earth but absolutely no global warming, and the fact that there has been no warming on Earth since 1999. (If the pseudoscience-based warmist cult hate warming so much, they should build themselves a rocket and blast off for Mars. Or better yet, the vacuum of space.) Alternative bulbs are more expensive and present risks such as blindness, skin cancer, migraine, epileptic seizures, mercury ingestion, etc. Wikipedia claims Brazil and Venezuela began phasing out incandescent bulbs in 2005, but their link does not support the claim. Brazil started phasing out in June 2012, long after Castro's Cuba was the first to introduce it in 2005. European bureaucrats followed with further lunacy: a ban on the manufacture and import of vacuum cleaners with motors exceeding 1,600 watts; and a plan to restrict the wattage to 900 by 2017.

The "inner members" of the EU had been persuaded to give up their national currencies for the Euro, on the grounds that this would save a few pennies for trade and industry by eliminating currency conversion costs. But the one-size-fits-all monetary policy was always going to end in tears. Under-performing countries could no longer regain lost competitiveness by a natural devaluation of currency, and it was no longer possible to have a simultaneous curb on inflation and housing booms in hotspots whilst stimulating areas of high unemployment. By 2011, Ireland's temporary boom was followed by the inevitable bust, with treatment at suicide prevention centers increasing by one-third. Ireland's €85 billion ($117 billion) bail-out and austerity plan was concluded at the end of 2013. Greece, Portugal and Cyprus also needed bail-outs, and although it wasn't officially a bail-out, Spain's banking sector had to be propped up with EU funds. By 2014, Greece was struggling to service debts of 176% of GDP, had already received two bail-outs to the tune of €240 billion ($330 billion), and was in need of a third bail-out package. In short, a project that was supposed to provide economic benefit proved an economic disaster, and its true political goal of subduing national power soon became all too obvious.

In North America, a similar program is underway with NAFTA. The winners are the international corporations and those who want to emasculate and do away with the nation-state; the losers are the ordinary working people who face downward pressure on wages and lower living conditions. The effect is to "harmonize" standards and conditions in a downward direction.

After WWI, the League of Nations was supposedly set up to prevent any future world wars. After WWII, when it had failed at its task, it was replaced by the UN in 1946. The UN  became involved in matters such as annexing thousands of square miles of Middle East real estate to form a Jewish State.

Protocol No. 6 states:

"We shall raise the rate of wages which, however, will not bring any advantage to the workers, for at the same time, we shall produce a rise in prices of the first necessities of life, alleging that it arises from the decline of agriculture and cattle-breeding: we shall further undermine artfully and deeply sources of production, by accustoming the workers to anarchy and to drunkenness and side by side therewith taking all measures to extirpate from the fact of the earth all the educated forces of the goyim."

Russia resorted to printing millions of roubles to finance WWI. With no corresponding increase in production of goods or services, this inevitably led to inflation, and prices in 1917 were four times higher than in 1914. Another source says "retail prices in Moscow doubled in the first two years of the war and then accelerated dramatically in 1916 and early 1917, more than trebling in twelve months".

Britain's inflation went above 20% during WWI, and then again in the 1970s. In the US, inflation ranged from 13% to 20% for most of WWI, and the "Great Inflation" starting in the 1970s peaked in 1980 at around 14%.

Apart from the Protocols' statements on inflation, there are frequent boasts about having the "gold [...] in our hands", e.g. Protocol Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 22.

In 2004, reports told of how NM Rothschild was going to "pull out of the gold market", a move that would "bring to an end nearly 200 years of tradition" following Nathan Mayer Rothschild's founding of the London company in 1810, and his financing of "the Duke of Wellington's army in the Napoleonic wars through gold trading". Rothschild had established a brilliantly effective communications network between London and his four brothers who were living in France and Germany. (It was not until after the Battle of Waterloo when Salomon and Karl went to Vienna and Naples respectively. And Amschel II took over the Frankfurt office.) Apart from employing their own trusted couriers, many of their letters were sent by carrier pigeon, and the brothers used their own code which allowed them to make frank, often crude, comments regarding the leading characters of their time. They wrote in Judendeutsch, which is German written in Hebrew characters, and also had their own code words. For example, if they wrote "taking fish to Jerusalem", it meant they were moving gold to London.

Credible sources such as Frederic Morton have told of how Nathan Mayer made a fortune by having knowledge of Wellington's success at Waterloo in advance of other Stock Exchange members. Morton wrote in his The Rothschilds [p. 54]: "On June 19, 1815, late in the afternoon a Rothschild agent named Rothworth jumped into a boat at Ostend. In his hand he held a Dutch gazette still damp from the printer. By the dawn light of June 20, Nathan Rothschild stood at Folkstone harbor and let his eye fly over the lead paragraphs. A moment later he was on his way to London (beating Wellington's envoy by many hours) to tell the government that Napoleon had been crushed. Then he proceeded to the stock exchange." Rothschild is said to have sold consols (government bonds), prompting panic selling as Exchange members assumed that Wellington had been defeated, and Rothschild "knew" it. But secretly, Rothschild agents were buying at rock-bottom prices. Nathan made a killing by buying "a giant parcel for a song", just before Wellington's envoy arrived with the news of victory.

John Reeves' The Rothschilds: The Financial Rulers of Nations [pp. 169-175] has a more romantic version of the legend that sounds too good to be true, in which Rothschild himself "proceeded to Belgium and followed close in the wake of the English army." When he was satisfied that the English side had won, he "spurred his horse back towards Brussels", procured a carriage to take him to Ostend at full speed, bribed a fisherman with two thousand francs to cross the Channel in stormy seas, and procured "the swiftest post-horses to be had" for the final leg back to London. According to Reeves, Rothschild "pocketed nearly a million sterling" by way of his Waterloo manipulations, and since his "friends" (rivals) on the Stock Exchange were aware of Rothschild's agents who were openly selling, but were unaware of his unknown agents who were secretly buying, many "pitied Rothschild for the enormous losses he had, as they thought, suffered."

Of all the times that shills have been employed - for business or propaganda purposes, this has to be one of the most successful ever! And  Morton has a higher estimate: "The Battle of Waterloo established England as the foremost European power. To the Rothschilds, her chief financial agents, Waterloo brought a many-million pound scoop."

Recently, the Rothschilds and their 'historian' lackeys have been attempting damage control with a claim that the entire legend "originated in an anti-Semitic French pamphlet in 1846" and was later promoted by Reeves, Morton and others in error. If so, then the "anti-Semites" were so clever at crafting the legend that they succeeded in duping Reeves, Morton, etc., (analogous to long-running claims about the Protocols!!), along with the Rothschild family members who advised and authorised Reeves and Morton. And the Rothschilds never resorted to insider trading, but had a highly improbable run of consistent good luck, in a highly competitive marketplace. And it was just a "coincidence" that the Rothschild fortune rapidly increased from £136,000 in 1815 to £1,772,000 in 1818, a 13-fold increase in three years (see below).

See here for a Rothschild genealogy, which shows that the various Lord Rothschilds are eldest sons on the Nathan Mayer Rothschild line.

Protocols Nos.20 and 21 tell of how the Elders plan to operate as moneylenders in order to exploit over-spending by the "goy governments". For example, Protocol No. 21:

"We have taken advantage of the venality of administrators and the slackness of rulers to get our moneys twice, thrice and more times over, by lending to the goy governments moneys which were not at all needed by the States. [...] For the payment of interest it becomes necessary to have resource to new loans, which do not swallow up but only add to the capital debt. And when this credit is exhausted it becomes necessary by new taxes to cover, not the loan, but only the interest on it. These taxes are a debit employed to cover a debit..."

In the example given in Protocol No. 20 where the interest is 5 per cent, the moneylender gets his money back every 20 years, or thrice the value after 60 years, etc. By "thrice and more times over", the Elders are reckoning on a minimum time of more than 60 years before they "come into [their] kingdom", at the conservative estimate of 5% interest. In the meantime, far from repaying the capital, the "goy government" is getting into ever-increasing debt as it increases spending and also has to pay interest on the debt.

As of March 2015, the US National Debt was more than $18 trillion. The biggest beneficiary turns out to be the House of Rothschild, whose proxies are the dominant stockholders in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks, the latter has unique responsibilities including implementing monetary policy, conducting open market operations, intervening in foreign exchange markets, and storing monetary gold for foreign central banks, governments and international agencies, and so the stockholders of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York direct the entire system. Kuhn Loeb and J.P. Morgan were two Rothschild fronts involved in setting up the Federal Reserve Bank system, which is neither federal, nor a reserve. And as for a system, it is a giant scam and a criminal syndicate.

Eustace Mullins, in Secrets of The Federal Reserve, revealed the identities of the stockholders of the Federal Reserve Banks. Mullins began his book with information on the secret Jekyll Island meeting of November 1910. The participants were Senator Nelson Aldrich, his private secretary Arthur Shelton, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury A. Piatt Andrew, National City Bank of New York president Frank Vanderlip, J.P. Morgan Company's senior partner Henry P. Davison, First National Bank of New York president Charles D. Norton, Vice President of Banker's Trust of New York Benjamin Strong who also served as J.P. Morgan's representative, and Kuhn, Loeb and Company of New York partner Paul Warburg. The group left the station at Hoboken, New Jersey, in a sealed railway car with drawn blinds for an undisclosed destination, which was a thousand miles away. Jekyll Island, Georgia, was the private winter retreat of a very exclusive group of millionaires led by J.P. Morgan, and initially used for hunting expeditions. It offered complete privacy for the exclusive group, who could use the ruse of a "duck hunt", and the Aldrich-Warburg party agreed that no last names would be used at any time during their stay. They later referred to themselves as the First Name Club.

Most of the plan to establish the "Federal Reserve System" was drafted by Paul Warburg, who surpassed the other Club members in banking expertise. Warburg, a German-Jew and recent immigrant to the US, had decided to avoid the name "Central Bank", in order that people would be deceived into thinking the Federal Reserve was not a Central Bank, whilst the private individuals who owned the Federal Reserve Banks would profit from their ownership of shares, and the Federal Reserve would control the nation's money and credit.

Interestingly, in light of Warburg's high position in the US banking system during WWI, including authoring the plan to organize the War Finance Corporation, Mullins includes on p. 86 the US Naval Secret Service Report on Paul Warburg, whose brother Max was head of the German Secret Service: "WARBURG, PAUL: New York City. German, naturalized citizen, 1911. was decorated by the Kaiser in 1912, was vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Handled large sums furnished by Germany for Lenin and Trotsky. Has a brother who is leader of the espionage system of Germany."

Mullins says [pp. 34-35]:
    "For many years, there has been considerable mystery about who actually owns the stock of the Federal Reserve Banks. Congressman Wright Patman, leading critic of the System, tried to find out who the stockholders were. The stock in the original twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks was purchased by national banks in those twelve regions. Because the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was to set the interest rates and direct open market operations, thus controlling the daily supply and price of money throughout the United States, it is the stockholders of that bank who are the real directors of the entire system. For the first time, it can be revealed who those stockholders are. This writer has the original organization certificates of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks, giving the ownership of shares by the national banks in each district. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York issued 203,053 shares, and, as filed with the Comptroller of the Currency May 19, 1914, the large New York City banks took more than half of the outstanding shares. The Rockefeller Kuhn, Loeb-controlled National City Bank took the largest number of shares of any bank, 30,000 shares. J.P. Morgan's First National Bank took 15,000 shares. When these two banks merged in 1955, they owned in one block almost one fourth of the shares in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which controlled the entire system, and thus they could name Paul Volcker or anyone else they chose to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Chase National Bank took 6,000 shares. The Marine Nation Bank of Buffalo, later known as Marine Midland, took 6,000 shares. This bank was owned by the Schoellkopf family, which controlled Niagara Power Company and other large interests. National Bank of Commerce of New York City took 21,000 shares. The shareholders of these banks which own the stock of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York are the people who have controlled our political and economic destinies since 1914. They are the Rothschilds, of Europe, Lazard Freres (Eugene Meyer), Kuhn Loeb Company, Warburg Company, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, the Rockefeller family, and the J.P. Morgan interests. These interests have merged and consolidated in recent years, so that the control is much more concentrated. National Bank of Commerce is now Morgan Guaranty Trust Company. Lehman Brothers has merged with Kuhn, Loeb Company, First National Bank has merged with the National City Bank, and in the other eleven Federal Reserve Districts, these same shareholders indirectly own or control shares in those banks, with the other shares owned by the leading families in those areas who own or control the principal industries in these regions. The 'local' families set up regional councils, on orders from New York, of such groups as the Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, and other instruments of control devised by their masters. They finance and control political developments in their area, name candidates, and are seldom successfully opposed in their plans.
    With the setting up of the twelve 'financial districts' through the Federal Reserve Banks, the traditional division of the United States into the forty-eight states was overthrown, and we entered the era of 'regionalism', or twelve regions which had no relation to the traditional state boundaries."

On p. 47, Mullins quotes from John Moody, "The Seven Men", McClure's Magazine, August 1911, p. 418:
    "Seven men in Wall Street now control a great share of the fundamental industry and resources of the United States. Three of the seven men, J.P. Morgan, James J. Hill, and George F. Baker, head of the First National Bank of New York belong to the so-called Morgan group; four of them, John D. and William Rockefeller, James Stillman, head of the National City Bank, and Jacob H. Schiff of the private banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb Company, to the so-called Standard Oil City Bank group... the central machine of capital extends its control over the United States... The process is not only economically logical; it is now practically automatic."

Mullins adds:
    "What John Moody did not know, or did not tell his readers, was that the most powerful men in the United States were themselves answerable to another power, a foreign power, and a power which had been steadfastly seeking to extend its control over the young republic of the United States since its very inception. This power was the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild. The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today."

Mullins goes on to give a brief history of the origins of the various banking firms, to account for their subservience to the Rothschilds. For example, J.P. Morgan Company was originally George Peabody and Company. Peabody began business as Peabody, Riggs and Company, dealing in wholesale dry goods and in operating the Georgetown Slave Market. When an increasing proportion of Peabody's business originated from London, he established George Peabody and Company in London. Soon after arriving there, he was summoned to an audience with Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild, who bluntly revealed that much of the London aristocracy disliked Rothschild and refused his invitations. Peabody accepted Rothschild's proposal that Peabody would be established as a lavish host whose entertainment would be the talk of London, with Rothschild secretly paying the bills. Guests would badmouth Rothschild whilst drinking Peabody's wine, without realising that Rothschild had paid for it all.

Peabody had never married and had no one to succeed him, but was very impressed with Junius S. Morgan, the father of John Pierpoint Morgan. Junius joined as a partner in Peabody' company in 1854, and the clandestine relationship with N.M. Rothschild Company continued. In 1864 when Peabody retired, the name was changed to Junius S. Morgan Company, a firm which ever since has been directed from London. John Pierpoint Morgan became head of the firm after his father was killed in 1890 in a carriage accident in the Riviera.

Time and again, a recurring feature of Rothschild operations and intrigues has involved Rothschild proxies, ranging from secret Rothschild agents who would covertly buy stock just after the known Rothschild agents were overtly dumping it and prompting panic selling, to American firms with a "London branch" who in reality are controlled by the House of Rothschild, to family members who changed their name and could be assigned some of the Family's wealth without becoming conspicuous, to lavish entertainers of modest means who were secretly employed by N.M. Rothschild so that he would have the satisfaction of knowing that "his" parties were the talk of London.

Similarly, Mullins [p. 87] reproduces how:
    "The background of Kuhn, Loeb & Company had been exposed in 'Truth Magazine', edited by George Conroy: 'Mr. Schiff is head of the great private banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. which represents the Rothschild interest on this side of the Atlantic. He has been described as a financial strategist and has been for years the financial minister to the great impersonal power known as Standard Oil. He was hand-in-glove with the Harrimans, the Goulds and the Rockefellers, in all their railroad enterprises and has become the dominant power in the railroad and financial world in America."

Mullins' Chart I [pp. 92-93] shows the connections between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and five of the New York City banks that purchased a little over 40% of the shares in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Of the five banks, National City Bank, N.Y. had 30,000 FRB/NY shares; National Bank of Commerce, N.Y. had 21,000; First National Bank of New York had 15,000; Hanover National Bank, N.Y. had 10,300; and Chase National Bank, N.Y. had 6,000 - totalling 82,300 out of 203,053 FRB/NY shares. That was the position when the system was organized in 1914. As of July 26, 1983, the top five surviving New York City banks owned 53% of the FRB/NY stock, and the FRB/NY controlling stock was heavily influenced by banks directly controlled by the Rothschild-controlled Bank of England.

Thus, the Rothschilds' exploitation of "the venality of administrators and the slackness of rulers to get [their] moneys twice, thrice and more times over" was another part of their program for gaining an ever increasing amount of the "gold in [their] hands", in accordance with the Protocols.

Protocol No. 20 says about foreign loans:

" is obvious that with any form of taxation per head the State is baling 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."

From John Reeves' The Rothschilds: The Financial Rulers of Nations [pp. 207-208]:
    "In the negotiation of foreign loans Baron Lionel [de Rothschild] was particularly active, as this business, at once lucrative and comparatively free from risk, was one which he preferred before all others. During his lifetime his firm was interested in the issue of no less than eighteen Government loans, amounting in the aggregate to one hundred and sixty millions sterling. [...] Among the many loans issued by Baron Lionel we may mention the Irish Famine loan, which he negotiated in 1847 for the English Government, for whom he also in 1854 raised a sum of £16,000,000. During more than twenty years he was the agent for the Russian government. In the successful funding of the debt of the United States he took a prominent part, and in 1876 he advanced the English Government the sum of four millions sterling for the instant purchase of Suez Canal shares from the Khedive. By the latter transaction alone he cleared a profit of nearly £100,000."

Protocol No. 9 states:

"Nowadays, if any States raise a protest against us it is only pro forma at our discretion and by our direction, for their anti-Semitism is indispensable to us for the management of our lesser brethren. I will not enter into further explanations, for this matter has formed the subject of repeated discussions amongst us."

That's not something that you would find in Joly's Dialogues. But it is reflected in Herzl's Diaries: "Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies. [...] The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends." Only the credulous could believe that a Russian secret police agent copying from Joly's work of 1864 somehow has such a good understanding of the Zionist mindset that he understands - as early as 1884 - about plans to play the anti-Semitism card, and speculates (almost certainly correctly) how these plotters of world conquest regarded "anti-Semitism" as of such importance that they'd already had "repeated discussions" about it. In contrast, a member of a secret cabal of Jewish schemers plotting world conquest would have the knowledge demonstrated in Protocol No. 9.

Also in Protocol No. 9 we have:

"And the weapons in our hands are limitless ambitions, burning greediness, merciless vengeance, hatreds and malice."
"It is from us that the all-engulfing terror proceeds. We have in our service persons of all opinions, of all doctrines, restoration monarchists, demagogues, socialists, communists, and utopian dreamers of every kind."

The latter part is consistent with the description in Protocol No. 2 of the Elders' plan to establish puppet presidents; they also have plenty of poodles to serve them. Their ambition is nothing less than world conquest.

As for "merciless vengeance, hatreds and malice", this is exhibited by the terrible orgy of blood-letting in which tens of millions of Russian Christians perished in the decades following the Jewish Bolshevik takeover of Russia, and was in revenge for the Rus' having driven the Asiatic Khazars out of their beloved kingdom of Khazaria around 1,000 years ago. Most of today's "Jews" - including all of Israel's prime ministers - are descendants of the Khazars, a Turkic tribe, who were ordered to convert to Judaism by their King Bulan around 740 CE or later (the conversion was en masse, although Encyclopaedia Britannica states that religious tolerance was practised in the Khazar empire). The Khazars were originally located in the northern Caucasus region; for a time they expanded to the south of the Caucasus into present-day Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, having successfully fought the Arabs around 685. The Arabs later recaptured the territory, and the Caucasus Mountains became the accepted southern boundary of Khazaria. Around the 8th and 9th centuries the Khazar empire was at the height of its power, extending from along the northern shore of the Black Sea and the Dnieper River in the west to the other side of the Caspian Sea in the east.

Khazaria photo Khazaria_zps9fcca0f6.png


The ancient Khazar capital Atil was found in 2008, near the Russian village of Samosdelka, at the Volga River's delta near the northwestern corner of the Caspian Sea.

Not all Jews are Khazars, and some Jews did live in the Middle East in Biblical times. However, Benjamin Freedman, an ex-Jew who defected to Christianity after being repulsed by organized Jewry's warmongering, lies and political machinations, exposed the Khazar converts as "so-called" or "self-styled" 'Jews' who laid false claim to the Holy Lands. It's exactly the same as if the Chinese had converted to Islam in 1800, and in 1900 started snivelling and crying that they had a right to Mecca and Medina!

Zionist Khazar 'Jews' have been trying desperately to deny their Khazar origins. They claim that genetic studies do not support the "Khazarian hypothesis" and instead favor the "Rhineland hypothesis", which asserts that most Ashkenazi Jews are of Semitic origin.

Firstly, the Zionists' racially and politically motivated Rhineland hypothesis has been robustly refuted in a 2012 study published in a peer-reviewed journal by Eran Elhaik, a Jewish Israeli-born molecular geneticist. The paper, which was accepted in Oxford Journals' Genome Biology and Evolution December 5, 2012, exposes the Rhineland hypothesis as pseudoscientific claptrap and provides "strong evidence for the Khazarian hypothesis". Here are excerpts from the Results section of The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses:

"European Jews are expected to cluster with native Middle Eastern or Caucasus populations according to the Rhineland or Khazarian hypotheses, respectively. The results of all PC analyses (fig. 3, supplementary figs. S2 and S3, Supplementary Material online) show that over 70% of European Jews and almost all Eastern European Jews cluster with Georgian, Armenian, and Azerbaijani Jews within the Caucasus rim (fig. 3 and supplementary fig. S3, Supplementary Material online). Approximately 15% of Central European Jews cluster with Druze and the rest cluster with Cypriots. All European Jews cluster distinctly from the Middle Eastern cluster. Strong evidence for the Khazarian hypothesis is the clustering of European Jews with the populations that reside on opposite ends of ancient Khazaria: Armenians, Georgians, and Azerbaijani Jews (fig. 1). Because Caucasus populations remained relatively isolated in the Caucasus region and because there are no records of Caucasus populations mass-migrating to Eastern and Central Europe prior to the fall of Khazaria (Balanovsky et al. 2011), these findings imply a shared origin for European Jews and Caucasus populations. [...] The geographical origins of European Jews varied for different reference populations (fig. 4 and supplementary fig. S5, Supplementary Material online), but all the results converged to Southern Khazaria along modern Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. Eastern European Jews clustered tightly compared with Central European Jews in all analyses. [...] Remarkably, the mean coordinates of Eastern European Jews are 560 km from Khazaria’s southern border (42.77 N, 42.56 E) near Samandar—the capital city of Khazaria from 720 to 750 CE (Polak 1951)."

In case anyone claims that Oxford Journals Open Access is merely a "vanity publishing" outlet where anything is accepted as long as the fee is paid, Dr. Elhaik has published the reviewers' comments and outlined the subsequent revisions.

Secondly, a 2013 study by Doron Behar et al purporting to refute the Khazarian hypothesis and criticising Elhaik's work has itself been debunked by Dr. Elhaik in May, 2014. The Behar team started with their desired conclusion, and selected the data accordingly. They asked the question "Are European Jews similar to the Khazar proxies?", had the answer "No" as their null hypothesis, failed to provide an alternative hypothesis, failed to specify how genetically similar one would need to be from the Khazar proxies to qualify as a Khazar, assumed in the absence of evidence that "the Ashkenazi, North African, and Sephardi Jews [derive] substantial genetic ancestry [...] from Middle Eastern and European populations", and employed a dubious new methodology - spatial ancestry analysis (SPA) - which, especially for non-Europeans, has a very poor accuracy compared to the admixture-based Geographic Population Structure (GPS) method. (The Behar article is also open access, and claims to have been accepted.)

Thirdly, Elhaik posted a challenge for advocates of the Rhineland hypothesis: If "Jewishness" is in the genes, then it would be possible for geneticists to identify Jews when provided with files of the genetic sequence, sample identifiers and gender, with the "Jewishness" of the samples known only to Elhaik. No one took him up on the challenge.

Fourthly, Harry Ostrer, professor of pathology and genetics, is a leading proponent of the Rhineland hypothesis and the standard Zionist claim that Jews are a "race" who are bonded by their common ancestral descent from the Jews of ancient Judea. Elhaik revealed how Ostrer refuses to make publicly available the data used in his group's paper Abraham's Children in the Genome Era. Instead, Ostrer allows researchers to "collaborate" only if they submit a proposal of what they plan to do, and it meets with certain requirements such as "non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people". In other words, the data is released only to Zionist-approved individuals, which demonstrates that Ostrer is politically, rather than scientifically, motivated.

Fifthly, the Rhineland hypothesis is so improbable that it defies all common sense, and it flouts Occam's Razor. It requires that most Ashkenazi Jews emerged from a small group of only 50,000 German Jews in the Rhineland around 1400; they migrated eastward, and reproduced extraordinarily rapidly, to reach about 8 million strong by around 1900. That's a 160-fold spurt in Ashkenazi population over 500 years from 50,000 in 1400 to 8 million in 1900 despite disease, war, poverty, poor sanitation, etc., compared to European population which nearly managed a 6-fold gain from 50 million in 1450 to 291 million in 1900. (Or from 73.5 million in 1340 to 291 million in 1900; population was declining in the late Middle Ages, whether due to disease or poverty.) A 160-fold increase in 500 years corresponds to a doubling every 68 years. Compare with the world population, which took 304 years to double from 0.5 billion to 1 billion between 1500 to 1804, or 123 years for the next doubling to 2 billion by 1927. The Rhineland hypothesis not only requires that the Ashkenazim somehow outbred their non-Jewish neighbors by at least an order of magnitude; it requires that the Khazars mysteriously vanished.

As Elhaik eloquently notes: "Because such an unnatural growth rate, over half a millennium and affecting only Jews residing in Eastern Europe, is implausible—it is explained by a miracle (Atzmon et al. 2010; Ostrer 2012). Unfortunately, this divine intervention explanation poses a new kind of problem—it is not science."

For more about how there were simply not enough Western European Jews in the late Middle Ages to account for the population that emerged in Eastern Europe, see Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe Chapter VI "Where From?"

Finally, the idea that all Jews have very similar DNA falls apart when you consider the massive IQ difference of 23 points between Ashkenazi Jews (117) and Sephardic Jews (94).

For more about how Ashkenazi "Jews" are not Semites - yet they still whine about "anti-Semitism" whenever anyone dares to expose their crimes - see Jack Bernstein's 1985 book My Farewell To Israel, which should be required reading for anyone trying to understand the Jewish problem. And of course his lengthier book The Life of an American Jew in Racist Marxist Israel. He explodes a few myths about Jews and Israel. Bernstein was a benevolent, honest Jew who regarded himself as "first of all [...] an American". Some have said that Bernstein was assassinated by the Mossad. It's possible, and Bernstein died in the Veteran's Hospital, Martinsburg, West Virginia, on 4 May 1987 from a suddenly developed cancer shortly after travelling in the Philippines, but he did not think the Mossad was responsible. Zionist propagandists cannot refute what he said, so they simply pretend that he never existed and there was a conspiracy by anti-Semites to fake his existence, even though he was a personal friend of Michael Collins Piper, for example. So much for Zionist conspiracy theories!

Apart from the Rus' to their north, the Khazars were also at war with the Arabs to their south. They've been settling scores ever since. In 2013 a UN monitoring group accused Israeli security forces of torturing and tormenting Palestinian children. And the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, a rights group, accused Shin Bet of using torture as an "interrogation tool" even after a 1999 ban by the High Court. In 2004 an Israeli army officer known as "Captain R" emptied all ten bullets from his gun's magazine into a 13-year-old girl in Gaza to "confirm the kill", as she was lying helpless and wounded after having been shot in the leg. The official report made up some horse manure about how her schoolbag might have contained a bomb, but that was belied by the tape that showed no one believed she was a threat. The soldier in the watchtower had described her as about ten years old, and "scared to death". In 2006 Israeli forces shelled a picnicking Palestinian family on Gaza beach, wiping out most of 10-year-old Huda Ghalia's family, and horribly maiming about twenty others. Rather than admit responsibility, the military tried floating various lies. They claimed to have stopped shelling the beach nine minutes before the fatal explosion, they claimed the shrapnel taken from the wounded did not match the artillery used, they claimed they'd been firing at a position hundreds of feet away, and they claimed there must have been a buried Hamas mine or shell that 'coincidentally' went off around the same time as their shelling. Independent investigations confirmed the Israelis were lying. For example, the injuries were "primarily to the head and torso [and] consistent with a shell exploding above the ground, not a mine under it."

And for the "all-engulfing terror", we merely need look into 9/11, London 7/7 (both of which are covered in Part Three), and other Zionist false-flag operations such as Amman 11/9/05.

However, the interesting thing about the mention of "terror", "vengeance", "hatred" and "malice" in the Protocols is the stark contrast with Joly's Dialogues. In the Seventh Dialogue, Machiavelli says, "To rule today does not require committing atrocities, or decapitating your enemies, confiscating the goods of your subjects, or engaging in widespread torture. No. Death, expropriation, and torture should only play a minor role in the internal politics of modern states."

We're told that the Protocols was supposed to be a rush job by "anti-Semites" in the Russian secret police, who quickly copied sections from Joly's Dialogues. Yet there are not only plenty of correspondences between the Protocols and subsequent actions by 'Jews' (Khazars) in positions of authority, but there are rather revealing inconsistencies between the spirit of Dialogues on the one hand and the Protocols / 'Jewish' behavior on the other.

As for "burning greediness", consider other references such as Protocol No. 15:

"...I have to remark that all the money in the world will be concentrated in our hands..."

And Protocol No. 2:

"...thanks to the Press we have got the gold in our hands, notwithstanding that we have had to gather it out of oceans of blood and tears."

(The "blood and tears" is a reference to the fate of those "goyim" who believed they were serving their country by fighting in wars for the Rothschilds.)

According to Frederic Morton's The Rothschilds [p.60] the "total wealth encompassed by the clan during most of the nineteenth century" was "estimated at well over 400 million pounds". In comparison, Lytton Strachey estimated the fortune of Queen Victoria to be no more than five million pounds, even though she was "exceedingly wealthy" among great reigning monarchs. One pound in 1900 is equivalent to 104.17 pounds at 2012 prices, so 400 million is about £41.7 billion or $65.5 billion at exchange rates in the middle of 2012. A real rate of return of just 1% per annum compounded over 112 years would multiply that by a factor of 3.05 to $199.6 billion. At 5% p.a. the multiplying factor becomes 236.1 making it $15.47 trillion; at 10% the multiplying factor is 43,249 making it $2,833 trillion.

The New York Times of January 26, 1913, ran an article entitled "HOW THE ROTHSCHILD FORTUNE OF $2,000,000,000 WAS MADE". The figure of two billion dollars is taken from Ignatius Balla's The Romance of the Rothschilds. It sounds more than Morton's "well over 400 million pounds", but in 1913 one US dollar was worth 0.2054 British pounds, and so two billion dollars was £410.8 million.

So what annual rate of return could the Rothschilds achieve? According to John Reeves' The Rothschilds: The Financial Rulers of Nations  [p. 167], Nathan Rothschild increased his capital by 2,500 times in five years, which would be an increase of 378% per annum. "Though a mere stripling among the grey heads of the money market, his almost preternatural sagacity in the art of money making brought him at once into prominence, and he became the leading man on the Stock Exchange, none of the members of which could boast, like him, of having 'multiplied their capital 2,500 times in the course of five years'."

Reeves' claim of a 2,500 times increase is nonsense. If it were true - forget the "five years", assume the starting point was Nathan's initial £20,000 of 1798, and let the period include Waterloo in 1815 and subsequent years - then Nathan would have gone from £20,000 to £50,000,000. Reeves has probably confused 2,500 times with a 2,500% increase, which would be a profit of £500,000 on the original sum, and is quite a good match with the £500,000 shown for Nathan as of 1818 in the table below. Also, in Reeves [p. 165], Nathan tells Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton that he turned his £20,000 into £60,000 "in a short time" (when he was in the cotton business in Manchester, before going to London to begin dealing in financial instruments). The "short time" is seven years, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, and so a tripling in seven years is 17% per annum compounded. That's very realistic, and as seen below, the Rothschilds only managed a 130% increase in the seven years from 1818 to 1825. Those seven years must have been a rather lean time for them, and stand in stark contrast with the 13-fold gain of the preceding three years.

RothschildCapital photo RothschildCapital_zpsff4d5eb0.png

Source: Banks as Multinationals, Geoffrey Jones

The above-mentioned book points out that by 1825, at some hundred million francs, the Rothschild capital exceeded the Bank of France's sixty million francs.

According to Victor Gray and Melanie Aspey,  "At the time of Waterloo [1815], the total capital of the Rothschild brothers was £136,000, of which Nathan's share was £90,000. By 1818 the total capital had increased to £1,172,000 and Nathan's share to £500,000. [...] [Nathan Mayer] Rothschild's will was proved in August 1836, at a little in excess of £1 million."

The Rothschild total fortune in the above table adds up to £1,772,000 for 1818, but Gray / Aspey have somehow deducted £600,000. However, even by their figures, they reveal a more than 8-fold increase in the three years following Waterloo.

Herbert R. Lottman, in Return of the Rothschilds: The Great Banking Dynasty Through Two Turbulent Centuries, has a total of £34,358,562 as of 1874. At this time, the Paris house has more than London, Frankfurt and Vienna put together. And in the table above, Paris is already outperforming London and Frankfurt in the seven years following 1818, to take first place by 1825. However, Nathaniel "Natanyahu" de Rothschild of the English house moved to Paris in 1850, so a transfer of capital could account for some of the French branch's apparent gains.

Rothschilds1874 photo rothschilds1874_zpsdc3d190e.png

Source: Return of the Rothschilds, Herbert R. Lottman

(Someone seems to have rounded the first three to the nearest thousand when adding up, to make the total £44 out, but at an accuracy of not much worse than 1 in a million; it's got to be an improvement on Nathan's bookkeeping.)

If they go from £4,082,000 in 1825 to £34,358,562 in 1874, that's an increase of 8.417 times over 49 years, averaging 4.44% per annum. To get from £34,358,562 in 1874 to £400 million in 1900 requires a gain of 11.642-fold in 26 years, which averages 9.9% annually.

Morton's figure of "well over 400 million pounds" divided by Nathan Mayer Rothschild's "access to £20,000 credit drawn on the Frankfurt house" when he arrived in England in 1798 is an increase of at least 20,000-fold on the original £20,000. To be fair, let's suppose Nathan was allocated half of the total. Thus, the Rothschilds achieved a 10,000-fold gain in around 100 years over the course of the nineteenth century, which averages 9.6% per annum. Or they've had a 100-fold gain in 75 years, which is 6.3% per annum.

The 9.6% p.a., which includes the first quarter of the century, is a little misleading, since it overlooks the increase in their trading capital when Prince William IX of Hesse-Hanau fled Napoleon in 1806 and entrusted his £800,000 ($3,000,000) fortune to Mayer Amschel Rothschild for safekeeping, who later passed much of it it on to his son Nathan in London. Morton's The Rothschilds p. 49 says that Nathan received 550,000 pounds sterling between February 1809 and December 1810. That was supposed to buy consols for the Prince, but Nathan invested it for his own account, took a quick profit, then made a second profit by waiting for the consols price to drop to 62. The agreement with William was to buy at 72, so Nathan pocketed the difference. And he profited by regularly speculating on gold bullion. Then, apparently in 1811, Nathan bought £800,000 worth of gold that he knew was needed by the Duke of Wellington, and got commission from the British government for routing it through France, where the British army was fighting Napoleon. The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia has a different timeline; it states that in 1808 Nathan used Prince William's money "to purchase £800,000 worth of gold from the East India Company, knowing that it would be needed for Wellington's Peninsular campaign. He made no less than four profits on this: (1) on the sale of Wellington's paper, (2) on the sale of the gold to Wellington, (3) on its repurchase, and (4) on forwarding it to Portugal."

Some doubt that Prince William was ever given his money back, but assuming he was, then it's not disputed that Nathan made big profits from having "the gold in [his] hands". And it seems that the Elector of Hesse did get his money back. A New York Times report from 1863, sourced from the London Globe, tells of how he was so pleased to get his money safely returned from Frankfort that at the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) he kept "singing the praise of his Hebrew agent to all the Princes of Europe. The dwellers under the sign of the Red Shield laughed in their sleeves; keeping carefully to themselves the great fact that the electoral two million florins had brought them four millions of their own."

And John T. Flynn in Men of Wealth [pp. 96, 99-100] says that the part about William entrusting his entire fortune to Mayer Rothschild is a yarn that was spun by Friedrich von Gentz, and William was already heavily invested in consols. "Nathan in London was managing the transmission of the interest on some £640,000 of the Elector's investments in consols." But Nathan needed more capital to grab his share of the profits that others were making. Through Buderus, a Rothschild lackey, Nathan's brother Amschel "Anselm" was gradually gaining the confidence of William IX, who was exiled in Prussia. Nathan suggested that William invest all the riches that were flowing to him in interest and principal in English consols, and do it through Nathan. William was suspicious of Nathan - and his suspicions were vindicated. But he was eventually persuaded, whereupon Nathan traded the money on his own account, pocketing the profits, and knowing that he could buy consols at a lower price if necessary. For more than two years, Nathan had no receipts to send to the Elector to prove that the money had been deposited, and Buderus kept stringing the Elector along with assorted 'explanations'. Eventually, William lost patience, demanded instant delivery of the evidence, and ordered that no more funds should be forwarded to Nathan. Flynn doesn't say whether Nathan eventually bought consols, but if so, then Nathan had the use of the £550,000 for nearly three years, at least. Flynn says Nathan bought the gold at auction for £800,000, "using all the cash and credit he had, plus the funds of the Elector in his charge". Nathan received three instalments between February 1809 and December 1810, so probably bought the East India gold in 1811. But according to the 1863 report, William was singing the praises of his "Hebrew agent" by 1814/15 after he'd got his money back. Mayer Amschel had died in 1812.

However, even if no more benefactors such as William of Hesse were forthcoming, that would be offset by the benefits of controlling nations' central banks and the money supply. So the twentieth-century performance is likely to have been better than 6.3% per annum compounded.

Thus, the main limiting factor to their fortune is global wealth, at $241 trillion in 2013, and the question of how the Family can stash it away, which is partly solved by distributing it amongst many Family members. Switzerland, a nation that famously remains neutral in wartime, has the highest average wealth per adult at $513,000. Switzerland's population is about 8 million, so that accounts for "only" $4.1 trillion. The richest 1% in the world own $110 trillion. Rothschild proxies are shareholders in the central banks. The private banks that are the Federal Reserve's shareholders enjoy a guaranteed return of 6%, and the total "loans and leases in bank credit as of September 24, 2008 was $7.049 trillion.

Protocol No. 3 says:

"This hatred will be still further magnified by the effects of an economic crisis, which will stop dealings on the exchanges and bring industry to a standstill. We shall create by all the secret subterranean methods open to us and with the aid of gold, which is all in our hands, a universal economic crisis whereby we shall throw upon the streets whole mobs of workers simultaneously in all the countries of Europe."

The Great Depression, starting with the Stock Market Crash of "Black Tuesday" on October 29, 1929, led to the unemployment of the Thirties and paved the way for "government involvement in the economy and in society as a whole". On March 9, 1929, Paul Warburg sounded an early warning to the financial elite to get out of the stock market, or better still, sell short, when he was reported in the Commercial and Financial Chronicle as predicting that "If orgies of unrestricted speculation are permitted to spread too far ... the ultimate collapse is certain ... to bring about a general depression involving the whole country." Those in control of the Federal Reserve System could engineer boom and bust. As the principal architect of the Federal Reserve System, Warburg had inside knowledge of what was planned for later that year. The stock market peaked on September 3, 1929, and from September Albert H. Wiggin began selling short his personal shares in Chase National Bank. He made more than $4 million by shorting 42,000 shares, just as he was committing his bank to buying. Wiggin, an important financial player on the international stage with interests in Paris, Berlin, Rome and Panama City, was responsible for bringing in members of the Rockefeller family as investors in Chase National Bank. Charles Edwin Mitchell began a high-pressure campaign to sell $650 million of stock in his National City Bank, not long before the Crash. Four years later, the stock had lost over 90% of its value. Bernard Baruch, a Jewish speculator and economic advisor to Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt, got out of the market in advance of the Crash, early in 1929. Another who sold in advance was John Jakob Raskob, who gave an interview for Ladies Home Journal suggesting that every American could get rich by investing $15 per month in common stocks (the average weekly salary was then about $20). The article "Everybody Ought to be Rich" was published two months before the Crash.

And there is a particularly interesting section in Protocol No. 3:

"Remember the French Revolution, to which it was we who gave the name of 'Great': the secrets of its preparations are well known to us for it was wholly the work of our hands. Ever since that time we have been leading the peoples from one disenchantment to another, so that in the end they should turn also from us in favor of that King-Despot of the blood of Zion, whom we are preparing for the world."

The Ashkenazi Jew Karl Marx did indeed call the French Revolution the "old" and "great" revolution. But the Protocols writer makes a very bold claim about being "wholly" behind it. And the phrase "ever since that time" suggests that the program for world conquest that we see today - with Rothschild-controlled central banks, a Rothschild-controlled "free press", Rothschildian "democracies" featuring puppets and poodles as 'leaders' who invariably toe the Zionist line, and the fomenting of wars that enrich the Rothschilds by bringing the few remaining independent nations under the Rothschild yoke as billions of people are impoverished, maimed or killed - was born around the time of the French Revolution. This also happens to coincide with the birth of the House of Rothschild as the global Money Power, after Mayer Amschel Rothschild landed the position of Court Agent to Prince William of Hesse, who had already become immensely wealthy through waging war for profit, by hiring out Hessian soldiers as mercenaries to foreign countries.

William Guy Carr's Pawns in the Game makes some quite spectacular claims. According to Carr, in Chapter Three "The men who caused the French Revolution", "Amschel Mayer Bauer" (Rothschild) was "born in 1743" and "lived until 1812. He had five sons." He held a meeting at his home in 1773 with twelve other wealthy, influential men, at which he read from what was supposedly an early version of the Protocols, and Adam Weishaupt was "given the task of adapting the ritual and rites of Illuminism for use of initiation into the Grand Orient Masonry. He also lived in Frankfort, Germany." And Carr says Amschel Moses Rothschild "died in 1754".

Carr confuses Mayer Amschel Rothschild with his son Amschel Mayer who had only just been born in 1773, he's got Mayer Amschel's year of birth as 1743 instead of 1744, he's got Amschel Moses' year of death as 1754 instead of 1755, he changes Weishaupt's residence from Ingolstadt (or later Regensburg aka Ratisbon[ne]) to Frankfort, and fails to provide sources for his claims. In Chapter Five - missing from some online editions - Carr publishes a letter allegedly from Rothschild Brothers to a Wall Street firm, enquiring about "profits that may be made in the National Banking business". Unfortunately, the firm Ikelheimer, Morton and Vandergould of 3, Wall Street appears to be fictitious, and Carr provides no provenance for the alleged letter. In short, Carr has simply made up a lot of his material, and mixed in some truths in an attempt to lend credibility. If Carr's claims were reliable, they would prove in one fell swoop that the Protocols was genuine and Jews masterminded the French Revolution, and were responsible for almost everything apart from toast falling butter side down and the extinction of the dinosaurs. But it's never as simple as that; the researcher must look elsewhere.

And as we shall see, it turns out that a hypothetical Jewish supremacist author of the Protocols would have good reason to perceive Jews as being responsible for the French Revolution.

At first sight, it seems quite safe to suppose that Adam Weishaupt's Bavarian Illuminati helped to bring about the Revolution. A major international revolutionary conspiracy was uncovered in Bavaria in 1785, the conspirators were very active in France, and within four years in 1789 a major revolution was underway in France with the storming of the Bastille. Mirabeau was very likely an Illuminee (although that's not confirmed by primary sources), he was certainly influenced by Illuminees such as Mauvillon, he was a member of the Jacobin club, he was "the leading figure in the early events of the French Revolution" according to historian James H. Billington, and his "evocative language" and promotion of Illuminati concepts influenced many of the conspirators in Paris. And after suppression by the authorities, the Illuminati was most likely not killed off, but continued to function under other names and guises (e.g. see John Robison Proofs of a Conspiracy (1798) [.htm webpage / Free .pdf, p. 15]).

There are some links between Jews and the Illuminati, albeit no proof that those links were decisive. For example, Bernard Lazare, who was Jewish and naturally trying to downplay the role of Jews in revolutionary movements, secret societies and the French Revolution, concedes in his Antisemitism: Its History and Causes that:
    "It is true, of course, that there were Jews connected with Free Masonry from its birth, students of the Kabbala, as is shown by certain rites which survive. It is very probable, too, that in the years preceding the outbreak of the French Revolution, they entered in greater numbers than ever, into the councils of the secret societies, becoming, indeed, themselves the founders of secret associations. There were Jews in the circle around Weishaupt, and a Jew of Portuguese origin, Martinez de Pasquales, established numerous groups of illuminati in France and gathered a large number of disciples, whom he instructed in the doctrines of reintegration."

And Abbé Augustin Barruel says [p. 194] in his Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism: The antisocial conspiracy (1797) [free .pdf (Part IV)] that (Friedrich) Nicolai the bookseller (Illuminati name Lucian) was associated with the Jew (Moses) Mendelssohn (1729-1786), who would write articles for his weekly journal. This is corroborated in a biography of Mendelssohn; the journal was a "radical magazine called Literaturbriefe (Letters on Literature)".

However, an investigation of Weishaupt's Illuminati and Jewish influences upon it could be the subject of a major article itself, and for the sake of brevity further information about this has been moved to its own page.

Lord Acton, Lectures on the French Revolution  [pp. 20-39], says:
    "...the spark that changed thought into action was supplied by the Declaration of American Independence. [...] ...James Otis, is the founder of the revolutionary doctrine. [...] Nothing, on the contrary, is more certain than that American principles profoundly influenced France, and determined the course of the Revolution. It is from America that Lafayette derived the saying that created a commotion at the time, that resistance is the most sacred of duties. [...] It is the ideas of those earlier days that roused the attention of France, and were imported by Lafayette, Noailles, Lameth, and the leaders of the future revolution who had beheld the lowering of the British flag at Yorktown. The America of their experience was the America of James Otis, of Jefferson, of The Rights of Man. [...] The condition of France alone did not bring about the overthrow of the monarchy and the convulsion that ensued. For the sufferings of the people were not greater than they had been before; the misgovernment and oppression were less, and a successful war with England had largely wiped out the humiliations inflicted by Chatham.
    But the confluence of French theory with American example caused the Revolution to break out, not in an excess of irritation and despair, but in a moment of better feeling between the nation and the king."

Acton says there are many questions of detail for which he has no deciding evidence, and provides a list of various suggestions that have been put forth for the origin of the Revolution.

Ibid. [p. 345]: "People have not yet ceased to dispute about the real origin and nature of the event. It was the deficit; it was the famine; it was the Austrian Committee; it was the Diamond Necklace, and the humiliating memories of the Seven Years' War; it was the pride of nobles or the intolerance of priests; it was philosophy; it was freemasonry; it was Mr. Pitt; it was the incurable levity and violence of the national character; it was the issue of that struggle between classes that constitutes the unity of the history of France."

There were Jews involved in the American Revolution, e.g., Haym Salomon, Colonel Isaac Franks and Major Benjamin Nones. The Colonel and the Major appear to have been patriotic soldiers, quite the antithesis of cowardly intriguers who instigate war for profit whilst only risking others' blood. However, it is Salomon who is the crucial catalyst. (To be fair, Salomon was not cowardly; he risked his life by working as a spy as well as a broker and financier. He escaped from British captivity whilst waiting to be hanged, but later succumbed to tuberculosis, probably contracted as a result of damage to his health during his previous imprisonment.) The highest-ranking Jewish officer in the Continental Army was Lieutenant Colonel Solomon Bush. It has been suggested that the infamous Bush presidents are descendants, but that is not confirmed.

Haym Salomon, born in Poland and of Portuguese Jewish heritage, arrived in New York City in the winter of 1772. He started a brokerage company that was very successful, and many of his clientele were prominent loyalists. However, when he heard about the Battles of Lexington and Concord, Salomon sided with the patriot colonials, and joined New York's "Sons of Liberty". In September 1776, within days of New York City falling to British forces, a massive fire destroyed hundreds of houses, up to one-quarter of the City. There was no evidence, but the Sons of Liberty was the prime suspect. Salomon and all known members were rounded up and taken to jail. Salomon became a member of the American spy ring, and is said to have encouraged over 500 Hessian soldiers to switch to the American side. He was released, but later arrested on spying charges. After he was sentenced to be hanged, he escaped by bribing a guard with gold coins that he'd hidden in his clothes.

Salomon re-established his brokerage business in Philadelphia, and again it was very successful. Huge loans to help finance the American Revolution from the French, Dutch and Spanish governments went through Salomon's brokerage, and were converted into specie. Salomon became the largest depositor in Robert Morris' Bank of North America; his one account was as large as the aggregate of fifteen other merchants who started when the bank opened. "Several European financial houses did business through" Salomon. He "was the confidential friend and adviser of agents, consuls, and representatives of foreign powers in sympathy with the Revolutionary movement. He had confidential relations with all the foreign representatives at one time or another." In August 1781, the British forces under Cornwallis were trapped at Yorktown, but George Washington's Continental Army was out of funds. Washington gave Morris the order "Send for Haym Salomon". The $20,000 was raised, and Washington delivered the final blow at Yorktown, whereupon Cornwallis was forced to surrender. Given that Robert Morris' Diary had typical entries such as "Had Sundry Conferences. Viz. With Solomon [sic] the Broker" for September 14, 1781, and there had been "no less than seventy-five transactions with Salomon between August 1781 and April 1784", and the aggregate financial assistance that went through Salomon was in excess of $650,000, the evidence does appear to support the position that Salomon's role proved decisive.

Other Jews who financed the American Revolution included Benjamin Levy, of Philadelphia, Benjamin Jacobs, of New York, Samuel Lyon, of New York, Isaac Moses, of Philadelphia, Herman Levy, another Philadelphian, and Manuel Mordecai Noah, of South Carolina.

Thus, we have a chain of events, based upon mainstream sources and facts that are generally agreed upon, in which it can be reasonably argued that the actions of the Jew Haym Salomon, with or without the assistance of other Jews, proved decisive in the success of the American Revolution, which in its turn served as "the spark that changed thought into action" in France, and brought about the French Revolution.

Any money out of France would help to set up the Swiss banker Necker's deficit, later to be another factor that contributed to igniting the French Revolution. Ironically, in financing the American Revolution, France was sowing the seeds for the abolition of her own monarchy.

According to Archibald Maule Ramsay's The Nameless War, the campaign to smear Marie Antoinette in the Diamond Necklace affair was orchestrated by "Cagliostro, alias Joseph Balsamo, a Jew from Palermo, a doctor of the cabalistic art, and a member of the Illuminati, into which he was initiated at Frankfurt by Weishaupt in 1774." It's generally agreed that Count Cagliostro was Balsamo, he was a swindler, a forger, a Freemason, and an occultist who'd studied magic, alchemy and the Kabbalah, and he was born in Albergheria, which was the old Jewish Quarter of Palermo. And he was prosecuted for suspected involvement in the Diamond Necklace affair, but acquitted after nine months in the Bastille when no evidence could be found. Karma caught up with him when he went to Rome; he was sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment, for being a Freemason. His first name is generally spelled as Giuseppe, the Italian variation of Joseph. But although he visited Germany on his travels, he doesn't appear on this large German register of Illuminees. And his alleged Jewish origin is disputed and not confirmed.

Ramsay says: "The late Lady Queensborough, in her important work Occult Theocracy gives us certain outstanding names, taking her facts from L'Anti-Semitisme by the Jew Bernard Lazare, 1894.
    In London she gives the names of Benjamin Goldsmid and his brother Abraham Goldsmid, Moses Mocatta their partner, and his nephew Sir Moses Montifiore, as being directly concerned in financing the French Revolution, along with Daniel Itsig of Berlin and his son-in-law David Friedlander, and Herz Cerfbeer of Alsace."

It appears that Ramsay has read Occult Theocracy, but not L'Antisemitism, and just hoped that the names in the former were sourced from the latter. Here's what Lady Queenborough says:
    "Bernard Lazare, himself a Jew, has written that "There were Jews behind Weishaupt", and upon a close study of Illuminism, we find that the destructive forces which culminated in the French Revolution were of three kinds; financial, intellectual and anti-christian.
    In the first class, we come upon the names of Jewish Financiers such as:— Daniel Itzig, Friedlander, Ceerfbeer, Benjamin and Abraham Goldsmid, Moses Mocatta, Veitel Heine Ephraim.
    In the second category, we find Moses Mendelssohn, Naphtali Wessely, Moses Hersheim — who are the inspirers of Lessing — Frederic Nicolai, Weishaupt, Mirabeau, l'Abbe Grégoire, the Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbuttel and Anacharsis Clootz.
    Lastly, the third class is composed mostly of the group known as the Encyclopedists: d'Alembert, Diderot, Rousseau, Voltaire and of all the Cabalists practising magic and among whom we find: Martinez Depasqualy, Leucht, the enigmatic Count of Saint Germain, Falke and Joseph Balsamo surnamed Cagliostro."

Lazare mentions "Cerf Berr" once, but doesn't mention most of those listed by Ramsay. Lady Queenborough's source for the names is her own "close study of Illuminism", not Lazare. Ramsay has introduced Moses Montefiore, who does get a mention later in Occult Theocracy, but that's in relation to "the 1830-1848 period of history". Montefiore wasn't born until 1784, so would have been too young to have helped finance the French Revolution!

However, given that the Protocols writer makes such a bold claim about being "wholly" behind the French Revolution, that suggests that, if the Protocols is authentic, the writer was part of a clique that had access to various corroborating information on Jewish involvement, in which case there is likely to be substance to the Jewish connections alleged by Lady Queenborough, Ramsay and others, even though it's hard to verify many of those allegations today. Some connections wouldn't have been public knowledge, but some of those that were would have been lost over the course of the 20th century. For example, if Cagliostro / Balsamo was Jewish, that would be denied in later revisions of history.

The allegation of a rush-job by an "anti-Semite" to "forge" the Protocols, when there was too little time to paraphrase parallel passages to make them less conspicuous, but there was ample time to conduct research into the attitudes of Jewish Talmudic supremacists and to devise a successful program for world domination, with which future events turned out to be in close correspondence, is already so full of holes that its sinking is inevitable.

Lazare's L'Antisemitism is useful for distinguishing the "good" Jews from the villains. It helps to reconcile the long-standing dispute between the anti-Zionists who say that Zionism is the sole problem, and the "anti-Semites" or anti-Judaics, who say that it's a Jewish problem because they were getting kicked out of dozens of host nations, centuries before anyone had even conceived of Zionism. Lazare identifies the early problem as the fault of the Talmudists, who were responsible for Jews' isolation and failure to integrate into the host society. The "good" Jews were those such as Moses Mendelssohn, who were behind the Haskalah or "Jewish enlightenment" which sought to overturn the "Talmudic tyranny" that sustained a reactionary system in which Jews isolated themselves and were restricted to certain occupations such as peddling and usury; a system that provided Jews with a pre-packaged creed that supposedly had all the 'answers', and stopped them from thinking for themselves. Lazare was born too early to see the emerging problem - the Rothschild supremacist program to gather all the "gold in [their] hands" and achieve world domination. The Rothschilds are Talmudists too, and their program is simply a modern expression of Talmudic tyranny. See below for more on this.

So a Jewish supremacist / Talmudist / Secret Zionist / Rothschildian writer of the Protocols is justified in claiming responsibility for the French Revolution, because of the chain of events that had Jews such as Haym Salomon financing the American Revolution, with the latter serving as "the spark that changed thought into action" in France to help bring about its own Revolution. And then there are other possible Jewish influences running in parallel such as Jews associated with the Illuminati and Freemasonry, and Jews who were involved with any other possible cause of the Revolution, such as Lord Acton's examples in p. 345 of his Lectures.

For example, Acton mentions philosophy. Moses Mendelssohn's On the Civil Amelioration of the Condition of the Jews was published in 1781. Mendelssohn, the "first great champion of Jewish emancipation in the 18th century", went on to publish his Jerusalem in 1783, which rightly argued that the state has no right to interfere with the religion of its citizens. When we ask the question cui bono regarding the French Revolution, even Jewish-approved self-styled "teachers" admit that the emancipation of European Jewry began in 1789 with the French Revolution, and the timeline included Bordeaux (1790), Avignon (1790), and Alsace (1791).

Regarding freedom of religion, Islamists shouldn't escape criticism. There is simply no excuse for Islamist fanatics who threaten or carry out the death penalty for "apostasy", for example, if a woman raised as a Christian by her Christian mother refuses to convert to Islam, after her feckless Muslim father was absent during her childhood. This again is the problem of lazy, backward-looking people who blindly follow the rules prescribed in a barbaric, pre-medieval book that was written at a time when the average person's ethics was simply the law of the jungle. They were born with brains but choose not to use them. While we're at it, indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians is a grave blunder; it is merely strengthening the hands of the Zionists. Peace is anathema to a Zionist. It's true that Israelis get off very lightly in comparison to the Palestinians or Lebanese who are killed, jailed without trial, attacked with white phosphorus, cluster-bombs, etc., but the Zionists will exploit any example of terrorism against Israelis as a pretext to attack the local indigenous population and to scare Israelis into imagining that they - the Zionists - are the only ones who can "protect" the Jews. A campaign of sabotage that killed or injured no one, as carried out by Nelson Mandela, would make it much harder for accusations of terrorism to stick - especially when governments are the biggest terrorists of all.

If Jews had been behind the French Revolution, and Jews wrote the Protocols, then it's only natural that the Protocols writer would boast about starting the Revolution. But if Jews had nothing to do with the French Revolution, and the Protocols was an Okhrana forgery, there would be no motive for the "forger" to boast that "his" group of supposed Jewish supremacists were behind the Revolution, since there would be no evidence to support his claim. The "forger" has a motive to make his document look credible with points that could be verified such as Jewish control of the press and accumulation of capital. Thus, a "forger" who was aware that Marx gave the Revolution the name of "Great" would be expected to make that point, yet would not make the bold claim about being "wholly" behind the Revolution. In contrast, the Jewish Protocols writer has no need to sell his assertions to his co-religionists, who are well aware of how they orchestrated the Revolution, whatever evidence was in the public domain. The Jewish Protocols writer will happily brag about how "we were the first to cry among the masses of the people the words 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,' words many times repeated since those days by stupid poll-parrots who from all sides round flew down upon these baits and with them carried away the well-being of the world, true freedom of the individual, formerly so well guarded against the pressure of the mob" [Protocol No. 1].

It has been asserted that Antoine-François Momoro, a French printer whose family came from Spain, was the originator of the phrase "Liberté, égalité, fraternité". However, the evidence cited for that, is that he persuaded the Mayor of Paris to inscribe it on the facade of public buildings in 1793. It seems that Momoro became "radicalized during the Revolution", after initially exploiting it as a way to boost his printing business. The phrase was surely in use by 1789, if not earlier. The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations by Subject has listed the quote as "Anonymous: motto of the French Revolution, but of earlier origin". If Masonic Jews had been promoting the motto in advance of the Revolution, then a late-19th-century Jewish Protocols writer versed in early Jewish covert operations would have been aware of that. In Protocol No. 9, the writer claims "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" is their "masonic watchword".

Protocol No. 4 is about Jewish exploitation of Freemasonry:

"Gentile masonry blindly serves as a screen for us and our objects, but the plan of action of our force, even its very abiding-place, remains for the whole people an unknown mystery."

Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise (whose daughter Effie married the Jew Adolph Ochs who bought The New York Times in 1896) stated in The Israelite of America: "Masonry is a Jewish institution whose history, degrees, charges, passwords and explanations are Jewish from beginning to end". The Jews themselves admit that by "the middle of the 18th century Jews joined the lodges, not only in England but also in Holland, France, and Germany". There was objection in Germany to Jewish membership, but by the 1780s Jewish applications to join the lodges became frequent. In France and England, there was no objection in principle to Jewish membership in Freemasonry, and in the US, Jews were among Freemasonry's founders and were probably the first to introduce it into the country.

The Rothschild world conquest program most likely didn't start in earnest until the late 19th century, with the birth of the Zionist project. Throughout most of that century, the Rothschilds were concentrating on getting immensely rich. However, prior to Zionism, the Talmud was a very ugly force for radicalizing Jews and politicizing their religion. Talmudists and the Rothschilds were not in favor of Jewish emancipation. The Jewish enlightenment, supported by those such as Mendelssohn, was about boosting the rights of Jewish individuals by granting them citizenship, but this meant that the Jews collectively would lose their autonomy and status as a nation within a nation. Count Stanislas de Clermont-Tonnerre, a liberal from Paris, set out the terms for emancipation of the Jews of France: They "should be denied everything as a nation but granted everything as individuals...". The Talmudist reactionaries wanted the opposite: strong Jewish organizations and weak Jewish individuals who couldn't think for themselves, who failed to integrate into society and who would therefore need the "protection" of organized Jewry. They didn't want strong, liberated Jews who'd assimilated into the host nation. Although the Sephardim were quite well integrated at the time of the Revolution, the Ashkenazim in the east of France - who outnumbered the Sephardim by nearly ten to one - spoke Yiddish and demanded autonomy for their closed communities.

The hypothetical (albeit probable) Jewish Protocols writer is a Jewish supremacist who's only too pleased to keep reminding his co-religionists about the "brainless heads of the goyim", and about how the "purely brute mind of the goyim is incapable of use for analysis and observation", etc., and so even though it wasn't his own sect of Talmudic Jews who were behind the French Revolution, he's happy to claim responsibility for Jews being behind the Revolution.

In the Netherlands, the role of Jews in orchestrating the 1795 Revolution to form the Batavian Republic is pretty well established. The Jewish Virtual Library says: "A group of 'enlightened' Jews had been among the prime organizers in Amsterdam of a body called Felix Libertate. This association had as its purpose the furtherance of the ideas of 'freedom and equality'." However, the JVL points out that there was also a split there. The leaders of the official Jewish community did not want Jews to be granted full citizenship, because Jews would have equal rights as individuals, but no rights as a people. There would be no place for a Jewish separatist organization in a new regime of personal rights.

Also from Protocol No 1, is:

"In all corners of the earth the words 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity' brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these words were canker-worms at work boring into the well-being of the goyim, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity and destroying all the foundations of the goya States. As you will see later, this helped us to our triumph; it gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands the master card - the destruction of the privileges, or in other words of the very existence of the aristocracy of the goyim, that class which was the only defense peoples and countries had against us."

Under the French Revolution's Reign of Terror, the aristocratic classes had to flee or face the guillotine; some fled as far as Pennsylvania. In 2009, the names were posted online of more than 13,000 people who were beheaded. 160,000 fled France, with about 32,000 going to the UK. Most of those were aristocracy or clergy. Of those executed during the Terror, only a little more than eight per cent were aristocrats. The French nobility was not completely destroyed, but never regained its former wealth and power. In England of 1880, the landed aristocracy owned more than half of the land; by 1980, that had fallen to a quarter or less. The two basic causes were "democracy" and the collapse of agriculture. The former was the result of the English Revolution. And the American Revolution opened up the American West to farming on a larger, more efficient scale than was possible in Europe. The early 20th century was a golden age for farming in the US, and grain could be exported to Britain on steam ships at prices that undercut British farmers. Refrigerator ships allowed cheap meat to be imported from Australasia and Argentina.

And the Bolshevik Revolution, of course, proved especially disastrous for the Russian aristocracy, who, in the wake of the Revolution, came to be called the "former people".

The Protocols is written from the point of view of someone in France in the 1880s or 1890s, before the Bolshevik Revolution and much of the decline of the English aristocracy. The Rothschild lackeys and Talmudic supremacists, by the time the Protocols was written, are already aware of how their position has been strengthened in France, and of how the French "goy" state has been weakened so it no longer has any defense against them. But that is not to say that a Rothschild master program was conceived before the French Revolution, and then the entire plan was executed. Prior to the Revolution, the Ashkenazim would have been generally opposed to Jewish emancipation because they wanted powerful Jewish institutions, not powerful Jewish individuals (unless they happened to be the Rothschilds and other leaders of organized Jewry). Rather, the conspirators were carefully observing events and making up the program on the fly, taking anything that worked: war for profit, getting the gold in their hands, use of secret societies, attacks on Christianity and the clergy, attacks on the nobility, control of the press, etc. All of these things had been done before, but only the Talmudic Khazar spivs had combined all of them in an extraordinary plot for world domination.

Protocol No. 17 says:

"We have long past taken care to discredit the priesthood of the goyim, and thereby to ruin their mission on earth which in these days might still be a great hindrance to us. Day by day its influence on the peoples of the world is falling lower. Freedom of conscience has been declared everywhere, so that now only years divide us from the moment of the complete wrecking of that Christian religion, as to other religions we shall have still less difficulty in dealing with them, but it would be premature to speak of this now. [...] The King of the Jews will be the real Pope of the Universe, the patriarch of an international Church."

Jews have had a long-standing hatred of Christianity, and have done everything they can to weaken it. The origin of that is in the Pharisees' crucifixion of Christ, who of course, was not from Judea, was not a Jew, and in fact had denounced the "Jews" (actually the Pharisees) as being "of your father the devil" who was a "murderer" and a "liar" (John 8:44), and had denounced the moneychangers as having turned "the house of prayer" into "a den of thieves" (Matthew 21:12-13). The Pharisees demanded that Christ be crucified after Pilate had found "no fault" with him: "Pilate therefore went forth again and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. [...] Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." (John 19:4-12.) For more Biblical quotes, see here.

In Biblical times, no one was known as a "Jew". There were the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes. The first two were political rivals who both served in the Great Sanhedrin; the Sadducees did not survive after about 70 CE. The Essenes were a third faction who were disgusted with the other two. Modern translations of the Bible began to use the term "Jews" to describe the Pharisees, who are said to be the spiritual fathers of modern Judaism. However, of those who claim to be "Jews" today, only a small minority are the descendants of the Pharisees. The great majority of modern-day "Jews" are the Khazars as explained above - a light-skinned, warmongering Asiatic tribe from the Caucasus who converted to Judaism around 740 CE or later. And these are the 'gentlemen' who are trying to take over the world today, who rule the world by proxy, orchestrate false-flag terror and war for profit, and who get others to fight and die for them in those wars as they bank the profits and celebrate the latest gains to their political power, all acquired at no personal risk to themselves.

The Rothschilds plagiarised Adam Weishaupt's Illuminati policies of attacking Christianity and the nation-state, and conspiring under cover of secret societies, after deciding it would be useful to incorporate them into their own program for world conquest. And since the Pharisees had always hated Christianity, and the Khazars were trying to pass themselves off as Pharisees or "Jews", and the Rothschilds are Khazars, the Rothschilds' plan for "the complete wrecking of that Christian religion" - as set out in the Protocols by their agent - dovetailed nicely with their impersonation act.

Because of Jews imposing their 'ethics' on society by way of their political activism and control of governments, Christians are being pressurised into participating in or tacitly supporting practices that they feel is in violation of their religious conscience. For example, Catholic Charities in Illinois shut down its adoption services rather than place children with homosexual couples. A New York court clerk was ordered to issue same-sex marriage licenses. A wedding photographer who refused to shoot a same-sex wedding was sued. A Christian counselor who refused to advise gay couples was penalized.

A Christian couple who ran a guest house in Cornwall, England, were sued for refusing to allow a gay couple to share a double bed, although they did offer them the choice of single or twin rooms. The Christian hoteliers, of whom the husband ended up in hospital for triple heart bypass surgery following the stress of the case, were left with the unenviable choice of compromising their religious beliefs, or having to close their business and give up their home (as the business was in debt). In the comments section on that article, one poster wisely observes that the gay complainants "need to grow up" rather than "carry on like a couple of spoilt little brats who didn't get their own way". After the elderly hoteliers lost their case in the UK's Supreme Court in November 2013, they'd been the victim of an ongoing hate campaign including having wheel nuts removed from their car and their business's website hacked and replaced with pornography, and they'd been going hungry and without heating in the winter in order to make the mortgage payments, they were at the point of giving up and selling their business. The leading judge has since said that she may have made the wrong decision, and ordered that the hoteliers should not be liable for legal costs. They have managed to carry on, with the help of supporters.

A study by researchers at San Diego State University found that, after three years, only 2.7 percent of heterosexual couples had split up, whereas the break up rate for gay couples was 3.8 percent if they were in a "civil union", and 9.3 percent if they weren't. A lesbian couple, who were one of the first to get 'married' in New York, split up a year after their 'wedding'. Not surprisingly, children of same-sex couples are more likely to be bullied.

Protocol No. 13 says:

"In order that the masses themselves may not guess what they are about we further distract them with amusements, games, pastimes, passions, people's palaces...".

Reality TV is a cheap way of distracting the masses, so that they can be entertained with trivia, whilst failing to learn about important matters such as who runs the world, who did 9/11, and who really makes the decision to wage war - and who tells the likes of Bush and Blair what they must do well in advance of the time that the decision was supposedly made. And reality TV allowed people to take a look inside the homes of celebrities. Game shows are a similar distraction, although they have to offer prizes rather than turning people into instant celebrities. The government is the biggest winner, from the tax revenue. Coming soon to a Jewish-dominated mainstream media near you.

The Daily Record, a Scottish newspaper that was owned by the Jewish swindler and suspected Mossad agent Robert Maxwell, whose 1991 funeral on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem was attended by six serving and former heads of the Israeli intelligence community, posted pictures of the Miami Beach mansion of the late fashion designer Gianni Versace, who was shot dead in 1997 in a suspected contract killing. Originally, the murderer was supposedly a "lone gunman" who 'coincidentally' went on to commit suicide, and the 'explanation' offered for a dead turtle dove found at the crime scene was that it must have been hit by a bullet fragment as it improbably flew overhead at the very time of the shooting, in a "freak coincidence". The Record, owned by Trinity Mirror, whose former chairman Sir Victor Blank is a vice president of the Jewish Leadership Council, supposedly fell for the rumor that the mansion had been bought by David Beckham, the "British" Jewish footballer. In fact, the buyers were the trio of Israeli-born brothers and businessmen Raphi, Abraham "Avi", and Joseph "Joe" Nakash, who opened a clothing shop in Brooklyn and became famous for their Jordache Jeans line in the late 70s and early 80s. Later, the Jordache brand lost its appeal and "the brothers hit a rough patch in the 90s". Conversely, the Versace brand gained extra coverage in 1994, with the coverage of Elizabeth Hurley's black Versace safety pin dress, which she wore to the premiere of Four Weddings And A Funeral.

So, a successful "goyim" competitor in the fashion business loses his life in 1997 as the brothers are going through a "rough patch" (Three Brothers And A Funeral, perhaps?), the brothers get to own their dead rival's mansion, with the bonus that images of it can serve as a "people's palace" to distract the masses, especially if a hoax is circulated that the mansion is the home of an even more famous Jewish celebrity, which also serves to distract from the bizarre "coincidence" of the mansion being taken over by the erstwhile rivals.

Protocol No. 14 says:

"In countries known as progressive and enlightened we have created a senseless, filthy, abominable literature."

It's no secret that Jews are leaders in the pornography business. Al Goldstein, the founder of Screw magazine, was known as the "Jewish King of Porn" or simply the "King of porn". Jews who were dubbed the "Bill Gates of porn" included Reuben Sturman and Seth Warshavsky. Michael Lucas, the gay porn actor turned director who was born Andrei Bregman, is a "fervent supporter of Israel" who described the Koran as "today's Mein Kampf" and referred to "burqa-wearing, jihad-screaming, Koran-crazed Muslims".

Nathan Abrams, in the Jewish Quarterly, notes that "Though Jews make up only two per cent of the American population, they have been prominent in pornography. Many erotica dealers in the book trade between 1890 and 1940 were immigrant Jews of German origin." Jews also accounted for most of the leading male performers, e.g., Ron Jeremy, and there were a "sizeable number" of Jewesses. Al Goldstein said that Jews are in pornography because they think that "Christ sucks", and Abrams brazenly admits that "Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture". Professor Abrams, formerly a Lecturer in American History at the University of Aberdeen, went on to become a Senior Lecturer in Film Studies at Bangor University. In 2013 he received a grant from Rothschild Foundation Europe. One of his edited works is Jews & Sex. One of his articles has the title: "The Jew on the Loo: the Toilet in Jewish Popular Culture, Memory, and Imagination". And this was classed as "philosophical research"!

Brooklyn rabbi Samuel Waldman was caught with child porn videos on his computer. A non-Jewish police chief, who along with the rabbi, was one of the two high profile cases that led to 71 arrests, in the May 2014 New York City child porn ring bust, claimed he'd started looking at the images for "research", and it "grew into a personal interest".

Former internet porn mogul Stephen Michael Cohen, a multiple felon on fraud and forgery charges, stole the domain from Gary Kremen, a San Francisco engineer and investor who'd been smart enough to register it in 1994. Kremen regained control of in 2000, was awarded $65 million damages in 2001, and took ownership of two of Cohen's houses - a mansion and a shack. But Cohen went on the run and moved his money offshore. He was arrested in Mexico and handed over to US agents in 2005. The unscrupulous Cohen made more profit from the domain; Kremen said he wanted to have "softer" content such as sex education and disease prevention.

In a bizarre conflation of Jewish fashion design with Jewish porn acting, American Apparel founder and ousted CEO Dov Charney was caught on camera dancing naked in his office in front of female employees. Evidently, Charney felt he was too sexy for his own company's clothes.

A recurring theme time and again in the Protocols is the writer's fervent belief in the racial superiority of his own tribe, and his utter contempt for the "goyim" (Gentiles), whom he regards as unthinking brutes who are merely the equivalent of cattle, to be farmed and exploited. For example:

The aforementioned Jack Bernstein's My Farewell To Israel includes some quotes from the Jewish Talmud. In the first quote, "goy" seems to have been interpreted as its literal meaning of "nation", whereas the "beasts" it refers to are obviously supposed to be the indigenous population - the "goyim" - of the various nations. After Talmudic quotations were leaked, Jewish racial supremacists attempted damage control with a red herring about how "goyim" was not really a derogatory term and was supposed to mean "nations". But that is belied by the writings of the Talmud, and the Jews themselves admit that "[T]he most commonly used word for a non-Jew is goy. The word 'goy' means 'nation', and refers to the fact that goyim are members of other nations, that is, nations other than the Children of Israel." Given the context in which "goy(im)" frequently appears, it is clear that it refers to non-Jews or Gentiles. The goyim are the 99.7% of global population whom Jewish supremacists seek to enslave or murder. 

"The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts." - Baba Mecia 114, 6.

"On the house of the goy, one looks as on a fold of cattle." - Tosefta, Erubin VII, 1.

"Jehovah (God created the non-Jew in human form so that the jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night." - Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L.

"If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy he is not responsible." - Tosefta, Aboda Zara 8, 5.

"A Jew may rob a goy- that is, he may cheat him on a bill if unlikely to be perceived (discovered) by him." - Shulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348.

"A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or a Jew. But a Jew is not forbidden to do all this to a goy." - Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5.

"A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl." - Gad. Shas. 2:2.

"A Jew may do to a non-Jewess what he can do. He may treat her as he treats a piece of meat." - Nadarine, 20, 8; Shulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348.

"The Bible says: 'Thou shalt not cheat thy next brother,' but the non-Jews are not our brethren, but as mentioned above, worse than dogs." - Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 227.

The murderous racism of Jewish supremacists is also demonstrated by publications such as Torat Ha'Melech (The King's Torah - Laws of Killing Non-Jews). It turns out that Benjamin Netanyahu, long-time prime minister of Israel, "referred to one of the people behind the 'The Laws of Killing Non-Jews' [Rabbi Ya'akov Yosef] as a posek gadol − a great halakhic arbiter".

NetanyahuSupportRacistMurders photo NetanyahuSupportRacistMurders_zps5b2f6454.png

Source: Haaretz [premium] [free]

Rabbi Yosef, who was arrested in 2011 on suspicion of incitement to racism, was certified as a rabbi at the appropriately named Rav Kook Institute.

Yosef's father, the appalling racist and hater Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, described by Benjamin Netanyahu as "one of the wisest men of this generation", claimed: "Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel. [...] Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat… That is why gentiles were created." On the question of making peace with the Arabs, Yosef asked, "How can you make peace with a snake?" and described Arabs as "evildoers". His verdict on Muslims was: "They're stupid. Their religion is as ugly as they are." The Rabbi's inflammatory hate speech was so extreme that his comments were condemned by ADL chief Abe Foxman.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of compulsory sterilization, there is no doubt that the Yosef rabbinical family serves as evidence in its favor.

Returning to Bernard Lazare's Antisemitism: Its History and Causes (1894), a recurring theme is that the Talmud is the source of much of the problem. It rigidly reinforced the system in which the Jews enjoyed special privileges and the ability to govern themselves, whilst failing to integrate into the host society. For example, from Chapter 1:
    "Everywhere they wanted to remain Jews, and everywhere they were granted the privilege of establishing a State within the State. By virtue of these privileges and exemptions, and immunity from taxes, they would soon rise above the general condition of the citizens of the municipalities where they resided; they had better opportunities for trade and accumulation of wealth, whereby they excited jealousy and hatred.
    Thus, Israel's attachment to its law was one of the first causes of its unpopularity, whether because it derived from that law benefits and advantages which were apt to excite envy, or because it prided itself upon the excellence of its Torah and considered itself above and beyond other peoples.
    Still had the Israelites adhered to pure Mosaism, they could, doubtless, at some time in their history, have so modified that Mosaism as to retain none but the religious and metaphysical precepts; possibly, if they had no other sacred book but the Bible they might have merged in the nascent church, which enlisted its first followers among the Sadducees, the Essenes, and the Jewish proselytes. One thing prevented that fusion and upheld the existence of the Hebrews among the nations; it was the growth of the Talmud, the authority and rule of the doctors who taught a pretended tradition. The policy of the doctors to which we shall return further made of the Jews sullen beings, unsociable and haughty, of whom Spinoza, who knew them well, could say: 'It is not at all surprising that after being scattered for so many years they have preserved their identity without a government of their own, for, by their external rites, contrary to those of other nations, as well as by the sign of circumcision, they have isolated themselves from all other nations, even to the extent of drawing upon themselves the hate of all mankind.'
    Man's aim on earth, said the doctors, is the knowledge and observance of the law, and one cannot thoroughly observe it without denying allegiance to all but the true law. The Jew who followed these precepts isolated himself from the rest of mankind; he retrenched himself behind the fences which had been erected around the Torah by Ezra and the first scribes, later by the Pharisees and the Talmudists, the successors of Ezra, reformers of primitive Mosaism and enemies or the prophets. He isolated himself, not merely by declining to submit to the customs which bound together the inhabitants of the countries where he settled, but also by shunning all intercourse with the inhabitants themselves. To his unsociability the Jew added exclusiveness."

Those are not the words of Adolf Hitler, or David Duke, or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Those are the words of Bernard Lazare, a wise Jew with a very clear perception. So, anyone who thinks that Judaism is simply another religion that has nothing to do with politics, and Jews are unfairly picked on by evil "anti-Semites" because of their religion, had better think again.

This paragraph is about Jews' superiority complex and contempt for the Gentiles, which ironically derives from Jews' self-delusion:
    "With the law, yet without Israel to put it into practice, the world could not exist, God would turn it back into nothing; nor will the world know happiness until it be brought under the universal domination of that law, i.e., under the domination of the Jews. Thus the Jewish people is chosen by God as the trustee of His will; it is the only people with whom the Deity has made a covenant; it is the choice of the Lord. At the time when the serpent tempted Eve, says the Talmud, he corrupted her with his venom. Israel, on receiving the revelation from Sinai, delivered itself from the evil; the rest of mankind could not recover. Thus, if they have each its guardian and its protecting constellation, Israel is placed under the very eye of Jehovah; it is the Eternal's favoured son who has the sole right to his love, to his good will, to his special protection, other men are placed beneath the Hebrews; it is by mere mercy that they are entitled to divine munificence, since the souls of the Jews alone are descended from the first man. The wealth which has come to the nations, in truth belongs to Israel, and we hear Jesus Himself reply to the Greek woman: 'It is not meet to take the children's bread and so cast it unto the dogs.' This faith in their predestination, in their election, developed among the Jews an immense pride. It led them to view the Gentiles with contempt, often with hate, when patriotic considerations supervened to religious feeling."

And another excerpt from Lazare's Middle Ages section:
    "Henceforth the Jew thought no longer. And what need had he of thinking since he possessed a minute, precise code, the work of casuist legists, which could give answer to any question that it was legitimate to ask ? For believers were forbidden to inquire into problems which were not mentioned in this code, the Talmud.
    The Jew found everything foreseen in the Talmud: the sentiments, the emotions, whatever they might be, were designated; prayers, formulas, all ready-made, supplied the means for expressing them. The book left room neither to reason nor to freedom, inasmuch as in instruction the legendary and gnomical portions were almost proscribed to lay stress upon the law and ritual. True, by the tyranny they had exercised over their flock they developed in each the ingenuity and spirit of craftiness necessary to escape from the net which closed without pity; but they also increased the natural positivism of the Jews by presenting to them as their only idea the material and personal happiness, a happiness which one could attain on earth if one knew how to bind oneself to the thousand religious laws. To attain this selfish happiness, the Jew, whom the prescribed ceremonies rid of all care and trouble, was fatally led on to strive after gold, for under the existing social conditions which ruled him, as they ruled all the people of that epoch, gold alone could give him the gratification which his limited and narrow brain could conceive. He was prepared to be changer, lender, usurer, one who strives after the metal, at first for the pleasures it could afford and then afterwards for the sole happiness of possessing it; one who greedily seizes gold and avariciously immobilizes it. The Jew having become such, anti-Judaism became more complicated, social causes intermingled with religious causes; the combination of these causes explains the intensity and gravity of the persecutions which Israel had to undergo."

In Lazare's next section, on the period from the Reformation to the French Revolution, he continues on the theme of "Talmudic tyranny" and the problems it brought for the Jews:
    "All over Europe the Jews enjoyed the greatest tranquility during the eighteenth century. In Poland alone they fared badly for having once lived too well. They had been prosperous there up to the middle of the seventeenth century. Rich, powerful, they had lived on an equal footing with the Christians, treated as though of the people amid whom they lived; but they could not help giving themselves up to their usual commerce, their vices, their passion for gold. Dominated by the Talmudists they succeeded in producing nothing beyond commentators of the Talmud. They were tax collectors, spirit-distillers, usurers, seigneurial stewards. They were the noblemen's allies in their abominable work of oppression, and when the Cossacks of Ukraine and Little Russia had risen, under Chmielnicki, against Polish tyranny, the Jews, as accomplices of the lords, were the first to be massacred. It is said that over 100,000 of them were killed in ten years, but just as many Catholics and especially Jesuits, were killed as well.
    Elsewhere they were very prosperous. Thus, in the Ottoman Empire, they were simply liable to the tax on foreigners and subject to no other restrictive regulations, but nowhere was their prosperity so great as in the Netherlands and England. [...] At the same time, greater and greater toleration was shown them from day to day; the world was drawing nearer to them. Were they, in turn, drawing nearer to the world? No. They seemed more and more to attach themselves to their mystic patriotism; the further they went, the more the dreams of Kabbala haunted them, with ever renewed confidence they awaited the Messiah, and never had the pseudo-Messiahs been received with so much enthusiasm as they were in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. [...] These hopes which the illuminism of the Kabbalists entertained helped to keep the Jews apart, but those who were not seduced by the speculations of dreamers, were weighed down by the yoke of the Talmud, a yoke at all events even ruder and more humiliating.
    So far from decreasing, the Talmudic tyranny had even increased since the sixteenth century."

And Lazare again admits that, even as the Gentiles were treating them better, the Jews retreated into their self-imposed "prison":
    "At this time Joseph Caro had edited the Shulchan Aruch, a Talmudic code, which according to the traditions inculcated by the rabbinists set up as laws the opinions of the doctors. Up to our time the European Jews had lived under the execrable oppression of these practices. The Polish Jews improved even upon Joseph Caro and refined the already enormous subtleties of the Shulchan Aruch by making additions thereto, and they introduced the method of Pilpul (pepper-grains) into their instruction.
    Accordingly, as the world grew kinder to them, the Jews, at least the masses, retired into themselves, straightened their prison, bound themselves with tighter bonds. Their decrepitude was unheard of, their intellectual sinking was equaled only by their moral debasement; this nation seemed dead."

Joseph ben Ephraim Caro (Karo), named by Lazare as one of the rabbis who'd imposed the tyranny of the Talmud, was born in Spain according to Encyclopaedia Britannica. Some sources say it's not clear whether his birthplace was Spain or Portugal. Nevertheless, Caro was a Sephardic Jew. He wrote his Shulhan Arukh mostly according to Sephardic tradition. And he was a Kabbalist who claimed that a "heavenly" mentor known as a "maggid" regularly visited him. The infamous Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, born in Iraq, was the Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel from 1973 to 1983.

The "Jewish problem" is not simply a Khazar problem. Not all Khazars are bad, and not all Sephardim are bad. But an "anti-Zionist" Jew isn't necessarily a "good" Jew, unless they also reject the racism and rigidity of the Talmud. Similarly, an atheist Jew who rejects the Talmud is certainly not a "good" Jew if they subscribe to Zionism, whether they're part of the deception, or have simply been duped into imagining that Zionism is necessary to save them from "anti-Semitism".

Here's how to cure the problem of "anti-Semitism" in three steps. (i) Jews should burn their Talmuds, and wake up to the fact that using their own brains to solve eternal problems of life, the universe and everything beats relying on a centuries-old tome written, edited and codified by racists, perverts, fantasists, liars and lunatics. (ii) Desert Israel, Zionism, and other self-imposed causes of isolation and conflict, and live among the rest of us; treat us as equals and we'll reciprocate. (iii) Ban the practice of male infant genital mutilation ("circumcision"), deprive perverted Rabbis of an excuse to molest babies, and prevent such deep-rooted psychological problems that even their president is in jail for rape and other sexual offences, and a Managing Director of the IMF is described as behaving like a "rutting chimpanzee" and is dubbed "Hot Rabbit".

Those who allege that "all Jews" are bad will cite the fact that there was a Jewish problem long before Zionism, with Jews getting thrown out of everywhere after the host nation had tired of Jewish parasitism. The anti-Zionists say that it's simply a relatively modern political problem that began with Herzl. The truth is somewhere between the two.

Up until the birth of the "Zionist" project, the "bad" Jews were the Talmudists. Because of what Lazare describes as "Talmudic tyranny", Jews could not integrate into society and were limited to certain occupations such as peddling and usury. They also resorted to clipping the coinage. Because of the usury and coinage clipping, Jews were the first to get the blame when times were hard. Jews such as Moses Mendelssohn who inspired the Haskalah - the Jewish Enlightenment, which culminated in the French Revolution, or those who financed or fought in the American Revolution, weren't evil agents of the Rothschilds bent on world domination. They were progressives, a force for good, whose aim was the emancipation of the Jews by gaining citizenship and freeing themselves from the "yoke of the Talmud". They supported liberty, equality and fraternity. Then, in the 19th century, the Rothschild dynasty began their "Zionist" program for world conquest. Secret Zionism was about taking over the world; Herzl's Political Zionism ran in parallel as the overt wing of the movement and the official pretext for Zionism. Secret Zionism incorporated revolutionary forces such as the Bolsheviks. There was nothing progressive about that; Bolshevism was led by purely evil Jews. This time, their motivation was not anything noble such as Jewish emancipation or a fight against taxation without representation; it was a desire to further geopolitical ambitions, and a hate-fueled desire for Khazarian revenge on the Rus'.

The Rothschilds are Talmudists. It's the same culprits, but this time they've got their tentacles spread around the banks, the major political parties, the mainstream media, and the educational institutions, like secondary cancer tumors threatening major organs. The Sephardim have been a nuisance rather than a grave threat to the world. Their Talmudists were dreamers, and occasionally included child killers who would get the Jews thrown out of the host society every now and then, typically when times were hard. In better times, they'd be allowed back in. But the Rothschild / Khazar conspiracy was altogether different. In modern times, Ashkenazi Jews have an average IQ of 117, whereas the Sephardim average is 94.

Rather than a bunch of dreamers and a few perverts, the new threat came from a group who would stop at nothing to achieve world conquest, and whose systematic takeover of the banks, the government and the mass media was second to none. They were obsessed with gaining immense political leverage and dominating the media, banking and finance. For example, Benjamin Netanyahu not only studied architecture at MIT so he would know how to take down tall buildings (at the time, he 'explained' his 'interest' in architecture by claiming he wanted to alleviate Israel's "housing shortage"), but also political science and management. His management thesis was about how computers would "enhance the political power of newspapers". Anyone planning a massive false-flag terror attack, who was aware that it would be of paramount importance to prevent exposure of the crime by countering the truth movement that would inevitably emerge in the wake of the attacks, would need to be sure that newspapers had sufficient "political power" to swing public opinion, even when his group was already dominant in the mainstream media. With the media in their hands, they would work to portray the truth movement as loony "conspiracy theorists" who thought the 9/11 planes were faked with "holograms". They would also have agents on the internet peddling equally preposterous 'theories', such as the claims that the World Trade Center was demolished by advanced 150 kiloton thermonuclear devices that bizarrely left no radioactive signature, and had been installed with the approval of the Nixon Administration, who successfully covered up the plot from Washington Post reporters and everyone else when the Towers were built in the early 1970s. In other words, the sort of claims that anyone above the level of imbecile would instantly recognize as arrant nonsense. By 2011, well into Netanyahu's second term as prime minister, Israel was still "benefiting" from the collapses of the Twin Towers, there was still a housing crisis in Israel, and Bibi was advocating an emergency solution that didn't require any specialist knowledge of architecture, such as discounts on land and taxes on empty properties. By 2013, there was still a housing shortage in Israel.

Meanwhile, the Israel 'Defense' Force destroyed more than 18,000 Palestinian homes in the occupied territory, using bulldozers supplied by the US company Caterpillar. People killed by the bulldozer policy include Rachel Corrie, who was deliberately run over despite wearing an orange fluorescent jacket with reflective strips and being clearly visible to the bulldozer driver and the soldiers in the tank, Jamal Fayed, who was already paralyzed and was killed when the IDF did not suspend the demolition for long enough for Jamal to be helped out of the house by his mother, the Al Sho'bi family, whose house was demolished without warning in the middle of the night, and Ibrahim Khalafallah, a sick man in his 70s who could not move in time. Murder in cold blood by bulldozer - which can hardly be excused as the action of a nervous soldier with his finger on the trigger - shows how "God's Chosen People" view the "goyim" as merely the equivalent of insects, to be swatted at their convenience.

Israel didn't even pay for the lethal bulldozers; the US taxpayer did: "There is undisputed evidence in the record, however, that the United States government paid for every bulldozer that Caterpillar transferred to the IDF." Another purpose of 9/11 was to divert from Israel's policy of "ethnic cleansing" against the Palestinians. The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency sent a letter to the Israeli government and copied to Caterpillar, granting funding approval "for the Israeli government's purchase of fifty Caterpillar D9 bulldozers under the Foreign Military Financing program". The letter was sent in the same month as the 9/11 attacks - September 2001. It's not Caterpillar that should be sued, it's whoever granted the funding approval. Or maybe it was a "dual citizenship" Israeli-"American" who could simply flee the coop. "On 4 September 2001, Israel signed a contract with Lockheed Martin for 52 more F-16I fighters." The Israelis obviously knew that it would soon be "open season" on the Palestinians. Interestingly enough, that very day, one week in advance of the 9/11 attacks, the Zim "American"-Israeli Shipping Company moved out of the World Trade Center.

So history can be divided into two eras: The Talmudic usury / coin-clipping era, and the Zionist world domination program. In each case, Talmudic supremacism is responsible, but in the later era the racial supremacism has given expression to a unique, evil political program to establish a global dictatorship and to farm people like cattle. Because there are none so enslaved as those who falsely perceive themselves as "free", the system is designed to fool the sheeple into falsely imagining themselves to be "free", living in so-called "democracies".

The Jewish Protocols writer certainly exhibits as one of the avaricious Rothschild school who are obsessed with getting all the "gold in [their] hands", who are also racist Talmudic supremacists who view the "goyim" as the equivalent of cattle. And the Protocols writer is being rather disingenuous in boasting about "his" people being behind the French Revolution, because progressive Jews such as Moses Mendelssohn or Haym Salomon would have had no truck with the Rothschild Talmudic program.

Before investigating the timeline of how the Protocols was brought to Russia and published, and refuting specific claims about the Protocols being an Okhrana "forgery", it is useful to consider how the Rothschild program emerged out of the earlier hatred and mischief of the Talmudic bigots, and developed into contemporary events such as Israel's staging of 9/11.

The idea that there was an already pre-existing program for world conquest prior to the French Revolution, that Mayer Amschel Rothschild was in charge, and Rothschild drew up the plans for the Illuminati, perhaps as early as 1770, and then set up Weishaupt, a Crypto-Jew, as his front in 1776, might sound good, but isn't supported by the facts. And it portrays the conspirators as almost superhuman, and much cleverer than they actually were. The Talmudists certainly wanted to rule the world, but they didn't have a credible strategy in the 1700s. As mentioned above, the evidence points to the credible program for world domination crystallizing at the birth of Zionism, with its Machiavellian ideas such as control of the press plagiarized from Joly. There is no evidence that Weishaupt was a Crypto-Jew, was secretly a Rothschild front, or was the sort of person who would happily take orders from others. A more economical theory that fits the facts is that Weishaupt's Illuminati was all his own invention, Rothschild did not become aware of the Illuminati until later, and then decided to exploit it for his own ends, after he'd learned how a prince had become extremely wealthy - and decided to use the same system to create his own dynasty.

The Illuminati didn't survive, but the Rothschild conspiracy emerged out of it, Rothschild plagiarised Weishaupt's strategies of destroying Christianity and the nation-state, and unfortunately the conspiracy has not only survived to this day but has enjoyed unparalleled success.

One of the Illuminati members was Prince Charles of Hesse-Kassel, or Karl von Hessen-Kassel in German, (1744-1836). William I, Elector of Hesse (1743-1821), became William (or Wilhelm) IX, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel upon the death of his father on 31 October 1785. Charles was William's younger brother. Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812), as a dealer in coins, became Court (or Crown) Agent to William of Hesse-Hanau in 1769. William, described by Frederic Morton's The Rothschilds, [p. 44] as "Europe's most blue- and cold-blooded loan shark", entrusted part of his fortune to Mayer Amschel Rothschild as he fled Napoleon in 1806. (That's one version of the story. But either way, within a few years, Nathan Rothschild received at least £550,000 of William's fortune and used it to speculate on his own account, as described above.) The town of Hanau is located 25 km east of Frankfurt am Main; Kassel is 190 km north of Hanau. Thus, as early as 1769, Rothschild had a connection with the royal family of Hesse, at least one of whom went on to become an Illuminati member. Later, several acquaintances of Rothschild were Illuminati members.

However, since we are not assuming that Rothschild was behind the French Revolution, we do not need to postulate that Mayer Rothschild financed and controlled Weishaupt, or that Rothschild found out about the Illuminati when it was a secret society that did not admit Jews as members, prior to July 20, 1785 when Illuminati emissary Johann Jakob Lanz was struck by lightning and killed at Regensburg, formerly known as Ratisbon, and the Bavarian government subsequently published details of the Illuminati conspiracy after police discovered papers documenting the Illuminati's plans for international revolution hidden in Lanz's clothes, and the conspiracy was confirmed by further documents found in raids on the homes of Illuminati members. Rothschild might have learned about the Illuminati prior to 1785, but there is no need to presume that he was aware of it until people such as Robison and Barruel had published exposés.

So in 1769 Mayer Amschel Rothschild lands the business with William I of Hesse, later known as William IX, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel. As William's Court Agent, Rothschild learns that doing business with royalty and governments is far more profitable than trading with the "common people". He is intrigued by the fact that the House of Hesse fortune was gained by hiring out Hessian soldiers to foreign countries for profit, for example, to Britain's King George III to fight in the American War of Independence. Of the approximately 30,000 German soldiers, 19,414 were either from Hesse-Kassel or Hesse-Hanau, and they were all under Hessian command. John T. Flynn, in Men of Wealth [p. 93], states that the Landgrave Frederick II, William IX's father, hired 22,000 of the Hessians to George III for £3,191,000. But William already had his own small subsidiary principality and accompanying small army, before his father's death in 1785. By then, with his inheritance and the million or two that he'd made, he was probably the richest man in Europe. In addition to living off the back of soldiers' blood, sweat and tears, William also profited by making "numerous loans to statesmen, princes and bankers" [ibid. p. 94], a fact that clearly wasn't lost on his Court Agent and financial advisor, who was learning how to sow the seeds for his own dynasty that would soon dwarf the House of Hesse.

Although the War of Independence was unsuccessful for Britain, the Hessian royalty pocketed their fees irrespective of the outcome. (The US would lose its independence again, following the creation of Rothschild-controlled central banks.) Evidently, Rothschild decides that he wants to get into the war business too, since it is so lucrative, and it doesn't matter which side wins. And sure enough, when Napoleon declares in 1806 that he plans to remove the House of Hesse from power, Prince William goes into exile, Nathan Rothschild gets his hands on some of William's fortune, and profits from various speculations on his own account when he's supposed to have invested it in consols for William. Then he profits from sending gold to Wellington. Then he makes a killing on the Stock Exchange after getting early information of Wellington's success at Waterloo.

That was followed by the First Opium War (1839-1842), the Second Opium War (1856-1860), WWI, WWII, the Third Opium War (Afghanistan, 2001-), the Iraq War, etc.

David Sassoon (1792-1864) was a Baghdad-born Jew whose business, as admitted by the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, "included a monopoly of the opium-trade". The family was known as the "Rothschilds of the East", and - in true Rothschild style - his eight sons were distributed as agents in various branches of the business. Sassoon, based in Bombay (Mumbai), ran the opium trade through the British-based East India Company. His grandson Edward, whose father Abdullah changed his name to Albert and moved to England, married into the Rothschild family. After the amount of Indian opium imported into China increased throughout the 1830s, from 18,956 chests in 1830 to 30,302 in 1836, China was facing an increasing trade imbalance in addition to a criminal and moral crisis. After China took measures to eliminate opium smuggling, the British went to war twice: first to recover, and then to enhance, opium trafficking profits. Given the Rothschilds' smuggling expertise and British government connections, it would be hard to argue that they didn't get a cut of the action. By 1825, the Rothschilds' capital was over four million pounds sterling (Queen Victoria only reached £5 million decades later, by which time the Rothschilds were up to £400 million). Nathan Rothschild had dealings with the East India Company in 1811, if not earlier, when he bought £800,000 of gold. Claims that the Rothschilds had a controlling interest in, or even owned, the East India Company, and profited greatly from the "colonization" of India, are certainly very credible. By the 1830s, Rothschild was practically synonymous with Britain. Nowadays, of course, when a politician says some particular policy is in America's interests, or Britain's interests, etc., what they really mean is that it's in the Rothschilds' interests. In any case, the first two opium wars were fought to maintain Jewish opium trafficking profits.

The Zionist 9/11 false-flag operation is an excellent illustration of how wars-for-profit is a common theme that drives the machinations of the ruling elite. However, the overwhelming evidence that proves Jewish terrorists masterminded 9/11 is so copious that it deserves its own article. If all of the objections to the 9/11 official conspiracy theory were put together, it would easily exceed Tolstoy's 1,392-page, 2,486 KB War and Peace.

Incidentally, the Jew Norman Cohn "ridiculed the sentence in the Protocols about subway terrorism". From Protocol No. 9:

"You may say that the goyim will rise upon us, arms in hand, if they guess what is going on before the time comes; but in the West we have against this a manoeuvre of such appalling terror that the very stoutest hearts quail - the undergrounds, metropolitans, those subterranean corridors which, before the time comes, will be driven under all the capitals and from whence those capitals will be blown into the air with all their organizations and archives."

For this, we merely need to look at the London 7/7 bombings, demonstrably another false-flag operation masterminded by Benjamin Netanyahu and the Mossad. (See Part Three for full information on 9/11 and more on 7/7.)

Zionist forces will stage false-flag terror if it confers some advantage to them, such as boosting support for the war in Iraq or providing a pretext for the intelligence agencies to snoop on people's private communications. And if things get bad enough they will go for the Samson option. Thus, the subway terror of Protocol No. 9 was a feature of the 7/7/05 operation, and could also feature amongst other options should the Jewish fanatics become so crazed that they decide to go for Armageddon and the "Coming" of their "Messiah".

To recap, after observing how William of Hesse had got rich from the war business in the late 18th century, Mayer Amschel Rothschild decided to establish a dynasty in which his descendants would exploit the same principle. At some point, Rothschild learned of Weishaupt's Illuminati and its program for destroying governments and abolishing religion. He plagiarized that part of Weishaupt's system and adapted it into his own program. Until the time of Alphonse Rothschild, the conspiracy was little more than a good plan for getting filthy rich and attacking rival religions. It was after the 1864 publication of Maurice Joly's The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu that the book inspired Alphonse to have a Machiavellian plan documented in the Protocols for establishing phony "democracies" in which the conspirators controlled the press and had political leaders in their pocket. Zionism was born, and the program crystallized into a superlative program for world domination. Joly is not to blame, and would be turning in his grave if he knew how his book has been abused by greedy, perverted, psychopathic Jewish fanatics. But without his book, we might still be living in a world with some filthy rich bankers and rabid rabbis who lacked any credible political plan. They would not have succeeded in tricking the international community into awarding them their own country, there would still be a free press rather than one that merely gave an outward appearance of being free, politicians would be serving their electorate rather than their mentors, and no group could have got away with a false-flag terror operation like 9/11. The world would still be free of Zionism, whereas to go back to that state now would be like a cancer patient who woke up and found it had just been a nightmare.

Before the rise of the House of Rothschild, Jews certainly had a dream of a Jewish "Utopia". It is described in The Jewish Utopia, Michael Higger (1932). From p. 11: "To understand the rabbinic conception of an ideal world it will help us if we imagine a hand passing from land to land, from country to country, from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean, and from the Indian Ocean to the North Pole, marking 'righteous' or 'wicked' on the forehead of each one of the sixteen hundred million inhabitants of our earthly globe. We should then be on the right road toward solving the major problems that burden so heavily the shoulders of suffering humanity. For mankind should be divided into two, and only two, distinct and unmistakable groups, namely, righteous and wicked. To the righteous would belong all that which God's wonderful world is offering; to the wicked would belong nothing." And from p. 20: "All those who will be observant merely because of personal, materialistic interests, will belong to the class of the unrighteous. Only those who will be observant as a result of their conviction and faithfulness will be welcome into the Kingdom of God". In other words, it's not enough to pretend to believe in their sick fantasy; one has to be actually daft enough to believe it, and any rational person is necessarily "wicked".

And p. 21: "Fourth, speculators, dishonest industrialists, and all those who accumulate wealth at the expense of the suffering of their fellow-men, will be unknown entities in the rabbinic Utopia." Someone forgot to tell the Rothschilds about this part. P. 58 describes the Jewish master race: "Under such conditions a sturdy race of strong, healthy, tall, youthful, and handsome people will be raised. [...] Physical defects [...] will, likewise, not exist." P. 69 says: "Third, the outstanding characteristic of the people of Israel of cultivating the habit of studying and learning for the sake of study - a characteristic not found among other peoples - will have to be encouraged and strengthened". Problem is, they're studying and learning fantasy, not facts. And they're not bright enough to see that their practice of filling their minds with sick fantasies about being superior to "other peoples", and about an imaginary Utopia that will never come to pass, is the cause of their failure to integrate with other cultures or to create any culture of their own. P. 93 discusses "animal sacrifices". In one rabbinical view, animal sacrifices continue even in "the Temple of the future". In another view, some of them are scrapped. In the third view, all sacrifices are stopped. And Christian children are apparently regarded as "animals".

William of Norwich was a 12-year-old Christian boy who was murdered in 1144. His wounds were consistent with a ritual murder that involved crucifixion. The killers were almost certainly Jews. The account that best fits the facts and everything else that is known about the Jews is the one given by Thomas of Monmouth, although we do not need to take on board his religious beliefs such as "because by the ordering of divine providence [William] had been predestined to martyrdom from the beginning of time". Thomas conducted a diligent investigation including interviewing witnesses; he was also shown forensic evidence in the Jews' house: the boy's belt, and two nail-holes in the timbers. According to Thomas, Aelward Ded, one of the richest citizens of Norwich, had seen two Jews - Eleazar and another - at the outskirts of Thorpe Wood. He was curious as to what they were carrying in a sack, and why they would have traveled far from home on a day when Jews customarily did not leave their homes. He touched the sack and realised it was a body, whereupon the Jews quickly made off at full gallop into the wood. Ded only spoke out five years later on his deathbed, having been ordered to remain silent till then by the sheriff, who was in the pay of the Jews. (Jews claim Ded's evidence is weakened by the fact that Ded outlived the sheriff by three years. However, Ded had been forced to make an oath that he wouldn't speak out until he was close to death, and what Jews don't realise is that Gentiles believe in keeping their promises. Gentiles don't have a Kol Nidre.) Another witness, a Christian servant of the Jews, is said to have seen a boy tied to a post through a chink in the door when she had to bring boiling water for the Jews to wash the blood away, but did not speak out at first, for fear of meeting a similar fate. When the body was discovered in the woods, "from the marks of the wounds and of the bands, the right hand and foot had been tightly bound and fastened with cords, but the left hand and foot were pierced with two nails: so in fact the deed was done by design that, in case at any time he should be found, when the fastenings of the nails were discovered it might not be supposed that he had been killed by Jews rather than by Christians." (So apparently, he was initially secured with cords to the right hand and foot, and then the Jews used nails for the left hand and foot to make it look like a crucifixion, which they hoped would throw the blame on Christian fanatics.) The Jews were summoned to answer the charges, but the sheriff John de Chesney was in debt to the Jews. Thomas says the Jews bribed de Chesney with 100 marks. Initially, de Chesney cited the pretext that "the ecclesiastical court had no jurisdiction over them, as they were not Christians", but the synod did not agree, and the Jews were asked to submit to trial by ordeal. De Chesney, their protector, then took them into his castle until the danger had passed.

It's not in dispute that as an apprentice tanner, William would regularly visit Jews' homes as part of his trade. The Jewish Encyclopedia, as other Jews have done, attempts to rewrite history. It concedes that "a report was brought from Theobald, a converted Jew of Cambridge, that it was the custom of Jews to sacrifice a boy at Passover at some place chosen by lot, and that the lot for that year had fallen on Norwich", and then concocts a fabricated version of events that throws Occam's Razor out the window. In their Orwellian revision, "the boy's relatives in a fit of religious exaltation attempted to gain increased sanctity for themselves and for the lad by making him undergo the form of crucifixion on Good Friday, March 25; that, during the process, the boy had fallen into a fit, which had alarmed his relatives, who thereupon buried him in Thorpe Wood, near their residence; and that, to divert suspicion, they accused the Jews, although the process of crucifixion would be quite unfamiliar to them, and obtained some sort of confirmation from the convert Theobald." William had gone missing since he was seen entering the house of a Jew named Deusaie or Eleazar on the Tuesday; he was killed on Wednesday, the Jews took his body to the woods on Good Friday, and his body was discovered in the woods on Saturday. The suggestion that it was the boy's own family rather than the Jews who killed him is rather like the way the Jews murdered most members of the innocent Palestinian Ghalia family in 2006 by shelling the Gaza beach they were picnicking on, and then, not only had the audacity to attempt a cover up by pretending that they'd shelled the beach a few minutes previously and a few hundred feet away, so couldn't have been responsible, but also blamed the Palestinians by falsely asserting it was a Palestinian bomb buried in the sand that had detonated. The process of crucifixion would hardly be "unfamiliar" to Jews; after all, they crucified Christ, their arch-enemy! However, the Encyclopedia's feeble attempt to defend the Jewish version of events by claiming Jews would be "quite unfamiliar" with "the process of crucifixion" is consistent with the perpetrators carrying out the deed "by design" with the aim of pinning the blame on the Christians in the event of discovery.

Another crackpot 'theory' advanced by the Jews is that Theobald, the ex-Jew, was William's killer. Raphael Langham, an "English" Jew in London whose grandparents emigrated from Ukraine in advance of the Bolshevik Revolution, names Theobald as his "prime suspect", and speculates that, because Theobald had converted to Christianity, his "motive [for murder] probably came from a hatred he developed towards Jews, possibly as a result of the uncertainties and insecurities he felt on becoming a Christian. No doubt he blamed the Jews for his anxieties." Let's get this straight. So Theobald, for whom there is no evidence linking him to the crime, converts to Christianity, develops uncertainties and insecurities, develops a hatred for the Jews, and then proceeds to take it out on them by murdering a Christian boy, and trying to make it look like the Christians had done it by crucifying the boy. Apart from the upside-down logic, it is not even remotely plausible that an ex-Jew who converted to Christianity, like Ben Freedman, say, would be the sort of person who would murder a Christian boy and try to make it look like Christians had done it. Similarly, it would be as wacky as the idea of a Catholic convert to Judaism like Felicity Kendal murdering a Jewish boy and trying to make it look like Jews had done it. It just ain't gonna happen. At least Langham, whose analysis of the William of Norfolk case is relatively good for a Jew, is honest enough to admit that there is "no evidence" to support the even wackier theory of another Jew, Joseph Jacobs, who promotes the claim that William's family tortured and killed him.

Arnold S. Leese, a veterinary surgeon, wrote an excellent exposé of Jewish ritual murder. (See this link for a record of how Leese successfully conducted his own defense in a libel trial; the document also reproduces other works by Leese such as the cruelty in Jewish ritual slaughter of animals, which is what led him to start looking into the problems of Judaism.) He mentions the Victorian explorer Sir Richard Burton who had studied the subject in detail: "Sir Richard Burton, the great explorer and orientalist who was English Consul at Damascus 30 years after the Ritual Murder, studied the whole question of the Blood Accusation, and eventually wrote The Jew, the Gypsy and El Islam, of which [Leese had] the edition edited by W. H. Wilkins and published by Hutchinson in 1898. This work contains a damning indictment of the Talmud, and a list of Jewish Ritual Murders". Shortly before he died, Burton wrote an unpublished manuscript on Jewish ritual murder, which is known as the "Burton papers".

Interestingly, the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BDBJ) bought this manuscript in the late 19th century (around the time that the Protocols of Zion was written) and the Burton papers is one of many historical manuscripts held in the archives of the BDBJ. Access is "by written permission only". There is one person who tried to gain access to the Burton papers - Professor Geoffrey Alderman. He was given a letter by Lionel Kopelowitz in 1988, then the President of the BDBJ, agreeing access to the papers on certain terms. However, the access was very quickly "blocked, on grounds that had nothing to do with the manuscript, but which were related instead to public utterances [Alderman] had made on other issues, and to which the senior leadership of the Board apparently took exception". Alderman was only granted access after agreeing to "keep silent about a quite unrelated communal matter".

How interesting that a group of people who are supposedly innocent with nothing to hide, and supposedly always telling the truth about historical matters, should buy and suppress unpublished historical documents, allowing access only to approved people under certain terms and conditions. And isn't this very similar to the peddler of the discredited "Rhineland hypothesis" Harry Ostrer, who agrees to make his data available to researchers only if they meet with certain requirements such as a "non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people", as described above?

Even the BDBJ come with a price tag attached. The widowed Lady Burton had asked in her will for the Burton manuscript on Jewish ritual murder to be burned. However, against her wishes, the BDBJ obtained it in 1909 and locked it away. Supposedly short of funds in 2001, they tried to auction the manuscript, but bidding did not reach their outrageous minimum price of $210,000. They want to rewrite history, and they want to get "the gold in their hands". On this occasion, the result was lying one, gold nil. But for that price, even if the 'wrong' people took possession of the Burton papers, the Jews could well afford to pay a hack writer or two to do a hit piece on Burton - like claiming he was an "anti-Semite" who'd made things up just to make the Jews look bad.

Captain Sir Richard Francis Burton's The Jew, the Gypsy and El Islam is available online. W.H. Wilkins, who wrote the Preface to this 1898 publication, says Burton collected most of the material for writing the first part - The Jew - when he was Consul at Damascus from 1869-1871. Since Burton had a habit of writing several books at a time, many of his books were not published until after his death. However, he was ready to publish The Jew, the Gypsy and El Islam in 1875, but friends told him it would be "unwise" to publish "so long as he remained in the service of the Government of a country where the Jews enjoy unprecedented power and position", given the nature of the book. Also, Burton and his wife had "many friends among the wealthy Jews of Trieste, and had no wish to wound their susceptibilities", which shows that he was an honest writer who told of what he'd learned, rather than an "anti-Semite" or "racist" who'd always hated Jews. This is confirmed by a reading of what Burton has to say about the Jew. Burton could speak dozens of languages, including Hebrew, and, disguised as a native, he mingled with the assorted population of Damascus including the Jews.

In the first three chapters, Burton shows himself to be tolerant of, and to have quite an admiration for, the Jews. In Chapter III, he expresses a preference for the Ashkenazim: "The Ashkenazím, who are wrongly represented to be considered pariahs by the Sephardím, have brought from Northern climates a manliness of bearing, a stoutness of spirit, and a physical hardness strongly contrasting with the cowardly and effeminate, the despised and despicable Sephardím 'Jew of Israel's land.' If spoken to fiercely, they will reply in kind; if struck, they will return the blow; and they do not fear to mount a horse, unlike their Southern brethren, who prefer an ass, or at most an ambling pony, to the best of Arab blood." In Chapter IV Burton exposes how, because of the Talmud, "hostility to the Eastern Jews is no mere unreasoning prejudice, but is founded in some sort on fact". Confirming the information above on Talmudic supremacism, Burton says, "The most important and pregnant tenet of modern Jewish belief is that the Ger, or stranger, in fact all those who do not belong to their religion, are brute beasts, having no more rights than the fauna of the field. Thus in Lucio Ferraris (Prompta Bibliotheca, Vol. III., sub lit. E and H, Order 4, Tract 8) we read: 'Præcipitur omnibus Judæis ut Christianes omnes loco brutorum habeant, nec aliter eos tractent quam bruta animalia'." And here's a particularly damning section from p. 81:

The Talmud declares that there are two kinds of blood pleasing to the Lord—viz. (1) that of the Paschal holocaust; (2) that of circumcision. In the books of Moses we find that blood is used as a purifier. For instance, the Lawgiver (Exod. xxiv. 6-8) took half of the blood drained from victims and put it in basins, with which he sprinkled the people to cleanse them from the abominations of the Egyptians, and the other half he sprinkled upon the altar. Human blood is not used by us in its pure state; nor can we* call it human, for the Gentiles are mere vermin, and of their daughters it is said, “Cursed be he that lieth with any beast.” It must also mostly undergo through manipulation a change of essence. 1 Nor is it administered indiscriminately, but only to the most zealous. On the eve of the Passover the chief Scribe attends the oven, and mixes what he pleases with the cakes, which are then sent round to the congregation.

So they take the blood from their "vermin" victims, and manipulate it because it's not good enough for them in its pure state. Surely most Jews are not so foolish as to subscribe to that sort of garbage, but unfortunately, the evidence shows that there are a few Talmud-thumping fanatics who lap it up and act out these sick fantasies. Who but an addle-brained racist and irrational fool could possibly believe they were supposed to worship and follow a wicked, racist 'god' that prescribes such practices; a 'god' who, if justice was done, would be tortured for the rest of eternity? Not that this is any reason to harm Jews in general, most of whom are not fanatics. However, this explains why Jews were continually getting themselves thrown out of dozens of Gentile nations throughout the centuries over and over again, until they learnt to ingratiate themselves with the rulers, and then manipulate them, to such an extent that they became in effect a protected, privileged species.

In Chapter V, Burton gives a list of Jewish ritual murders. For example, that of Hugh of Lincoln:

A.D. 1255. 'Jappen,' one of the chief Jews of Lincoln, and others of his faith, kidnapped a lad eleven years old (August 27), beat him with rods, cut off his nose and upper lip, broke some of his teeth, and pierced his side. King Henry III. [sic] and his Parliament at Reading condemned the murderers to be dragged to death at horses' heels, and gibbeted their carcases.

The Jews themselves admit there are plenty of other such accusations of ritual murder. Their way of deflecting criticism is, as is customary with them, to invert the accusations and claim they are all part of a so-called "blood libel" by "anti-Semites". There was the allegation by Apion in Egypt about 40 BCE, of Jews slaughtering a Gentile boy so the body could be used for ritual purposes and cannibalism. On March 18th, 1168 (or 1160 according to Arnold Leese), the mutilated body of a boy called Harold was found in the Severn at Gloucester. There were marks of melted wax in the eyes and ears, some teeth were knocked out, and thorns in the head and armpits. "He had been placed between two fires so that his whole body was burned [...] Fat had been poured over him, like roasted meat. Burns covered his eyes, ears and face". The murder was said to have been carried out the day before, and the boy had been stolen by the Jews on around February 21st and hidden until it was time to perform the ritual. In 1255 Hugh of Lincoln was subjected to various tortures - scourging until the blood flowed, crowned with thorns, mocked and spat upon, pierced with a knife, etc., and then crucified and pierced to the heart with a spear. Copin / Jopin, a local Jew, confessed to the crime and was executed. Eighteen other Jews were hanged for refusing to be tried before a Christian jury. To be fair, it seems unlikely that all nineteen were involved in the murder. Other cases include Robert of Bury St. Edmunds in 1181 who was crucified, Simon of Trent in 1475, and many more too numerous to mention.

SimonOfTrent photo SimonOfTrent_zpsf7b2db21.png

Source: woodcut by Wolgemuth, 1493, depicting Simon of Trent's torture.

Jewish liars attempting to cover up the crime of ritual murder make the despicable countercharge: "Usually those leveling the accusations had murdered the child themselves in order to accuse the Jews. Sometimes the child was a victim of an accident or later found unharmed." No. William of Norwich didn't turn up unharmed, his left hand and foot weren't pierced with two nails by "accident", and his family didn't torture and kill their very own flesh and blood simply in order to accuse the Jews. Harold of Gloucester didn't have teeth knocked out, melted wax put in his eyes and ears, and his whole body burnt, by "accident". And his family didn't do it to their own son. That doesn't mean that all Jews partook in ritual murder, and in any case, the Jews of today, like anyone else, should be judged on what they have done personally. They are not responsible for the crimes of their ancestors, and they are not responsible for the crimes of other Jews today, but they are responsible for whether they choose to tell the truth. It's not too late for Jews to renounce their past mistakes, and to make the decision to rejoin the human race.

Whenever a Jew claims that an accusation against the Jews is merely a libel that was fabricated by "anti-Semites", you can be pretty sure that the Jew is either lying, deluded, or blindly parroting material from anti-Gentile hate websites, and the "anti-Semite" was stating the truth. The same principle applies in the case of the Protocols, except in this case the Jews are damned by evidence of their own creation.

Observant Jews live their lives according to ritual, not reason. For example, "The process of cleaning the home of all chametz in preparation for Passover is an enormous task. To do it right, most Jews spend several days and even weeks scrubbing down their kitchens, thoroughly cleaning the insides of stoves, fridges, and ovens, and covering all surfaces with foil or shelf-liner that came in contact with chametz during the year. [...] On the first night of Passover (first two nights outside of Israel), Jews are commanded to have a special family meal filled with ritual to remind us of the significance of the holiday. This meal is called the Seder... [...] The Seder, however, is no ordinary holiday meal - there is a specific set of tasks that must be completed and information that must be covered in a specific order. To correctly follow the process, the text of the Passover seder is written in a book called the Haggadah. The content of the seder is summed up in fourteen parts [...]." The fourteen parts include drinking wine, several washing of hands, eating a vegetable, eating matzah, and eating a festive meal that cannot include chametz (leavened bread).

In the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Pesachim, Chapter 5, the regulations concerning the sacrifice of the paschal lamb include: "The priests then placed themselves in double rows (file), each priest holding either a bowl of silver or a bowl of gold in his hand, but one row of priests had to hold all silver bowls and the other all gold--they were not allowed to be mixed. These bowls had no stands underneath, so that the priests might not put them down and allow the blood to become coagulated. The Israelite slaughtered and the priest received the blood and gave it to another priest, who in turn passed it to another, and each receiving a full bowl, at the same time returning an empty one; the priest nearest the altar squirted out the blood in one (continuous) stream at the base of the altar."

The origin of the Passover ("Pesach") rituals is Exodus Chapter 12. For example, starting from 12:3, "Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: [...] Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats: And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire, and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. [...] And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt."

The evidence leads inevitably to the conclusion that a small minority of Jews have sacrificed Gentile children, and the act is an aberration of the Talmudic / Torah sacrifice of the paschal lamb. Maybe the fanatics have acquired a taste for human blood, or maybe they've developed a depraved, superstitious practice that affords them some perverse 'thrill'. In their twisted 'reality', these degenerates imagine the barbaric practice will protect them from bad luck or will further their career, and by offering up the sacrifice to their "G-d", they are atoning for their sins. There is no reason to suppose that human ritual murder is a "normal" part of Judaism, but Judaism is a risk factor for such behavior. Modest State subsidies for Gentile sheep farmers to offer Jews discount prices during Passover could reduce the risk of ritual human murder. However, ritual torture of animals is also unacceptable in a civilized society. Neither would it be acceptable to kill millions of people because dozens of them might do something wrong someday - at that rate, there would be no one left alive. The answer is probably to educate Jews into seeing that superstitious practices conceived by opportunistic, power-grasping conmen masquerading as religious leaders thousands of years ago are not appropriate for the 21st century.

To a normal, rational person, compulsive ritual behavior is at best, a psychological disorder or illness; at worst, a form of madness. But to Jews, their "G-d" - second-hand, inevitably, via their Rabbis and teachers - has commanded them to do it. (There are only three groups of people who will ever have a direct hotline to a "God": (i) Lying con-artists. (ii) Those under the influence of mind-altering substances. (iii) Those with a mental dysfunction.) And some of these fanatics imagine that they've been commanded to sacrifice Gentile children. It's just as crazy as Islamist fanatics who imagine that if they blow themselves up, they'll end up, not as a worthless, lifeless mess of dismembered bones, scattered lumps of flesh and droplets of blood, but in a paradise with 72 virgins at their disposal. Whenever people are brainwashed into believing absolute garbage that compels them to act in the manner of utter vermin, and lack the intellectual capacity and bullshit detectors to recognize it as such, they will behave like utter vermin.

Jewish human sacrifices never stopped. Vicki Polin, a Jewish woman, appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show in 1989 using the pseudonym "Rachel", and told of how her family and other Jewish families in the US engaged in Satanic rituals that involved incest, cannibalism and human sacrifice. Some family members bred babies for the sacrifices, the purpose of which was to bring them power. Vicki says she was molested and raped several times. Her mother was on the human relations commission of the Illinois town that she lived in, and was an "upstanding citizen" whom "nobody would suspect". The video can be downloaded at this link, which includes the transcript. Alternatively, the video is on YouTube, although was apparently banned for some time after pressure from the "Anti Defamation League", which would be more accurately named as the Society for Injustice, Crooks and Killers (SICK). The deniers attempt to label Vicki as a nutcase with serious mental problems who imagined everything, which doesn't square with her founding of The Awareness Center for Jewish survivors of sex crimes, her nearly 30 years' experience working in the anti-rape movement, and her testimony as an expert witness.

Are we really supposed to believe that allegations of ritual murder in dozens of cases over a span of more than 2,000 years, in Austria, Egypt, England, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Syria, etc., in which the Jews are consistently named as the culprits, were all the invention of "anti-Semites"? That Jews really are as pure as the driven snow, and anything bad said against them is a lie? Israel Shamir says there were more than a hundred cases of ritual murder and blood sacrifice for which Jews were convicted, and remarks: "It would be strange if all the cases were 'libel'."

But this has to be put into context. A tiny minority of Jews are involved in the practice, and now the sacrificed infants appear to be Jewish babies who are bred expressly for the purpose of human sacrifice. Even if a Christian child was sacrificed every year, that's only one per year, although it is a despicable crime that demonstrates an exceptional cruelty and lack of compassion by the perpetrators. There are extremists and fanatics in other religions apart from Judaism, and in Chicago alone, there were 500 homicides in 2012, about 18.5 per 100,000 of population. Pedophilia is a much bigger problem than ritual sacrifice, and by far the biggest threat today is the Rothschild Zionist conspiracy which has Jews over-represented in politics, banking and the media. None of this would be a reason to "exterminate" Jews, or to harm them in any way, paint swastikas on their doors, etc., merely because of their Jewish identity. That's not to say that the current power structure shouldn't be overturned.

Pedophilia is so endemic and tolerated as "normal" in the Orthodox Jewish community that Jews who report it are shunned by their fellow Jews. Not all of the rabbis are bad; Rabbi Nuchem Rosenberg had bleach thrown at his face after working to expose child molestation. And to be fair, the Catholic church is hardly without its problems, although note how there was an agreement by the Los Angeles Archdiocese in 2007 to pay 508 "alleged victims a total of $660 million", whilst a single rabbi - Jerry (Yechiel) Brauner - is reckoned to have abused more than 5,000 children. And you can be sure that they didn't get a million dollars each in compensation. Brauner, a bakery worker, was also part of a "devious cabal" that "stole a half-million-dollar home from a cancer-stricken woman".

Leon Brittan, of Lithuanian Jewish origin, was British Home Secretary in the early 1980s. At that time, Brittan was handed a dossier of "explosive" allegations about a Westminster pedophile ring, compiled by the MP Geoffrey Dickens, but the file was "lost" or "destroyed". Unofficially, Brittan is suspected of involvement, and he was questioned by police under caution regarding allegations that he raped a 19-year-old woman in 1967. The cover-up of the MP Cyril Smith's child abuse was because of a conspiracy to stop him naming those higher in the pecking order. Leon Brittan was photographed entering premises where rent boys were provided for orgies, and one boy said he'd been abused by "Uncle Leon" who worked at the "big houses" (the Houses of Parliament). In the unlikely event that Brittan is innocent, then the fact that a Jewish Home Secretary made a decision to shield pedophiles suggests that Jewish parliamentarians were involved in the child abuse. Brittan was a member of Margaret Thatcher's Cabinet, and at one point, nearly a quarter of her Cabinet were of Jewish origin. Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits, known as "Thatcher's rabbi", was elevated to the House of Lords, and became Lord Jakobovits. Other Conservative Jews in Thatcher's Cabinet, or whose career was advanced by Thatcher, included Keith Joseph, Nigel Lawson, Edwina Currie, Malcolm Rifkind, and Michael Howard, whose Romanian-born father's name was Hecht. As of July 2014, there were up to 20 MPs and Lords, dead and alive, over the previous three or four decades, for whom allegations of child abuse merited a police investigation, and another 20 or so were suspected of involvement in the cover-up.

Incidentally, Edwina Currie's 1984-1988 affair with Thatcher's successor John Major finished before he became prime minister in 1990 and was not revealed until 2002, five years after he was defeated by Tony Blair. Since Major admitted he "long feared [the affair] would be made public" and it was the "one event" in his life of which he was the "most ashamed", the possibility of blackmail helped Jews keep their claws on the reins of power.

So this attitude of a scathing disregard for their victims is associated with Judaism, and has occurred both before and after the rise of Zionism and the House of Rothschild. The problem arises because these rabbis and Talmud thumpers see themselves as not subject to common law or normal standards of human decency; they enjoy an autonomy and effectively write the law, getting to decide their own code of ethics. Naturally, anything that satisfies their own greed and perversions gets classed as "good". Those who codify the Talmudic code are control freaks, who salivate over how they get to justify their own abuses, whilst dictating how ordinary observant Jews run their lives according to the code. The Talmudists claim it's okay to sodomize children because "he or she does not rank as a person" if they're young enough. For example, "Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred". Or if a little girl is under three, "it is as if one puts the finger into the eye". The Jewish supremacist's priority is hedonism and the pursuit of self-interest at the expense of almost everyone else - those whom they class as "subhuman". It's the very opposite of Christianity's Golden Rule: "Do to others what you would have them do to you". (The Jews have their own version that reads "He with the gold makes the rules".) At the same time, the ordinary Jew gets "circumcised" - i.e., mutilated - as an infant, is not even permitted to eat bacon, and is ordered to waste years of their lives senselessly studying a perverted religious code of "law" when they could be doing something more enjoyable or more productive. The rabbis get to indulge in pedophilia, molestation of hospital patients, fraud, etc., and as "upstanding" citizens with the backing of powerful pressure groups are likely to be treated leniently, even if they are convicted.

Chabad Lubavitch Rabbi Tzvi Freeman says: "In our prayers, for the past 2,000 years, weve [sic] been asking for G‑d to let us rebuild that Temple so that we can start doing those sacrifices, just like He asked us to." According to Freeman, the place or space of Jerusalem's Temple Mount is a kind of "portal" or "gateway to heaven", the "other end" of it is "higher planes of reality than our own", and "conscious beings that have no physical bodies" live there and can detect whether or not sacrifices have been made at the earthly end. But extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Freeman's 'evidence' is that Jews think it's where Jacob dreamed of a ladder with angels, Adam was formed there, Cain, Abel and Noah made sacrifices there, the altar of the Temple stood there, the Torah prescribes sacrifices, and the Talmud contains "lots of details in tractate Chagigah about the seven heavens, etc."

Does the "God" or "G-d" of these guys never hand out common sense, the capacity for logical thought, and bullshit detectors? Do they blindly believe some fantasy that violates scientific and natural law, has not the slightest evidence to support it, and yet cannot be falsified because the world is exactly the same whether the fantasy is true or not - just because some "holy" books tell them it is true? The rabbis are most likely smart enough to know it's a load of bull, but at the same time they know that they can create themselves a sick, warped kind of "Utopia" that gives them the opportunity and - as they see it - the 'right' to molest kids. The truly sad part of this is that Jewish children are taught this sort of garbage as "fact", and told that they must study it. No wonder they end up as poor, confused, paranoid individuals with psychological problems so complex that "there's enough material there for an entire conference", and they uncritically accept crazy conspiracy theories such as the Muslims did 9/11.

The dictionary definition of Utopia is "an imagined place or state of things in which everything is perfect". It was derived from the Greek for "no place" by Sir Thomas More; alternatively, the variant Eutopia means "good place". The "English" Jew Lionel Kochan, in an essay in the 1988 compilation Contemporary Jewish religious thought, argues on a technicality that because of the literal meaning "no place", no Jewish schemes for Utopia appear to exist. But anyone with any common sense takes the dictionary definition, and even an imagined state of things must be imagined to exist somewhere. And even if Kochan's semantic argument is supposed to be taken seriously, it could easily be circumvented by the use of the term "Jewish Eutopia". Kochan goes on to say that the nearest thing to a Jewish Utopia is a Zionist Utopia that is located in the land of Israel, and: "If, however, utopia is taken to signify the impulse toward some sort of ideal society, then of course it does have its Jewish counterpart, if not precise equivalent, in the concept of the messianic age." He says the Jewish Utopia, which is a theocratic Jewish state "ruled by the divine" and "ruled by the scions of the ideal house of David", would arise as a result of a "catastrophic" rather than an evolutionary process. This would be in a "messianic era", and "Men themselves will possess only good inclinations (Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah 52a)" because they would be "infused with the spirit of the Lord and the spirit of learning".

Catastrophe can only make the world worse; it cannot improve it. There is no ideal society; it's just a dream. The best we can do is to make the world a better place, and that is achieved not through catastrophe, but by people working together for a better future - and by valuing members of other tribes as equals, rather than equivalent to "snakes", "grasshoppers", "cockroaches" or "wolves". And it means living according to standards of right and wrong that are agreed upon by the majority, not by having an elite group write their own 'ethics' to suit themselves. When some arrogant group sees themselves as "superior" and treats others as "subhuman", it becomes a negative-sum game. Whether a person is killed, molested, or merely has their car broken into, the loss to the victim always exceeds any 'benefit' gained by the perpetrator. As for a "Zionist Utopia", to say that Israel has been a colossal failure would be the understatement of the millennium!

The ridiculous thing is how many people can be taken in by some "holy" book and imagine it is the key to their salvation. If Erich von Däniken's "astronauts" had been conducting a study on primitive 'civilizations', in which each group of the aliens plants a particular book of rules and tries to see how many of the primitives they can hoodwink into following the program, whether they can coax them into building cathedrals, pyramids or megalith circles, etc., and finally to see which group's primitives turn out as the winners, they could return after 3,000 years or so, in very little of their subjective time by indulging in some interstellar travel at relativistic velocities. The aliens could turn the investigation into a sporting event, placing bets on the outcome. The first alien says, "I bet I can make my flock build superb, tall cathedrals." The next says, "I'm gonna have my lot build circles of massive stones, which they must transport for at least 160 miles." A third alien adds, "My followers will build me a statue almost 100 feet high." They continue in a similar vein for a while, and then one decides to up the ante. He responds, "I'll see your churches, stones, statues, pyramids, lighthouse, hanging gardens, etc., and raise you the following. I'm gonna have my followers mutilate their infant boys. I'll give them some euphemism for it - let's call it 'circumcision'. And my followers will think they're the Chosen Ones. Moreover, they're going to imagine that I spoke to three million of their number in ancient times from Mount Sinai. I'll put it in every Torah scroll, so it'll have to be true."

To the hypothetical aliens, it is of little consequence whether the primitive inhabitants of a distant planet survive or blow themselves up. In fact, planting inflammatory disinformation could serve a useful purpose in ensuring that bloodthirsty, warmongering species do blow themselves up, so that the problem is contained before the warmongers develop the technology to migrate to other solar systems, and wreak havoc across the galaxy. For the natives, if their hatred, rivalry and mistrust gets the better of them, it's "goodnight Vienna". Those who destroy themselves are those who focus on their differences rather than their common heritage.

Prior to Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the Jewish problem was relatively straightforward. Jews failed to integrate into the host society, because of the isolation imposed by the Talmud. Jews were expelled from countries on more than a hundred occasions. King Edward I banned Jews from England in 1290 following their crimes such as ritual murder of innocent Christian children, clipping the coinage, and usury. But seven years after Charles I was beheaded in 1649, there was a tacit agreement that Jews would be readmitted. The Jewish press such as The Guardian's Jewish writer Eliane Glaser attempt to paint a black picture of Jews being hard done by, by claiming "Cromwell did not readmit the Jews to England in 1656" (this could be classed as "readmission denial") and "Jews were repeatedly threatened with harassment and expulsion, and continued to be classed as aliens", etc., which of course was happening everywhere else, because some Talmud followers would eventually degenerate into perverted child killers. As late as April 1891, about 20,000 Jews were expelled from Moscow (a few deemed useful were allowed to stay). Two expulsions might be bad luck, three a coincidence, but more than a hundred indicates that it is something inherent in those who keep getting themselves thrown out throughout history and all around the globe.

As Bernard Lazare said [ibid.]:
    "An opinion as general as antisemitism, which has flourished in all countries and in all ages, before and after the Christian era, at Alexandria, Rome, and Antiochia, in Arabia, and in Persia, in mediaeval and in modern Europe, in a word, in all parts of the world wherever there are or have been Jews such an opinion, it has seemed to me, could not spring from a mere whim or fancy, but must be the effect of deep and serious causes."

Jews more truthful than Glaser concede that: "We can only deduce – as Lucien Wolf and others since have done – that Cromwell gave Menasseh a verbal assurance that Jews would be permitted to worship privately in their homes." Rabbi Menasseh ben Israel (1604–1657) came to London from Amsterdam in September 1655 to argue the case for readmission. But Menasseh, who recalled that he was "very courteously received, and treated with much respect", made such ambitious demands that the Council of State immediately raised objections, and even Oliver Cromwell, lackey of the Jews, was forced to proceed "with deliberation – 'warily & by degrees', giving his implicit permission rather than openly declaring his position". Menasseh wanted all the benefits of protection and defense of Jews, public synagogues, a cemetery, etc., along with the autonomy of allowing rabbis to settle internal disputes according to Mosaic law. It has been said that Menasseh bribed Cromwell, but evidently Menasseh "found it difficult to obtain a living for himself, wife, and three children", quarrelled with the London Jews (who'd been practising their religion in secret), and was actually paid by Cromwell. He received just £25 and an agreement of a pension of £100 a year, but died shortly afterwards.

Lucien Wolf, the son of a Bohemian Jew, says: "Charles [II] was under personal obligations to the Jews, and had assured them of his protection even before he came by his own." The Mendez da Costa family, for example, were physicians to Charles II, and bought Cromwell House on Highgate Hill, making them the first Jews to own land in England. And Augustin[e] Coronel-Chacon was a "Portuguese Jew who had settled in England in the early 1650's 'as a merchant and royalist agent ... receiving and distributing funds for the exiled King' [Charles II]".

So, the pro-English King Charles I, under whom the Marrano Jews were forced to remain as Crypto-Jews, gets beheaded, the Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell of the short-lived republic is pro-Jewish and the Crypto-Jews can emerge from hiding, around half a million of the Irish are wiped out due to the Jew lackey Cromwell's policy of genocide and famine, and after the Restoration of the monarchy, the new king owes the Jews a few favors, and they go on to prosper in England. This sets the scene for the Rothschilds to become immensely rich and virtually synonymous with Britain, with eventual Jewish control of the press and the British "democracy". A few decades after Charles I met his fate, the Bank of England was created, which raises the question of whether or not that was a "Jewish" conspiracy.

The reign of Charles II's successor James II only lasted a few years. He was deposed in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, and that was indeed financed by Dutch Jews, who loaned their Stadtholder William III of Orange two million guilders for the invasion to establish himself as England's new King William III. One story is that the entire sum was supplied by the Sephardic Jew Francisco Lopes Suasso (ca. 1657 – 1710), aka Abraham Israel Suasso, the Dutch financier and banker. Some say that Suasso probably couldn't have raised that much on his own, but even then, Suasso was clearly the key player, and the remaining money came from "the larger international financial network, of which the Jews formed a sound and very well capitalized part".

So the new King William III comes in from Holland ('coincidently', along with the Jews). William and the English government get into dire financial straits - due to the Nine Years' War against France, which William was also prosecuting from Holland whilst ruling as Stadtholder William III of Orange - and have to borrow £1.2 million at 8% interest. The Bank of England, whose name suggests it is controlled by the English government, is founded in 1694 as a "privately-owned institution", and ever since, the nation has been in debt. As a percentage of GDP, the peak was some 260% around 1820. In pounds sterling, the debt has increased exponentially, and is now in excess of a trillion pounds.

In the biography William Paterson, the merchant statesman, and founder of the Bank of England: his life and trials by Saxe Bannister, it is revealed that Paterson, the Bank's founder and original front man, enjoyed "intimate relations with the rich Hebrews of London and probably Amsterdam and Germany." Within a year of the Bank of England's creation in 1694, Paterson had been ousted. According to his supporters, he left the Bank because of disagreements with "most of" his colleagues; another version is that he was removed following a financial scandal.

The 1694 Book of Subscriptions for the Bank of England shows mostly English names; a few examples of larger subscribers are shown below.

Devonshire, William, Duke of, £6,000. Godfrey, Michael, £8,000. Hall, Thomas, £9,000. Heathcote, Gilbert, London, Merchant, £8,000. Humberstone, Matthew, London, £10,000. Janssen, Theodore, London, Merchant, £10,000. Mulsoe, Thomas, £10,000. Parsons, Anthony, London, £10,000. Paterson, William, London, £2,400. Portland, William, Earl of, £10,000.

Theodore Janssen, the London merchant who put up £10,000, was one of the Bank's founder members and became a director. He named his eldest son Abraham, and was the son of Abraham Janssen, the paper manufacturer. Theodore's grandfather Theodore Janssen de Heez fled to France following "persecution" by the Duke of Alba in the Netherlands. However, the de Heez / Janssen family were Huguenots, not Jews.

So, Dutch Jews financed the "Glorious Revolution" to install William of Orange as an "English" King, and the Bank of England front man William Paterson had connections with rich Jews. Paterson's career had taken him from his native Scotland to England, then to the Bahamas, where he'd conceived his "Darien Scheme", the disastrous colonization project that would nearly bankrupt Paterson and Scotland at the turn of the century. Then he went on to Holland, where he invested his money in Dutch banks. This is most likely where he became acquainted with those "rich Hebrews", who no doubt provided 'advice' about the 'benefits' of setting up a Bank of England. When Paterson came back to London, he published a document: "A Brief Account of the Intended Bank of England", which explained how a central bank would be set up to help with Government finance.

The 1649 removal of the pro-English King Charles I, and the subsequent "Glorious Revolution" and setting up of the Bank of England, served to prepare the way for Nathan Rothschild's spectacular success in London more than 150 years later. The simple parasitism and nuisance of the Sephardim Talmudists, with their occasional atrocities such as ritual murder and torture, was to be overshadowed by the complex international Khazar conspiracy, which would go on to exploit the US, as the world's top economy, as the engine to bring about a "Jewish" Utopia that would in fact be a Rothschildian despotism. Plans for the US Federal Reserve were mostly drafted by the Jewish banker Paul Warburg (whose ancestors were the "Venetian" Jewish del Banco family), and the shareholders turned out to be Rothschild proxies, as described above.

In the 17th century, the Jews were well established in Holland, since that was the time of the Dutch Golden Age, so they didn't have any great urgency to flock to England. There were a few decades in the 19th century when British-manufactured goods dominated world trade, and then around 1871 the United States become the world's biggest national economy. Britain in the 19th century featured the House of Rothschild, and then the Ashkenazim swarmed to the US. A parasite wants a healthy host; the Jews' strategy was to exploit whichever nation had the top economy at the time. However, although there have been "Chinese" Jews, it's an idea that is unlikely to become popular anytime soon.

Now for the allegations that "anti-Semites" forged the Protocols.

The casual observer can be forgiven for initially thinking that there might be some plausibility in the idea, as touted by the Jews, of "anti-Semites" forging the Protocols in order to make Jews look bad. However, following any reasonable, unbiased study, it is seen that these hypothetical "anti-Semites", if indeed they ever existed, would have absolutely no motive for concocting lies in an attempt to smear Jews. There is no need to fake material in order to make the Jews look bad; they do it themselves by their own behavior. For example, literally draining and sucking the lifeblood out of their victims, which led to them being booted out of various host nations. It is only liars without evidence for their claims who resort to forgeries, such as the infamous document that was supposed to 'prove' Saddam was attempting to procure yellowcake uranium from Niger, of which there is not the slightest doubt that Bush Admin officials at the highest level such as Condoleezza Rice were well aware it was a forgery, even as they were citing it as genuine evidence. So let's look into the details of the Protocols forgery allegations.

The claim that Mathieu Golovinski was the "anti-Semite" who "forged" the Protocols has more holes in it than the USS Liberty, after Israel maliciously attacked it in 1967. The fatal flaw with their allegation is that even according to the Jews' own conspiracy theories on the Protocols, Golovinski did not "forge" the Protocols until "the end of 1900 or in 1901" (Mikhail Lépekhine, Eric Conan) or until "1904-1905" (Princess Catherine Radziwill). However, the French original of the Protocols was obtained by Mlle. Justine Glinka in the 1880s or 1890s, and there is a signed deposition by Philip Stepanov that he had a manuscript copy of the Protocols in his possession by 1895. The Jewish Virtual Library site accepts that a manuscript of the Protocols was in Russia by 1895 and was printed privately in 1897.

A 21-page pamphlet by Dr. Karl Bergmeister dated 1938, a few years after the Berne lawsuit on the authenticity of the Protocols, has other evidence to corroborate Stepanov's testimony. In 1936 Dr. Bergmeister, aka Hans Jonak von Freyenwald, obtained a written declaration from Madame Antonia Porphyrjewna Manjkowsky née Suchoton, a relation of Alexis (or Alexei) Sukhotin (or Suchotin), who had passed a copy of the Protocols on to Stepanov, stating that on one of her visits to the Sukhotins' estate "around the year 1895", she witnessed a transcript of the Protocols being made by Sukhotin's sister and his niece. Bergmeister was also handed a written declaration by the son of Professor Sergius A. Nilus, stating that he personally was present when Sukhotin handed over the Protocols to his father in 1901, and there was no blue inkstain as claimed by Princess Radziwill; more on her reliability in a moment.

The Marsden edition says the Protocols was published in Russia in 1901 in Nilus' book The Great Within The Small. Apparently, that did not in fact include a copy of the Protocols, although it has been claimed that early copies were destroyed. Most likely, Nilus was hoping to publish in 1901, but couldn't get the Protocols past the censor, who also refused to allow it in the format of a short book as late as 1905. There is no doubt that Nilus published the Protocols in 1905 in The Large in the Small and the Antichrist, as a Near Political Possibility, which was an addendum to his previous book. (Publication as a larger book of more than 160 pages was not subject to the same censorship, the censor's reasoning being that circulation would then be small and the book would have a limited impact on public opinion.) In the "Concluding passage from the Epilogue of Nilus", in the 1905 edition, Nilus states that "It is nearly four years since the" Protocols came into his possession. There is also no doubt that the Protocols was published in August and September of 1903, which is confirmed by the fact that the Jews themselves agree that the publication was serialized in the St. Petersburg newspaper Znamya (The Banner), starting August 26, 1903.

Princess Radziwill claimed in 1921 that the Protocols was compiled during "the years 1904 and 1905" by "Golowinsky", aided by "Maniuloff and Rachowsky", when she lived in Paris (first report in The American Hebrew) or "1904, when Golowinsky and Manasewitch Maniuloff were working on their preparation" (report of her lecture in The New York Times). Other statements from her, as examined below, would place the year at 1905, not 1904. Apart from the fact that the Protocols had already been published in 1903, Pyotr "Rachowsky" (Rachkovsky or Ratschowsky) was fired from his position as Paris-based head of the Okhrana in July of 1902. Moreover, his son, Andrej Petrowitsch Rachkovsky, in a written statement dated 13 July 1936 (according to Bergmeister's pamphlet) said that he'd searched through his late father's archives and had never found any evidence that he'd had anything to do with the Protocols, and his father had never been an "anti-Semite"; in fact, he'd had Jews as friends and collaborators, including his secretary the Jew M. Golschmann at the time the Protocols were published. Given that the Okhrana archives have been available for more than fifty years, it's safe to assume that if there were any evidence of involvement in compiling the Protocols, World Jewry would have presented such evidence by now.

Ben Fischer confirms in this E-Book, or in the CIA files below, that Monsieur "Golschmann", or Leonty Golshman, was one of Rachkovsky's two permanent staff who remained throughout his tenure in Paris. And in further corroboration of Bergmeister's information, a book by the historian Charles A. Ruud tells of how Nilus's son Sergei wrote to The American Hebrew in 1936, stating that he saw his father receive the Protocols in French from a neighbor named Sukhotin in 1901, that there was no ink blotch on either the French or Russian translation of the Protocols, and his father was in close association with a Filip (Philip) Stepanov, who would be the Philip Stepanov who testified to receiving the Protocols from Sukhotin in 1895.

BergmeisterCorroborated photo BergmeisterCorroborated_zps345feda0.png

Source: Fighting Words: Imperial Censorship and the Russian Press, 1804-1906, Charles A. Ruud

The above book is about censorship in Russia; Ruud co-authored another book about the Russian secret police. There is a wealth of useful information on the Protocols that is common to both books. For our purposes in looking into claims that the Russian secret police fabricated the Protocols, the latter book is probably the more valuable. In the 1999 book, Fontanka 16: The Tsars' Secret Police, of which we shall refer to again below, Charles A. Ruud and Sergei A. Stepanov thoroughly demolish the idea that the Russian secret police concocted the Protocols. And the authors are professional historians; they're not Adolf Hitler or David Duke!

On page 213 there is corroboration of Bergmeister's information on the testimony of Rachkovsky's son. The papers of A.S. Spiridovich were added to the archives of Yale University in 1962. The "second statement in the Spiridovich papers is from Rachkovsky's son, Andrei Petrovich, who claims never to have heard of either Nilus or Golovinsky. Thus he 'completely reject[s] any connection between Rachkovsky and Nilus,' but allows that Golovinsky could have been an agent." Spiridovich was head of the palace security guard from 1906 to 1912, and knew Rachkovsky personally. Spiridovich corroborates Bergmeister and Fischer regarding "the Jew Gol'shman" being Rachkovsky's secretary, adding that Rachkovsky's "chief assistant was Gekkel'man; not one of his reports was anti-Semitic; and he even did not remark on Jews as the leaders of the revolutionary movement." (Spiridovich suspected Nilus of authoring the Protocols, but would not have known that Sukhotin and Stepanov were in possession of the Protocols prior to Nilus.) Fontanka 16 [p. 80] tells us that Rachkovsky was editing a Jewish newspaper in early 1879 as part of creating a legend for himself as a radical. He planned to get himself arrested as a political criminal in order to serve as a useful inside agent for the Third Section, but was exposed in August 1879, and had to leave Russia. He later made for Paris, working for the Druzhina, but returned to Moscow for a time until returning to Paris in 1884.

And according to research by the Russian professor Yuri Begunov (for more of his findings, see below), the Rachkovsky family was part-Jewish, which would certainly account for Rachkovsky's association with Jews and total lack of "anti-Semitism". From an English translation of Dr. Begunov's Russian article, it's not clear whether Rachkovsky was himself Jewish through a Jewish mother, or merely married a Jewess:

"2 Certificate of Andrei Petrovich Raczkowski son Gendarmerie General and allegedly anti-Semitic forger document.
He showed that his father had never experienced hostility to Jews, if only because his mother was Jewish; Jews were coming and members of his residency in Paris."

"Gekkel'man" was Abraham Hackelman or Abram Hekkel'man, a Jew, "who first went to work for the Foreign Agency during 1885 on Rachkovsky's second front in Switzerland". Hekkel'man's cover had been blown at the St Petersburg School of Mines, and in 1885, Hekkel'man went to Zurich posing as "a liberal-spending young radical Pole named Landezen, whose father was a Warsaw banker". His job was to "identify highly dangerous members of the People's Will who were experimenting with explosives in Switzerland". In November 1886 when three of Rachkovsky's agents - including Henri Bint - broke into, and then demolished, the printing plant in Geneva that published the People's Will's newspaper, "Landezen" was suspected as the provocateur, and he then moved on to Paris. Landezen was using the same identity in Paris when he "successfully ingratiated himself into a group of Russian revolutionaries"; he informed the French police of how this group was experimenting with bombs, with which they hoped to kill the tsar, and eight revolutionaries were caught with bomb making materials, convicted and jailed. "Landezen" was exposed in the press, and he fled to Berlin, where by 1900 he was head of the Berlin Okhrana using the name Arkady Mikhailovich Hartung - also Harting or Garting. He moved back to Paris, where in 1905 he was head of the Okhrana there, but was outed by V.L. Burtsev, a self-styled "professional exposer" of the Okhrana's activities.

In a New York Times article by Herman Bernstein of May 28, 1911, the revolutionary Jew Leonid Menschikoff tells of how he infiltrated the Russian secret service and "remain[ed] for twenty years in the enemy's camp". Bernstein was then the Times' Paris correspondent, and he'd met Menschikoff "in his little home" in Paris "in an out-of-the-way street". For example, Menschikoff boasted of how he "furnished information which led to the exposure of Harting-Kekkelman in Paris. A criminal and a bomb manufacturer, Harting-Hekkelman was rubbing shoulders with the foremost French statesmen...". That's really a tale of two Jews. For Hekkelman, his humanity outweighed his Jewishness, and he was prepared to expose Jewish terrorists and remain loyal to true Russians. For Menschikoff, all that mattered to him was the success of the Bolshevik revolutionary Jews; the Russian people, along with all Gentiles, were "the enemy". For Menschikoff, the Jewish terrorists are freedom fighters, and those seeking to protect the people from them are "criminals" or "bomb manufacturers". And Bernstein later confirms himself as yet another Talmud-thumping Gentile hater when he seeks to 'prove' that the Protocols was fabricated.

But here's something much better. In that very article in the Times, Menschikoff says, of his twenty years in the Russian Secret Police Department, "I suffered silently, but I was determined to carry out my plan to the end, to attain such power in the Secret Police Department as would enable me to get at the most secret documents and to make copies of them, without attracting suspicion."

Menschikoff photo Menschikoff_zpseeb38382.png

Source: The New York Times, May 28, 1911

So let's get this straight. Leonid Menschikoff, Herman Bernstein's source, infiltrated the Russian secret service, had access to secret documents and the ability to copy them. This was over a twenty year period, approximately 1891 to 1911, which includes the entire period that World Jewry assures us the Russian secret service was "forging" the Protocols. Yet Menschikoff remained completely oblivious to this "forgery" operation that was supposedly going on right under his nose. Instead of Menschikoff unmasking the "forgery", copying documents and supplying them to Bernstein for exposure, Bernstein subsequently attempts to peddle the "Protocols is a forgery" allegation over the ensuing decades, not by providing any evidence, but by plugging the "plagiarism proves forgery" canard, and by relying upon dubious testimony such as supplied by Count "Chameleon" du Chayla.

Amusingly, Bernstein not only denied the existence of an international Jewish conspiracy - despite an abundance of evidence at the time, and much more today, but also claimed (in The Willy-Nicky Correspondence) the Kaiser was part of a plot for "German domination of the world". Henry Ford's description of Bernstein as "the messenger boy of international Jewry" (or "the tin boy...") was most apt. Alternatively, Bernstein can be seen as Jewry's tinfoil conspiracy theorist!

"The Kaiser is exposed as a master intriguer and Mephistophelian plotter for German domination of the world. The former Tsar is revealed as a capricious weakling, a characterless, colourless nonentity . . . both talked for peace and plotted against it." —Herman Bernstein

Back to Fontanka 16, and on page 350, Notes to pages 207-10, Note 16 says: "A copy of a typed document at the Hoover Institution is an attestation by F.P. Stepanov in April 1921. [...] See Hoover Institution Archives, Nicolaevsky Collection, box 20, folio 2."

So, there is a copy of the typed document at the Hoover Institution Archives on the Stanford University campus in California. The Hoover Institution website includes a 1,353-page .pdf register of the Boris I. Nicolaevsky Collection. "Protokoly Sionskikh Mudretsov" is Series No. 11, starting on page 48 of 1,353. Box 20 folder 1, relating to Svatikov, is the first listing. But the Stepanov material is now classed under folder 11, not 2. Under Stepanov in box/folder 20 : 11 it's described as "Statement re his publication of the Protocols in 1897, 1921.

And there is a handwritten original. The Protocols section on How the Protocols came to Russia has a copy of Stepanov's testimony, but erroneously states that it was made on "April 17, 1927". Ruud says April 1921, which matches the Hoover Archives listing. A look at the handwritten original, firstly, confirms that there is no doubt about the years 1895 and 1897 as the dates when Stepanov first received a copy of the Protocols from Sukhotin, and when Stepanov had copies printed with the help of Kelepovskii, respectively. At the bottom of the handwriting, it is seen that the year 1921 (or 1927) is ambiguous. However, April 1921 makes most sense, because this is shortly after the late February / early March 1921 articles about the Protocols in the American Hebrew and the New York Times. If Stepanov had become aware of Radziwill's claims of 1921 that the Protocols were concocted in 1905, he would have been motivated to set the record straight by testifying to having received them as early as 1895. Moreover, it is seen that Stepanov crosses his 7s to distinguish them from a 1; this is easily seen in the 1897, and is still visible in the "17" at the bottom right. And of the witness Prince Dmitri Golitsyn, it is known that he married the American painter Frances Simpson Stevens in 1919; they went to Siberia in a valiant but hopeless battle against the Bolsheviks, and returned to New York two years later after the Prince had lost all his possessions in the struggle, which places him in Russia in 1921. Thus, it's April 17, 1921, not 1927.

Stepanov1 photo Stepanov1_zps2f925cfd.png

Stepanov2 photo Stepanov2_zps561b4d4a.png

And shown below is a transcript of the English translation of Stepanov's deposition, as included in the Protocols. It was witnessed by Prince Dimitri Galitzin (Golitsyn), and Stepanov testifies that he was given a manuscript copy of the Protocols in 1895 by the retired Major Alexis Sukhotin, who told him that a lady residing in Paris had found it at the house of a friend, a Jew. Stepanov states that he originally mimeographed the translation, but since it was difficult to read, he decided to have it printed. He was helped in this task by Arcadii Ippolitovitch Kelepovskii, and the Protocols was printed and circulated privately in 1897.

StepanovDeposition photo StephanovDeposition_zps0a2fa15d.png

Source: The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

The English text of the above deposition is sourced from here, and photostats of the handwritten original are at this page, or see here and here.

Princess Catherine Radziwill is a particularly interesting character, since she is the Jews' star witness in their early attempts at refuting the Protocols. There was not only her testimony that featured in a series of reports in the American Hebrew in February and March of 1921, and copied to the New York Times; she was also the crucial witness at the 1934/1935 Berne trial - of which the initial verdict that imposed fines on two Swiss "Nazis" for distributing the Protocols was overturned on appeal in 1937. Radziwill claimed Golovinski, one of the "forgers", had brought the Protocols manuscript to her home in Paris and shown it to her and several of her friends in 1904 or 1905, before the final product was released.

There are various conflicting biographical accounts of Radziwill, since she was such a notorious liar. In one version, she was born as Ekaterina Adamovna, Countess Rzewuska (sometimes Lzewuska; the "-ska" suffix is the feminine form and -ski the masculine) in St. Petersburg in the late 1850s, and became a princess when her exiled Polish nobleman father, Count Adam Rzewuski, arranged her marriage to a Prussian Army officer of Polish-Lithuanian descent, Prince Wilhelm Radziwill, whose family palace was in Berlin. (Ekaterina or Yekaterina is the Polish equivalent of Catherine.) However, according to the New York Times of August 12, 1903, her father was "the Austrian Count Dymski, formerly one of the great landed proprietors of Galicia, where he possessed several grand castles". He wanted her to marry a "wealthy manufacturer", but she eloped with Prince Radziwill the day before the wedding was due. That version appears to be false; it is not corroborated elsewhere.

During the year 1901, Princess Radziwill passed cheques to the aggregate amount of 29,000 pounds or $200,000, signing them with the name of Cecil Rhodes. In 1902 Radziwill was sentenced to two years' imprisonment at the House of Correction, after being convicted on 24 counts of forgery, but was spared from hard labor and granted early release owing to her "delicate health". Given that she carried on as a prolific writer and survived for another 39 years until May 1941, having died at the age of 83 or 84 depending on whether we take her reported March 30, 1858 birth date or her reported age of death as 84, there can't have been much wrong with her health. Her indictment included "17 counts for forgery and fraud and a charge of contravention of the telegraph act", which involved bribing a junior telegraph clerk for ten shillings to insert London as the origin of two telegrams sent from Cape Town. It is generally accepted that Radziwill's decision to launch her own lawsuit against Cecil Rhodes, forcing him to go to the heat of South Africa and testify, and the worry that he was caused over Radziwill's hounding of him, played a part in his death at the age of 48, on March 26, 1902. The Radziwill case was concluded April 30, 1902. Radziwill's crime was regarded as particularly aggravating because she'd attempted to pin the blame on an innocent woman - Mrs. Schultz. Moreover, the "principal witness in the case against Princess Radziwill" - Dr. Schultz, the husband of Mrs. Schultz - died of pneumonia on March 7, 1902, again, before the case was concluded.

Radziwill separated from Prince Radziwill in 1895 (or as early as 1890 according to the Russian Wikipedia; he left and took the children), before he divorced her in 1906 following her forgery conviction and jailing. In the 1890s (or even earlier) she "built up contacts with influential people in the journalistic world". There are no prizes for guessing which group was "influential [...] in the journalistic world"!

After stalking and hounding Cecil Rhodes to his death in his final years as she attempted to get money out of him through marriage or blackmail, Radziwill wrote a book about him years later in 1918. She'd also written an earlier book on him in 1900, two years before his death. In July 1934 Radziwill said that Germans had "never been really civilized", adding that "for the Jews", Hitler was a "blessing", because the gift he had given them was "the sympathy of the entire world". Incidentally, this was after Judea's declaration of war against Germany in March 1933. And there is an interesting parallel with Benjamin Netanyahu's statement on the evening of 9/11/01 that the attacks, which killed almost 3,000 people excluding those who went on to die of exposure to asbestos and other airborne pollutants, were "very good" for Israel because they would "generate immediate sympathy".

The New York Times of February 25, 1921, ran a copy of the article by the Jewish reporter Isaac Landman that was published in The American Hebrew on the same day. This sets out Princess Radziwill's claims about Golovinski (or Golowinsky) of the Russian secret police bringing a handwritten manuscript in French, that he'd been working on with Maniuloff and Rachkowsky (or Rachowsky), to Radziwill's home in 1904 or 1905. The manuscript was supposed to prove "a great Jewish conspiracy". Radziwill says he showed the manuscript to her and some friends, they were all allowed to handle it "several times", and there was a "high blot of blue ink" on the first page.

Note Radziwill's chronology; Landman quotes her as claiming it wasn't until "following the Japanese War and at the beginning of the first Russian Revolution" that they "recalled the old Orgewsky document", and then "agents were dispatched to Paris with instructions to develop and enlarge the original". The historians Charles A. Ruud and Sergei A. Stepanov, in Fontanka 16, quote that statement of Radziwill's "following the Japanese War and at the beginning of the first Russian Revolution" (p. 207) and comment that "defeat abroad and turmoil at home were clear by March 1905, but not until September did Japan sign a peace treaty". On p. 214, they conclude that shortly after March of 1905 is the earliest possible time that Radziwill could have held and read the manuscript: "The princess says that she held and read it some time after March of 1905 and heard from its possessor that Rachkovsky was involved."

RadziwillAmericanHebrewClaim1 photo RadziwillAmericanHebrewClaim1_zps05d69ff2.png

RadziwillAmericanHebrewClaim2 photo RadziwillAmericanHebrewClaim2_zps54992073.png

RadziwillAmericanHebrewClaim photo RadziwillAmericanHebrewClaim_zps16baa9f5.png

Source: The New York Times, February 25, 1921

The claim is repeated in the New York Times report of March 4, 1921, which has some additional information and assertions (also see below). Radziwill's friend, whom she describes in Landman's article as "an American lady now in this country", is named as a Mrs. Henrietta Hurlbut; her mother was French, her father was English, and she married an American. The Times also includes another American Hebrew piece that they ran on the same day. This has Hurlbut's story, supposedly to corroborate Radziwill. Interestingly, Hurlbut described herself as "anti-Semitic", which was clearly a ploy intended to dispel suspicions that she might have been sympathetic to - or in the pay of - the Jews. Obviously, Hurlbut was about as "anti-Semitic" as Benjamin Netanyahu, Abe Foxman, or Edgar Bronfman.

Henrietta Hurlbut was the sister of Baroness Althea Salvador of Paris, whose salon in the Avenue du Bois de Boulogne was "frequented by the diplomatic corps and representatives of the best French society". That would explain how Hurlbut became acquainted with Princess Radziwill when both of them were living in Paris. Salvador's father was English, which matches Hurlbut's in the Times report. Salvador's mother is said to be from the Seaveys, a New England family that first came to America about 1691, but the mother took her daughters to Paris after the father died. Given that they lived in France for years, and the 1921 Times report was 24 years after the mother died, she could reasonably be described as a "French" mother. It's hardly likely that there were two Henrietta Hurlbuts in New York in 1920-1921, each with a connection to Paris, each with a mother who lived in France, each with an English father, and each associated with either a Princess or a Baroness. (But amusingly, Radziwill makes an even less likely claim about herself, as shown below.) The English father, Robert Kimpson, was a grandson of Lord Teynham. In January 1897, Sarah E. Kimpson died in New York, the widow of Robert Kimpson, and mother of Baroness Salvador of Paris and "Mrs. D. N. Hurlbut" (presumably the initials of Henrietta's husband, the "full-fledged American", apparently the inventor Daniel N. Hurlbut who died August 1910 in Manhattan County, New York); in later reports she is "Mrs. Henrietta R. Hurlbut". Hurlbut's residence was then 101 West 78th. On September 22, 1912, Henrietta R. Hurlbut, already a US citizen and widowed, was 51 years old when she arrived in New York on the Campanello from Rotterdam.

In April 1919, Baroness Salvador was contesting a will relating to the $1.7 million estate of Mrs. Frank Leslie (Baroness de Bazus), claiming the existence of a prior will that had made her a "chief beneficiary". In the actual will, Baroness Salvador - a "close friend and companion" of Mrs. Leslie - had only received a diamond brooch, and the bulk of the estate was left to Mrs. Carrie Chapman Catt for the cause of women's suffrage. On May 11, 1919, Baroness "d'Avernas Salvador", the sister of "Mrs. D. N. Hurlbut" whose address by then was "500 West 122d Street", died in Paris before the case to revoke the Leslie will was called. In June 1920, Hurlbut was administering the estate of her sister, "Althea, Baroness Salvador", and revived the application to contest the will. In January 1917, Baroness Salvador was claiming $9,700 for services rendered in introducing Mrs. Leslie into Parisian society and getting her established. In April 1919 the Baroness was claiming "a $15,000 diamond necklace and $5,000". By May 1920, Hurlbut's claim was for "valuable jewelry and $20,000". By September 1920, Hurlbut was alleging that the bequest to Mrs. Catt was "made while Mrs. Leslie was of unsound mind and unduly influenced by the suffrage leader".

Thus, in the latter half of 1920, Hurlbut would have been in need of money for her legal battle to win a bigger share of the $1.7 million legacy. Then, in March 1921, she is acting as an agent of Jewry, along with the forger and jailbird Radziwill.

Hurlbut said she could "substantiate Princess Radziwill's account in every detail". However, Hurlbut's story contradicts Radziwill's account. Radziwill says it's Golowinsky who was the "proud" secret police agent who called on her and showed the manuscript to her and her friends. Hurlbut says, "Orgewsky was very proud of his work. He never hesitated to boast about it. He would come to the home of Mme. Radziwill in the Champs-Élysées, from the Bibliotheque Nationale, where the compilation was being made, carrying the sheets of the manuscript with him. I remember when he called with the completed document." And she says, "I have known for some time that the Protocols and the Orgewsky manuscript are one and the same." In Radziwill's account, General Orgewsky was just supposed to have inspired the first draft of the Protocols, well before 1905, and this was later "revised and enlarged by Rachkowsky, Maniuloff and Golowinsky in Paris" - three years after Rachkowsky had already left Paris for St. Petersburg. Hurlbut claims, "I recall the incident perfectly", yet in her account Golowinsky has morphed into Orgewsky.

Hurlbut2 photo Hurlbut2_zps9d1fd624.png

Source: The New York Times, March 4, 1921

There is evidence that Radziwill was living in Paris in 1904, but she was in a hotel (from which she was thrown out), she did not have her own home, and she was destitute. The New York Times, April 16, 1904, ran the headline: "PRINCESS RADZIWILL DESTITUTE IN PARIS.; Turned Out of Hotel, Where She Lived Under Assumed Name. ALL HER BELONGINGS SEIZED It Is Alleged That She Has Been Abusing the Confidence of Shopkeepers on a Large Scale." The abstract says, "PARIS, April 15. -- The notorious Princess Radziwill, who was imprisoned some time ago in Cape Colony for forging the signature of the late Cecil Rhodes, has been living for some time in Paris under the name of Mme. Wyunewski, and has again got into trouble." The report says she would have ended up in the street if a woman journalist, for whom Radziwill had been doing secretarial work, hadn't lent her 10 francs.

When Monseigneur Jouin investigated Radziwill's claims, he found the Paris registry had no trace of a Princess Radziwill living on the Champs-Élysées in 1904-5. Around 1907, an apartment in the rue Copernique was let to Radziwill.

If the Russian secret police are hard at work in Paris in 1905 forging an anti-Semitic tract for political purposes, who in their wildest dreams could seriously imagine that these professional spies would reveal their secret plot to a woman who had just been exposed in the press in April of the previous year as a destitute confidence trickster, and who had only been released from jail in August 1903 for crimes of forgery, fraud, bribery and blackmail? Not only that, they show it to the fraudster's friends, too!

An amusing aspect of Radziwill's claim that "Manasewitch-Maniuloff" was involving in forging the Protocols is that he was Jewish. In the Protocols, in the section on How the Protocols came to Russia, footnote 9 mentions "Maniulov" as one of the Jews in the Russian secret service, adding that he had an "odious character". His name is generally spelt as Ivan Manasevich-Manuilov, a "Jewish journalist, police spy, sometime secretary of Rasputin's", and as Prime Minister Sturmer's private secretary, was "arrested on suspicion of treason but then released" for taking German bribes. Apparently he was released because some of the money was passed on to Sturmer. (Radziwill's "Manasewitch-Maniuloff" exploited Rasputin for his own ends, and had a great influence on Sturmer; hence, clearly the same guy.) And Manuilov was a double agent. So we have the bizarre spectacle of the Jews trying to 'prove' that Jews didn't write the Protocols by claiming that a Jew helped to write the Protocols, and the Jews trying to 'prove' that the Protocols was "forged" to make people hate the Jews by claiming a Jew helped to forge the Protocols to make people hate the Jews.

When Radziwill's story was fabricated, the Jews went for quantity, not quality. They name-dropped as many Okhrana agents as possible in an attempt to make the statements of their paid liars (Radziwill, Hurlbut, du Chayla) seem detailed and plausible to the gullible, rather than taking care to select "anti-Semitic" secret police agents. However, finding the latter would have taken too long! Since the Jews were aware of their Okhrana co-religionist Manasevich-Manuilov, they decided to pick him as one of the "conspirators" for their story. After all, they're only trying to peddle their spiel to "vermin" with "purely brute brains" and an "underdeveloped power of thought"!

Here's the really funny part. In 1917, when Radziwill emigrated to the US and was delayed at Ellis Island, being interviewed by the authorities for two hours as she tried to persuade them to let her into the country, she was going to extraordinary lengths to deny that she was the Princess Radziwill who had forged the Rhodes checks. She said it was a case of "mistaken identity". She claimed she had a "double", who, in a bizarre string of coincidences, was also named Princess Catherine Radziwill, was also previously named Catherine Lzewuski, also married a prince, also married a man named Kolb, and also had a son who was killed on the Russian front. Naturally, she declared it was the "double", not her, who was the fraudster. According to Radziwill, her "double" was dead, which was supposed to account for the fact that there never was any evidence of a double. And conveniently, the "honest" Radziwill didn't have any passports, since "they were delayed by the breaking out of the Russian revolution", but she had a signed statement as 'evidence' that she'd applied for passports. In another attempt to distance herself from the "other" Radziwill, she claimed her father did not acquire his title as a Russian count until after she was born. According to Radziwill, the divorced princess was the fraudster, her "double", whereas she, the "honest" Radziwill, had been widowed when 'her' prince had died in 1910. And she had the death certificate to 'prove' it, but unfortunately, it was all in Russian. In reality, Radziwill's estranged first husband - Prince Radziwill - had divorced her in 1906 after the "South African affair" of the Rhodes forged checks (they'd already been separated for more than ten years by then).

The sort of person who would believe Radziwill's "doubles" story is the same sort of person who would believe anything - like Radziwill's other story that Russians and a Jew forged the Protocols to make people hate the Jews. But Radziwill would surely have deserved some sort of booby prize - for the lamest excuses, or the biggest load of twaddle!

RadziwillDouble photo RadziwillDouble_zps735f6125.png

Source: Kansas City Star, May 7, 1917

Radziwill's second husband was certainly named Kolb, but thereafter, reports vary. By some accounts he was named Charles Louis Kolb-Danvin, and other accounts have him as Karl Emile Kolb-Danvin; in both of those he's a Swedish businessman in Stockholm, an importer. Sometimes he's a German who became a Swedish citizen. Karl Bergmeister clarifies Radziwill's history - she was married to Prince Radziwill, then Karl Emil Kolb the German engineer from Munich, and then Danvin the Swede, who presumably was Charles Louis Danvin - and sets out the facts that demolish her cascade of lies about seeing the men who "forged" the Protocols. So when she claimed in 1917 that she, the "honest" Radziwill was married to Charles Louis Kolb-Danvin the Swedish importer, Charles Louis Danvin was her third husband, the "dead" "double" who married Emil Kolb the German was her younger self from a few years back, and the "dead" "double" also included her younger self the forger, going back about fifteen years. That also explains the several occasions in which strangers challenged her at her lectures.

It's hardly likely that a German engineer would choose to give up his career to become an importer, and choose to renounce his German citizenship and get himself naturalized as a Swede!

The New York Sun report of Thursday May 3, 1917 tells of how, after she was "detained at Ellis Island last Sunday on account of the authorities thinking she was a woman imprisoned in Cape Town in 1903 for forging Cecil Rhodes's signature", a "Mrs. William Shepard, wife of the Columbia professor of history" and a German newspaper representative called upon her, wanting to get her to speak or write something about Germans, from her experience as the wife of the Munich engineer named Kolb. "The Princess, who grows more and more pro-Ally, reject[ed] with great indignation the story that she is the wife of the Kolb who is a German engineer". Before her arrival, she'd already concocted her story about having a "double", in order to fool the authorities into letting her into the country. By the time of the Kansas City Star report, she'd probably elaborated and refined the tale. And then in the March 4, 1921 report of The New York Times (shown below), a stranger challenged the legitimacy of Radziwill's claim to a Russian title, asked whether she was from the Russian, Polish or Austrian branch of the house of Radziwill, and asked how she could deny that any of the Csars were murdered by Jews. In both cases, Radziwill sent her challengers fleeing off to the safety of the elevator, so she was obviously a highly skilled charlatan with a sharp tongue, capable of playing her audience like a fiddle.

BergmeisterOnRadziwill photo BergmeisterOnRadziwill_zpsd7b54730.png

Source: Dr. Karl Bergmeister

Radziwill was trying to get into the US at the end of April 1917, just weeks after the US had declared war against Germany. Thus, Radziwill was already suspected of being the Rhodes forger, and the marriage to Kolb the German put her in an even more unenviable position whilst she was delayed in Ellis Island, trying to persuade the authorities that she was of good character and suitable for immigration, even though she had no passports and her documentation was limited (presumably, to what she'd been able to forge). Yet the authorities let her in after two hours of questioning, probably after some official's bank balance had been boosted. And the Jewish press - which had turned strongly against Germany - was invariably sympathetic to Radziwill, treating her like royalty. Or, like someone they knew could be of use to them within the next few years.

The New York Times reported in December 1921 that Princess Radziwill was held in $1,000 bail after failing to pay a hotel bill of $1,239. Her request for special treatment because she was of "royal blood" was denied. Assistant D.A. Gibbs told Magistrate Levine that she'd served eighteen months in the South Africa House of Detention for swindling Cecil Rhodes in a forgery of $200,000, confirming that Gibbs was well aware of her past record as opposed to having been duped by her "doubles" story. In February 1922, she was held for the fraud.

RadziwillDoublesNotBelieved photo RadziwillDoublesNotBelieved_zpsbe88788d.png

Radziwill's scams go back at least to 1900, when she claimed to have been robbed of jewellery worth ten thousand pounds. It turned out that the "stolen" 'jewels' were merely paste, and the real jewels were in a safe place.

How interesting that when these 'oh-so-honest' Jews are trying to set the record straight in 1921, and show that 'evil' "anti-Semites" "forged" the Protocols, the person they choose to convey their 'truth' turns out to be a convicted forger, fraudster and confidence trickster, who was described in 1902 by the Attorney General as a "blackmailer" and a "cruel and dangerous woman", and in 1917 was going to extraordinary lengths to conceal her past with a bizarre story about having a "double" who was the swindler!! And who certainly didn't turn over a new leaf in the ensuing four years. Of course, liars attempting to peddle untruths would need a messenger whom they knew they could bribe - such as a fraudster, forger, and a known liar with a reputation for telling tall tales, e.g., about having a "double". When Israeli billionaire Eitan Wertheimer needed someone who would say, "there was no explosives in the van" in the event of Israelis being caught with tons of explosives in their van on 9/11/01, and who would circulate a story about a "hijacker's" passport that had miraculously become separated from 100 tons of aircraft debris, survived a fireball despite being soaked in jet fuel, and was "discovered" by a mysterious stranger who immediately ran off and conveniently was never seen nor heard from again, he sent for Bernard Kerik to come and see him two weeks prior to 9/11/01, under the guise of a four-day trip to Israel, ostensibly about combating terrorism and narcotics trafficking. Those who made it their business to know about such things were already aware of Kerik's association with the DiTommaso brothers, whose construction company Interstate Industrial Corporation was already suspected in 1999 and 2000 of having ties with members of the Gambino crime family such as Eddie Garafola.

If there are any Jews who still imagine there might be some truth in the Protocols "forgery" theory, don't you think someone with a better reputation and reliability than a convicted fraudster - whose second marriage was to a German - would have been used to convey the message, if the message were true? Or a woman who needed money for a legal battle to contest a $1.7 million will? We are supposed to believe that the Russian secret police were silly enough to reveal their innermost secrets to a convicted fraudster and confidence trickster - and her friends!!!! - in Paris in 1905, and we are also supposed to believe that Jews were silly enough to promote a convicted fraudster as an "honest" witness, whose testimony, of how the Russian secret police had been silly enough to trust her and her friends in 1905, could be trusted.

Incidentally, the scriptwriters who coach the liars on what to say frequently make major blunders. Radziwill was given the wrong chronology, and the Jews were left floundering, forced to use the lame defense that the "years 1904 and 1905" error could have been a result of a typo in the American Hebrew report, that later got copied by The New York Times. That doesn't fly, because the "typo" has to alter both dates by the same amount (else they are not consecutive), the year 1905 is corroborated by the quote "following the Japanese War and at the beginning of the first Russian Revolution", and 1904 matches the year that Radziwill is known to have been living in Paris. Moreover, Hurlbut's error in naming Orgewsky rather than Golowinsky as the proud secret police agent who came to Radziwill's home to show them the Protocols cannot be explained as a typo! Similarly, the 9/11 "hijacker's" passport story went pear-shaped (not that it wasn't crazy enough already!!) when the passport was said to have been found "in the vicinity of Vesey Street", which is to the north of WTC1. The passport was later claimed to be that of Satam al Suqami, who was said to have been on Flight 11 which approached from the north, and so by the laws of aerodynamics and Newton's Laws of Motion, should have ended up in the vicinity of Liberty Street to the south. The original list of 19 names provided by the Mossad "art students" had to be revised when it was found that some of the names on the list, such as Adnan Bukhari and Ameer Bukhari, could not be claimed as 9/11 "hijackers". (The fact that two people named Bukhari, totally unrelated to one another, were falsely claimed as "hijackers" shows how the "art students" were trawling through an alphabetical - or alefbetical - list of names to find their patsies.) Kerik, the mysterious man who handed in the passport (if he ever existed), and the press scriptwriters, failed to coordinate their story over which plane Suqami was supposed to be on, in relation to where "his" passport was supposed to have been found. In other variations of the story, the passport was said to have been found "blocks" away from the WTC site, which is in contravention of the fact that air resistance would have caused the passport to decelerate before it could clear buildings to the south of Liberty Street.

In contrast, the blunders rule is less likely to apply when the storyteller is one of the conspirators who's already been involved for years, for example, Jerome Hauer who was forensically analyzing steel beams from partially collapsed buildings in 1999. In that case, they know exactly what to say. (In the case of Larry Silverstein's blunder over WTC7, in which he said, "Maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it", he'd been expecting a plane to hit each building, and hadn't properly rehearsed for the possibility of Flight 93 being shot down before it could hit WTC7 because Flight 93 was 41 minutes late due to airport congestion, and the confusion caused by the war games and exercises - effectively a military "stand down" - could provide no more than a limited window of opportunity.)

The New York Times, March 4, 1921, reported on an incident at the end of a private lecture given by Radziwill on the origin of the Protocols. Radziwill claimed to have seen the Protocols "in Paris in the hands of Mathew Golowinsky in 1904, when Golowinsky and Manasewitch-Maniuloff were working on their preparation".

RadziwillProtocols1904 photo RadziwillProtocols1904_zps8001c7f8.png

Source: The New York Times, March 4, 1921

The March 4 report repeats the easily refuted allegation from the February 25 report that Rachkowsky was one of the three involved in the 1904 or 1905 conspiracy, along with the amusing claim that Ivan Manasevich-Manuilov, the Jewish secret police agent, was another of the trio attempting to stir up hatred against the Jews.

RadziwillRachkowsky photo RadziwillRachkowsky_zps59c28731.png

Radziwill's story has already been refuted by its physically impossible timeline, and by the fact that Radziwill was a convicted forger and fraudster, having passed checks totalling 29,000 pounds in 1901 and signing them with the name Cecil Rhodes, for which she was imprisoned for two years. And Hurlbut's claim of the "big blue ink spot on the first page" of the Protocols is refuted by the testimony of Sergius Nilus's son, confirming that Hurlbut and Radziwill were both employed by Jewish propagandists.

Ruud and Stepanov [p. 208] tell of how, on May 14, 1921, an article appeared in Evreiskaia Tribuna (Jewish Tribune) linking Rachkovsky to the Protocols. The French author was the Count Armand Alexandre du Chayla, who claimed he was a guest of Nilus in 1909 and saw in his home a French language manuscript of the Protocols written in several hands and having a blue ink blotch on its first page. Du Chayla claims Nilus told him he'd received the manuscript from a Paris resident named "Madame K", whose source was Rachkovsky. In Waters Flowing Eastward (L. Fry), there is information about du Chayla's character from a Russian lady named Tatiana Fermor, who was prompted to respond to his articles that supposedly refuted the Protocols. Fermor met du Chayla on her estate in the then White Russia, in a village near Moguileff, and du Chayla was purportedly a devotee of Russian Orthodoxy. "Beautifully sculptured angels in the Renaissance style were removed from the chapel" of the local monastery. In the opinion of du Chayla, they were "too Catholic", and he smashed them with a hammer. He exhibited a hatred for Jews, and often told Fermor that "One must have a good pogrom in Russia". So Fermor was astonished to see that du Chayla had come out against the Protocols, so-called propaganda that was supposed to stir up hatred against the Jews. Du Chayla had also praised the books of Édouard Drumont, who'd worked to expose how the Jews had taken control of France, and yet by 1921, du Chayla was attacking Drumont! Du Chayla was also arrested for espionage, and eventually in 1919 du Chayla was tried by court martial and convicted of seditious activities in the pay of the Soviets.

According to Karl Bergmeister in his aforementioned work, in 1921, Comte du Chayla was "Chief of Propaganda on the Staff of the Don Cossack Corps of General Wrangel's Army". Whilst employed in that capacity, it was found he was acting as a Bolshevist agent, and was arrested and sentenced to death for high treason. Under pressure from the French ambassador, Wrangel quashed the sentence, and expelled du Chayla from his army. Peter Kenez, in Civil War in South Russia, 1919-1920: The Defeat of the Whites, tells of how du Chayla was the chief of the political section of the staff of the Don army, and was editor of the Donskii vestik, a newspaper published by the Don command. The paper ran articles praising the achievements of the March Revolution, attacked the Whites for failing to bring freedom to the people, advocated a federal and democratic Russia, and so on. It took some time before Wrangel found out; the censor did not take much interest in the paper, assuming it was merely an official paper. Wrangel closed the paper on "April 16" and had du Chayla and others arrested. Du Chayla remembered how Wrangel had hanged Kalabukhov in November 1919 (thus, the "April 16" is 1920), tried to commit suicide, but merely wounded himself. At du Chayla's trial in September 1920 he was found innocent, but his superiors had been found guilty for not having stopped him. The two generals were sentenced to hard labor, but Wrangel reduced the sentences to exclusion from the army, and they left the country. Then Wrangel ordered du Chayla to leave the country, so that the "guilty" generals and the "innocent" du Chayla received the same punishment.

Thus, du Chayla was indeed arrested as a suspected traitor and asset of the Soviets, and this was going on within a year of the dates stated by Fermor (1919) and Bergmeister (1921). Whether or not du Chayla actually worked as a spy, it is clear he was a propagandist and paid liar who worked for whoever was the highest bidder at any given time. As his career reached its nadir, he was plucked up by the Jews in May 1921 to back up the lies of Radziwill and Hurlbut. Then, in the next decade, du Chayla would serve again as the Jews' liar and propagandist, at the Berne trial.

Ruud and Stepanov tell of how, in a subsequent article of August 26, 1921 in the Evreiskaia Tribuna, there was a signed article by Sergei Svatikov, a Menshevik and Social Democrat. Svatikov identified "Madame K", introduced by du Chayla as Nilus's source for the Protocols via Rachkovsky, as Madame Komarovskaia (or Komarowsky, and one source names her as Frau Ladimirowna Komarowski). However, Bergmeister says that "in a written statement dated 13 July 1936", Andrej Petrowitsch Rachkovsky, son of the famous Paris-based head of the Okhrana, declared that his father had never been acquainted with Madame Komarowsky. Svatikov went on to testify in favor of the Jews at the Berne trial. According to Ruud, "allegations credited to Bint sharply contradict the princess's version of events". For example, according to Ruud, Henri Bint claimed that "what inspired Rachkovsky to take up the pseudo-document for the first time was the Protocols text that Nilus published in 1905 (censor Sokolov recommended in September that authorities examine it)", and Rachkovsky did this on his own accord without informing his superiors. Of course, the allegations of Rachkovsky taking up and revising the Protocols are belied by the fact that there is no evidence for this in the Okhrana archives, no evidence that he was "anti-Semitic", and so on. Moreover, even if it were true, it would not explain how the Protocols were created and then got to Nilus in the first place.

Rachkovsky rejoined the secret police in July 1905 after he was removed in November 1902. But in 1905 he was based in St. Petersburg, not Paris; his successor Leonid Rataev headed the Paris section until August 1905, and then Arkady Harting (Hartung) was in charge until January 1909. Rachkovsky was permanently terminated from police work in July 1906, and died three years later. Hartung / Harting / Gekkel'man / Hekkel'man / Hackelman / Landezen was Jewish, so like Manasevich-Manuilov, is hardly going to get involved in fabricating an "anti-Semitic" tract that the Russian censor S.I. Sokolov feared could "lead to the annihilation everywhere of all Jews without exception". And Rachkovsky wasn't on friendly terms with his successor Rataev. Fontanka 16, p. 93, states: "Later, describing the Foreign Agency as a 'hollow shell' and relations with French officials as severely frayed when he arrived, Rataev would repeatedly contend that Rachkovsky had effectively handicapped him."

There is a delectable contradiction in the du Chayla / Svatikov / Bint scenario of Rachkovsky handing the Protocols to Madame K who hands them to Nilus, and then Rachkovsky works with the Protocols "for the first time" in late 1905 or later, after being inspired by Nilus's work.

Bint's testimony is not necessarily all false. Bint claimed Rachkovsky planned to embellish the Protocols (late 1905, if not later) and publish a revived version that was designed to incite Russians against the revolutionaries, not against the Jews. Bint said Rachkovsky sent him to a Frankfurt book dealer "to order specific anti-Semitic books", which he collected and then mailed from Paris to Rachkovsky's Police Department in St. Petersburg. And to support this claim, "Bint in 1921 had shown Svatikov several contrived pamphlets - all devoid of anti-Semitism - that Rachkovsky had, on his own initiative, published in Paris before 1902 to accomplish that same aim". Well, by August the Jews would have had months (since the 25 February Landman American Hebrew article) to produce those "contrived pamphlets", but then they'd probably have faked them as the work of "anti-Semites". Producing contrived propaganda pamphlets that weren't anti-Semitic is the sort of thing Rachkovsky would be expected to have done, and is consistent with the evidence that Rachkovsky employed Jews, had never exhibited a trace of anti-Semitism, the Okhrana didn't think that turning public opinion against the Jews would be useful, there is no evidence in the Okhrana archives of anti-Semitism, and the position of the tsarist government by 1900 was to curb anti-Semitic violence in Russia, not to promote it.

On several occasions, as in the sentence quoted three paragraphs above, Ruud and Sergei Stepanov refer to the Protocols as a "pseudo-document". They believe it's not an authentic work of Jews. They also take no account of Princess Radziwill's character, simply treating her like any other eyewitness. Thus, Ruud and Stepanov can in no way be described as anti-Semitic, or biased against Jewish claims regarding the Protocols as a result of taking account of the reliability of each witness, and yet after evaluating the historical evidence, they conclude that the Protocols is not a product of the Russian secret police. At the end of chapter 10, p. 224; they conclude: "As for the Jews, the Okhranka as an institution saw the folly of targeting them, and did not, as is often thought, issue the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to blame the troubles of the autocracy on the Jews."

(The term Okhranka, which was sometimes used interchangeably with Okhrana, was frequently used to refer to the Paris office. And a search for Охрана, Russian for Okhrana, will return plenty of results from Russian websites.)

On the first two pages of their chapter on Protocols, Masons and Liberals, Ruud and Stepanov say: "Conclusive evidence shows that, despite their awareness that some Russian Jews were revolutionaries and that Masons abroad used revolutionary language, most security officials dismissed the idea that either the Jews or the Masons collectively posed a threat. [...] But, even as no concrete evidence has come to light about when, where, and by whom their drafting took place, solid data on the actual publication of the Protocols before the revolution explode the thesis of Okhranka involvement. Only six different printings are known in Russian before the revolution, merely one of which can remotely be linked to the government. These, along with the documented censorship decision in 1905 on the infamous Nilus edition, provide convincing evidence of non-involvement by the Okhranka or by any government agency."

Here is a summary of the six Russian public printings before the revolution, excluding Stepanov's 1897 private printing and circulation:
1903, late August to early September: P.A. Krushevan, Znamia (the Banner). Nilus is believed to be the source.
Late 1905: S.G. Nilus,  The Large in the Small and the Antichrist, as a Near Political Possibility.
December 1905: The Root of Our Misfortune, printed on presses belonging to the St. Petersburg Military District. Format was a brochure of only a few pages, so limited durability. Shifted blame to the Masons by the title: "[protocols of the] Elders of Zion of the Universal Society of Freemasons".
1906: A book by G. Butmi. Accusatory Speeches. Enemies of Humanity. Same version as the one put out on the press of the St. Petersburg Military District.
1911: Republished version by Nilus.
1917: Republished version by Nilus.

On 28 September 1905, Moscow censor S.I. Sokolov rejected Nilus's submission for the Protocols to be circulated as a small book. Sokolov warned that publication could "lead to the annihilation everywhere of all Jews without exception, the mass of whom are undoubtedly unaware of the plots of the Zionists." However, it could have been published as part of a long book, the reasoning being that it would then attract only a small audience. But under the book regulations effective at the time, Nilus could have insisted on permission to publish as a small book, because the material had already been published in the Banner by Butmi, and had not provoked a post-publication ban by the authorities. "Had police officials been backing the Nilus manuscript, on the other hand, they would certainly have brought this regulation before the committee, were such a tactic necessary to cause it to approve the publication of the Protocols as a small book."

After listing the six known printings of the Protocols in Russian before the Bolsheviks' assumption of power, Ruud continues: "...their small number, their conspicuous sponsorship by extremists, and their small impact on the public, makes a point. That is, had the Okhranka, in the last two decades of the Empire, decided to use the Protocols to defame the Jews, its top security officials would have ensured their wide circulation through accessible and respectable small books or pamphlets, just as they would have contrived and publicized respectable endorsements that were, in fact, conspicuously absent. Never would they have favoured the right-wing printings that actually appeared, so sceptical about them and indifferent to them was the public as a whole."

The CIA informs us that Basil Maklakov, the last imperial ambassador to France, hid the Okhrana files in sixteen 500-pound packing crates, told the Bolsheviks that he'd burned them, and then shipped them off to the US. In order to avoid retaliation by the Cheka, Maklakov had signed an agreement with the Hoover Institution that the crates would remain sealed until his death, and not made public for another three months. He lived until the age of 86, and it was in October 1957 that the packing crates were opened. "According to Hoover records, the archive contains 206 boxes, 26 scrapbooks, 164,000 cards, and eight linear feet of photographs. The complete archive is available on 509 reels of microfilm. It is a veritable who's who of the Russian revolution and includes files on and photographs of Stalin, Molotov, and Trotsky." Thus, the Okhrana archives have been available for well over 50 years. If they contained any evidence whatsoever of a Protocols forgery, you can be sure that World Jewry would be shouting it from the rooftops.

Similarly, if the Berne lawsuit was proof of forgery, Jewry would have employed people to work through the trial transcript, make a fresh, clear digitized copy, translate into various languages and put them online for the whole world and his dog. The fact that they never did, demonstrates that they don't believe the Berne trial proceedings would convince any fair-minded person that the Protocols was a forgery. There is an online report of the Berne trial proceedings, but available only in German, and the print in the digitized file of the proceedings leaves much to be desired, leading to plenty of errors in the text version. The original has a few references to "Glinka", for example, but a search in the text file finds only one such instance.

In reality, the defendants were only convicted in the original trial because the judge was in the pocket of the Jews, and so the Berne trial's failure to serve as compelling evidence of forgery is even more glaringly at odds with the position that the Protocols was a forgery. As evidence of the judge's true allegiance, in 1934, he allowed nineteen (19) witnesses for the prosecution, including three who were cited but could not attend court, but only one for the defense - Alfred Zander - whilst refusing dozens of witnesses that the defense wanted to call. (See part 3 of Karl Bergmeister's report.) In 1935, of the three experts, one was appointed by the judge, one was appointed by the plaintiffs, and Ulrich Fleischhauer was appointed for the defense. However, the judge simply ignored Fleischhauer's refutation of the claims of the liars Radziwill and du Chayla. Nevertheless, the verdict to impose fines on the defendants was overturned on appeal.

The Hans Jonak von Freyenwald papers on the trial were later acquired by the Jewish Central Information Office, and filed in Israel. That is another example of how liars, scoundrels and perverts can invest some of their ill-gotten gains to rewrite history, and reminiscent of how the Board of Deputies of British Jews bought the "Burton papers", the unpublished manuscript on the subject of Jewish ritual murder.

At p. 71 of 203, section V in the Berne proceedings .pdf, one of Jewry's witnesses (Boris Nicolaevsky) amusingly says that the personality of "Frau Glinka" is very well known ("...die Persönlichkeit der Frau Glinka ist sehr gut bekannt"). This was in the mid-1930s, by which time the personalities of Princess Radziwill and Count du Chayla were also very well known. Jewry's hypocrisy knows no bounds, as they impugn Glinka's character, whilst having to pretend to be unaware of the fact that their main witnesses happen to be a convicted forger and a convicted traitor. Jewry would have everyone believe it was purely coincidental that a fraudster and a traitor were testifying in their favor, and it was nothing to do with Jewry needing people who would lie for them!!!

(Nicolaevsky did in fact admit privately that he regarded du Chayla (the traitor) as a "swindler", and that he believed Rachkovsky had nothing whatsoever to do with the preparation of the Protocols.)

At the top of p. 75 of 203, Jewry's witness is trying to sling mud at Sukhotin, pushing Rodichev's allegation about him having a village's peasants arrested for refusing to cart infected manure from a diseased horse.

Alfred Zander's testimony for the defense is at pp. 188-193 in the proceedings .pdf. At p. 193, Zander says that as a good Christian he believes the gospels are real, and even if "experts" from Soviet Russia 'proved' them wrong ten thousand times, he would still believe the gospels to be genuine. And, he says, it's the same with the Protocols. At this point he is interrupted by the "Swiss" Jew, Advocate Georges Brunschvig (1908–1973). After Brunschvig mentions the claim that Maurice Joly was circumcised as Moses Joel, Zander is "released" as a witness. Brunschvig was born in Berne to a family of Jewish horse traders. From 1943, Brunschvig was the counsel to David Frankfurter, the "Croatian" Jew who "assassinated" (murdered) the Swiss "Nazi" Wilhelm Gustloff in 1936; Brunschvig was instrumental in achieving Frankfurter's pardon in 1945. Frankfurter, whose father became a chief rabbi, was supposed to have been a "sickly child" who would have a short lifespan, but died in 1982 at the age of 73. The example of Frankfurter serves as an excellent illustration of how those who have run out of arguments resort to the bullet or the bomb.

The CIA library confirms that Peter Ivanovich Rachkovsky headed the Paris office from March 1885 to November 1902. Rachkovsky had just two permanent office staff who remained throughout his tenure: Leonty Golshman, a long-time MVD correspondent, and Nikolai Chashnikov, an embassy employee fluent in French for clerical and code work. So if Rachkovsky organized "faking" the Protocols, them Chashnikov might have been expected to play a part in the operation. Rachkovsky was dismissed in 1902, mainly because he dared to "expose in an intelligence report a charlatan and hypnotist named Phillipe who told fortunes for the imperial household". A report on the Okhrana's female agents shows that the organization was not "anti-Semitic", but, not surprisingly for the time, was hardly a supporter of feminism: "The only Jewish female agents sent abroad by the Okhrana seem to be those who accompanied their male partners to form operational teams like those of Beitner and Brontman mentioned above. But the Okhrana's male deep-cover agents abroad tended to be predominantly Jewish like the revolutionaries."

Before continuing with other Jewish accounts of how they claim the Protocols was fabricated, which are basically just rehashes of the old Radziwill lies with an attempt at making the errors more manageable, let's look at the alternative of how the Protocols was found and sent to Russia. Here's the account of how the Protocols got to Nilus, as set out in the 1934 Marsden translation of the Protocols:

In 1884 the daughter of a Russian general, Mlle. Justine Glinka, was endeavoring to serve her country in Paris by obtaining political information, which she communicated to General Orgevskii 4 in St. Petersburg. For this purpose she employed a Jew, Joseph Schorst, 5 member of the Miz-raim 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 Mlle. Glinka. 6

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. 7

Meantime there appeared in Paris certain books on Russian court life 8 which displeased the Tsar, who ordered his secret police to discover their authorship. This was falsely attributed, perhaps with malicious intent, 9 to Mlle. 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, Mlle. 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.

Meantime, through Jewish members 10 of the Russian police, minutes of the proceedings of the Basle congress 11 in 1897 had been obtained and these were found to correspond with the Protocols. 12

In January 1917, Nilus had prepared a second edition, revised and documented, for publication. But before it could be put on the market, the revolution of March 1917 had taken place, and Kerenskii, who had succeeded to power, ordered the whole edition of Nilus's book to be destroyed. In 1924, Prof. Nilus was arrested by the Cheka in Kiev, imprisoned, and tortured; he was told by the Jewish president of the court, that this treatment was meted out to him for "having done them incalculable harm in publishing the Protocols". Released for a few months, he was again led before the G. P. U. (Cheka), this time in Moscow and confined. Set at liberty in February 1926, he died in exile in the district of Vladimir on January 13, 1929.

A few copies of Nilus's second edition were saved and sent to other countries where they were published:

in Germany, by Gottfreid zum Beek (1919)
in England, by The Britons (1920)
in France, by Mgr. Jouin in La Revue Internationale des Societes Secretes, and by Urbain Gohier in La Vieille France
in the United States, by Small, Maynard & Co. (Boston 1920), and by The Beckwith Co (New York 1921)

Later, editions appeared in Italian, Russian, Arabic, and even in Japanese.
Source (includes footnotes)

The Stepanov deposition has already been shown above.

Now let's check out the above narrative against available information on the various players.

Prince Galitzin of Russia married Frances Simpson Stevens of New York in 1919. A report states "The beautiful, wealthy Miss Francis Simpson Stevens, of New York, married the ruined Prince Galitzin of Russia, and went away with him to make a hopeless struggle against the Bolshevists in Siberia". In another report, Prince "Dmitri Golitsyn" lost all his possessions during two years in Siberia after marrying the Futurist artist Francis [or Frances] Simpson Stevens in 1919. And the New York Times report on the wedding says the Prince was serving as a captain in the marines with the loyal Russian forces, and was in mourning for two of his brothers who were victims of the Bolsheviks. Miss Stevens was born in Chicago, and her mother was a "prominent Christian Scientist". Thus, Prince Galitzin looks like a reliable witness, which is more than can be said for many of those cited by the Jews such as the jailbird Radziwill. And Galitzin did not switch sides and end up joining the Bolsheviks. Interestingly, Golovinski, the supposed "anti-Semite", did!

General Orgevskii, Glinka's uncle who got her the spying job, accepted the post of chief of gendarmes and adjutant of Talstoi in early July, 1882.

Justine "Yuliana" Glinka is confirmed to have been in Paris in 1884. Vsevolod Solovyov, the eldest son of the historian Serguey Solovyov, and brother of the philosopher Vladimir Solovyov, was spending the spring of 1884 in Paris as a tonic for his "sick nerves". "Since arriving in the city, he had been hearing about Madam [Blavatsky] and her famous Theosophical Society from Justine Glinka, a member of the Paris branch, who happened to be his sister-in-law and former mistress." Solovyov claimed to have seen one of the Theosophical "Mahatmas" on August 26-27, 1884. In the fall of 1884, Blavatsky, who died in 1891, moved to Elberfeld in Germany. At this time, Solovyov and Glinka were "truly loving friends" of Blavatsky, and she summoned them to come from Paris to see her when she was unwell. The three were still friends after Blavatsky moved on to Wurzburg in the summer of 1885. However, by 1886, Solovyov had fallen out with Blavatsky and denounced her as a "failed spy of the Okhrana". His last visit to her was in September 1885, and after that he moved to St. Petersburg. By the beginning of February 1886, Blavatsky heard about stories of her past life that were making the rounds, and she learned that Solovyov was the source of the gossip.

Glinka obtained the Protocols from the Jew Joseph Schorst (or Schoerst, alias Shapiro), who was a member of the Mizraim Lodge in Paris, and Glinka's friend Madame Blavatsky was a Freemason of the Ancient and Primitive Rite, which is linked to Misraim. Misraim is the Hebrew for Egypt, which is where Schorst fled to, and was murdered. The sources in the following paragraph differ as to some of the dates, but agree that Memphis, Misraim, and the Ancient and Primitive Rite had amalgamated by 1881.

"The Theosophist of March, 1913, reproduce[d] Madame Blavatsky's diploma in the Rite, and it [wa]s signed by John Yarker, among others." The Ancient and Primitive Rite "was previously known as the Rite of Memphis (founded 1815), which on 30th December, 1862, merged into the Grand Orient of France; and in 1875 under the name of Ancient and Primitive Rite, it amalgamated with that of Mizraim in England. None but Master Masons are admitted to the order."  "The Rite of Memphis-Misraim is a masonic rite which was formed by the merging of the two rites of Memphis and Misraïm under the influence of General Garibaldi in 1881. [...] The Rite of Memphis was constituted by Jacques Etienne Marconis de Nègre in 1838, as a variant of the Rite of Misraïm, combining elements from Templarism and chivalry with Egyptian and alchemical mythology. It had at least two lodges ("Osiris" and "Des Philadelphes") at Paris..." The Oriental Rite of Mizraim was founded in 1805. The Rite of Mizraim (Heb: Egypt) arose out of Egyptian Masonry, which Cagliostro derived from an older source. In 1813, Grand Orient of Paris accepted Rite of Mizraim under Lechangeur and others. On June 24, 1817, the Rite of Mizraim was rejected by Grand Orient. On March 5, 1848, the Rite of Memphis was installed by Grand Orient with three overseer councils. In 1877 John Yarker became Hierophant.

A Russian source states it was the early 1890s that Glinka met with the landlords of Chern County, Orel Province, including Sukhotin, after having been framed for authoring the book Holy Russia, the courtyard, the army, the clergy, the bourgeoisie and the people (translating from Russian back to English) and then banished to her Orel estate. Elsewhere, the book is entitled Holy Russia: Courtyard, army, clergy, merchants, and people, and is dated 1890. The author "[Count] Paul Vassili" is the convicted forger Princess Catherine Radziwill. A separate list of her books includes the latter book La Sainté Russie; la cour, l'armée, le clerge, la bourgeoisie et le peuple (1890), and La Société de Saint-Pétersbourg: augmenté de lettres inédites (1886). A footnote in the Protocols claims that "Count Vassili" was a pseudonym for Juliette Adam, but that conclusion is based on material supplied by Princess Radziwill among others, so is about as reliable as a nine-dollar bill.

From the account given within the Protocols of how the document got to Russia, a suitable timeline could have Schorst taking the Protocols in 1884 or 1885, retaliation against Glinka (Schorst might have been forced to reveal her name prior to being murdered in Egypt) by the Jews' agents such as Radziwill by publishing the above books in 1886 and 1890, Glinka returns to Russia in the early 1890s and is banished to Orel, she gives a copy of the Protocols to Sukhotin, and then he passes it on to Stepanov in 1895, and Nilus in 1901 or earlier. Glinka's return to Russia could have been prompted by the death of Blavatsky in 1891. However, from the analysis below of the timing of events mentioned in the Protocols, it looks like 1884 could have been when Glinka began her work as a spy, it was not until nearer 1890 when Schorst stole the Protocols, the 1886 book was merely part of Radziwill's writing career, and her 1890 book was the product of the campaign to frame Glinka after Schorst had been forced to reveal her name before his murder. Thus, Radziwill's connections with "influential people in the journalistic world" must have been established by 1890 or earlier, so that she was thereafter available as an asset of Jewry.

Given that Nilus was protecting his sources, and Justine / Yuliana Glinka died in 1918, she could not have been named as early as his 1917 revision of the Protocols, and in any case, all copies known to exist in Russia were said to have been destroyed by the Kerensky regime. The information about Schorst and Glinka possessing the Protocols prior to Sukhotin originates in Waters Flowing Eastward - "Leslie Fry" ( Mme. Paquita "Mady" de Shishmareff), of which the 1st Edition was published in 1931, the 2nd Edition in 1933, the 3rd Revision in 1934, and so on. According to Tony Blizzard, who had been a friend and co-worker of Mady, Mady and Glinka knew each other. That is consistent with both of them being related to high-ranking officers in the Tsarist Army. Glinka was the daughter of a Russian general and the niece of General Orzhevsky / Orgevskii / Orgewsky - in St. Petersburg, and Mady married "a Russian military man of rank in the Czar's Army". Mady was born in Paris in 1882, as Louise A. Chandor, and married Feodor Ivanovich Shishmarev in 1906 in St. Petersburg. He was murdered by the Bolsheviks, but had the foresight to send his wife, their two sons, and the family fortune, out of the country to safety. And then his murder naturally prompted Mady to start researching the truth behind Bolshevism, the Great War, and so on.

There was also an L. Fry and Denis Fahey enlarged edition of Waters Flowing Eastward, published in 1965. Conducting a search for "Glinka" within the Google Books digitized 1931 edition confirms that the Schorst - Glinka - Sukhotin story was in this first edition, and appears as worded in other online versions of the book. And then in 1933, Occult Theocrasy - "Lady Queenborough" (Edith Starr Miller), and co-authored by de Shishmareff according to Blizzard, who says she didn't want to be named as co-author because she'd also published her own book, was published after Miller's mysterious death at the age of 45. The story of the Protocols' origin is abbreviated to: "Abstracted from a Jewish Lodge of Mizraim in Paris, in 1884, by Joseph Schorst, later murdered in Egypt, it embodied the programme of esoteric Judaism. Schorst was the son of a man who, in 1881, had been sentenced in London to ten years penal servitude for counterfeiting." The quoted source is Waters Flowing Eastward. And then the 1934 Marsden translation of the Protocols incorporated the story about Glinka, and had an abbreviated version of material about Jacob Venedey, Adolphe Crémieux, etc., and the Mizraim Lodge from Occult Theocrasy.

When you search for Yuliana Glinka's full name in Russian - "Юлиана Дмитриевна Глинка" - the first result that comes up is the Wikipedia page, and the next result is the Russian page at this link. Upon translation, it is clear that the article is not supportive of Jewry's "forgery" allegations. The author is the late Russian Professor Yuri K. Begunov (October 20, 1932, Leningrad - January 18, 2014, Saint-Petersburg), and the Russian Wikipedia page on him vacuously describes him as a "conspiracy theorist", but also lists some impressive credentials. Ю́рий Константи́нович Бегуно́в was a "Soviet Russia and Slavic linguist", a "specialist in the study of ancient texts, Professor of Political Science. Author Studies in Literature, Art and Culture of Ancient Rus, Russian-Bulgarian relations literature, a wide range of Slavic problems, bibliographies and source. Doctor of Philology (1983), Honorary Doctor of the University of Veliko Tarnovo, a member of the Writers' Union of Russia, member of the Russian Historical Society, a member of the CIS Bulgharist. Author of over 500 scientific publications, including 30 books."

According to Dr. Begunov, there was an early manuscript of the Protocols - a hectographed copy - that was in the USSR State Library until the 1960s, but it mysteriously disappeared. The first four pages were copied in the 1930s and sent to Berne for the trial. Another "proof" of the existence of the 1897 manuscript is that parts of it apparently got into the United States via Boris Brazol, a Russian émigré who cooperated with the State Department, and was the translator for some editions of the Protocols. (Upon an investigation in 1919, the US military believed the Protocols to be authentic.) Begunov says that Alexander III, who died in November 1894, was poisoned by his doctor. Officially, the story goes that Alexander suffered "blunt trauma" in October 1888 when the royal train derailed in an accident, and Alexander held the collapsing roof on his shoulders as the children escaped. Six years later in 1894, the "trauma" supposedly caused him to develop incurable kidney disease, which killed him.

Begunov investigated the Bernese archive on the Protocols, and lists a number of interesting findings, such as how Alfred Nossig (1864-1943) had attended the First Zionist Congress, and later revealed how the Protocols was being discussed there in French. Nossig was eventually murdered by Jews, after being accused of working for the Gestapo - at the age of 76 - and being a "Jewish traitor", when in reality he'd devoted decades of his life to working for peace. The real motive for his murder was undoubtedly revenge after he exposed the authenticity of the Protocols, although the killers may have been duped into imagining he was a Gestapo agent, rather like the SEAL Team Six members (before most of them were conveniently killed in a chopper crash) were conned by false intelligence into imagining it was Osama bin Laden - not a Pakistani gentleman by the name of Khan - whom they assassinated in Abbottabad.

(Even the family members suspect that the helicopter crash that killed most of those SEALs was an "inside job".)

See this page for some examples of Brazol, and Brazol modified by Cameron, versus Marsden translations. And there is a discussion on it at this page. As to which is best, the short answer is that the Marsden translation best captures the spirit of the original, Brazol is a dumbed-down, misleading version, and Brazol modified by Cameron is the Jew-friendly or disinformation version. For example, in the latter, the Jews have amassed the gold, though it has cost them "torrents of blood and tears". In the better translations, the Jews have had to gather the gold out of oceans of (goyim) blood and tears, whilst also having many (but far fewer) of their own people killed, because each dead Jew is equivalent to 1,000 dead goyim. And in Protocol No. 1, Brazol has changed Marsden's "make-believe" into "hypocrisy". Hypocrisy is a character shortcoming which almost everyone has to some degree; make-believe is a strategy that was employed, for example, on 9/11/01. Get the Marsden translation to see what the Protocols is about.

Dr. Revilo P. Oliver, the classics professor and so-called "white nationalist" and "conspiracy theorist", makes the point that it is significant that the original manuscript of the Protocols, later destroyed in 1917 when Kerensky took power in Russia to prepare the way for the Bolshevik Revolution, was in French. Zionist leaders such as Herzl always wrote and spoke in German for serious communication, and so if the Russian secret police were going to forge a document as the handiwork of the "Elders of Zion", they would have fabricated it in German, not French.

Herman Bernstein, a Jewish activist who was secretary of the American Jewish Committee and an officer of the Zionist Organization of America, and whose father was a "Talmudic scholar", made a bumbling attempt to refute the Protocols in his book The History of a Lie. Ironically, in a later work, The Truth About the "Protocols of Zion", Bernstein accepted Stepanov's deposition that he received the Protocols in 1895, supposedly as 'evidence' of the Protocols being a "forgery", on the grounds that this was two years prior to the first Zionist Congress! Thus, Bernstein throws common sense out the window, turns logic on its head, introduces a straw man, and blows out of the water just about every Jewish 'theory' of the Protocols' origin. Bernstein claims that the handwritten affidavit "give[s] the lie to the Russian fabricators and disseminators of the Protocols". But clearly, the Elders could have prepared the text in advance and then used it or a revised version for their presentation at Basle.

And even if the pro-Gentile supposition that some form of the Protocols was read out at the first Zionist Congress is false and was based on false information, the question of whether "anti-Semites" or Jews wrote the Protocols rests on whether or not a Jewish conspiracy exists today, whether or not Jews dominate the mainstream media, money markets and banking, whether presidents and prime ministers give priority to the interests of their electorate or the interests of Israel and World Jewry, whether or not the Protocols accurately reflects the attitude of Talmudic supremacists to the "goyim" - as demonstrated for example by Jewish treatment of Palestinians, whether or not Jews have a powerful array of pressure groups such as AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, American Zionist Movement, Anti-Defamation League, Bnai Zion Foundation, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Jewish Federations of North America, World Zionist Executive USA, Zionist Organization of America, Jewish Agency for Israel (American Section), UJA-Federation of New York, World Jewish Congress, etc., whether or not Jews such as Herzl said something like "The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies", whether or not Jewish terrorists stage false-flag terror attacks as a pretext for war, whether or not Jews were behind the Bolshevik Revolution, whether or not Jews exhibited a "merciless vengeance, hatreds and malice" towards Russian Christians, whether or not Jews have exhibited a hatred of Christianity and done their best to destroy it, whether or not Jews have ever stirred up class war between the "lower classes of the goyim" and "the intellectuals of the goyim", whether or not Jews have used Freemasonry as a screen, whether or not Jewish billionaires or trillionaires exhibit a desire to get "the gold" in their hands, whether or not Jews have worked to destroy the aristocracy, whether or not Jews have set up supra-government organizations, whether or not Jews have succeeded in getting Gentile governments into debt, whether Jews have shown a sincere desire to get to the truth about the Protocols or a desperate need to cover up the truth, and so on.

Bernstein was attempting to refute the Protocols by using the "plagiarism, therefore forgery" fallacy before Philip Graves did so. The three Graves articles on the similarities between the Protocols and Joly's Dialogues were published in the London Times from August 16 to 18, 1921. Bernstein's book The History of a Lie was dated February 1921, and there are copyright entries for it with dates in March 1921. Bernstein pointed to similarities between passages in the Protocols and Biarritz by Hermann Goedsche aka "Sir John Retcliffe" (1868), and The Talmud and the Jews by Ippolit Lutostansky (1907). The Protocols was published in Germany in 1919, then in England, France and the US in 1920. Bernstein's book was already researched, completed and ready for publication, by the time of Isaac Landman's American Hebrew article of February 25, 1921, that served as a mouthpiece for Princess Radziwill, the early 1900s answer to Cruella De Vil.

The section of interest within Goedsche's Biarritz is the chapter "At The Jewish Cemetery in Prague". Some people were duped into imagining that Goedsche's fictional "Rabbi's speech" was fact; "Retcliffe" used a variation of his pen name - Readcliffe - as one of the fictional observers who had supposedly heard the "Rabbi's" discourse. There was no Rabbi Reichorn or Reichhorn.

But it wasn't Bernstein who discovered the Goedsche - Protocols similarities. The German political writer Otto Friedrich, in Die Weisen von Zion - das Buch der Fälschungen, exposed those parallel passages in 1920. And apparently Dr. Joseph Stanjek was the first to show the link, in April 1920 in the Berlin monthly Im Deutschen Reich. Bernstein plagiarised Friedrich / Stanjek by citing the Goedsche - Protocols similarities in his The History of a Lie as if he, Bernstein, was the discoverer.

Given Bernstein's abilities as a translator fluent in various languages including Russian, it's feasible that he did discover the Lutostansky similarities. Lutostansky's work shares some concepts from the Protocols about the "Symbolic Snake" of Zion, in which the head of the snake represents the sages of Zion or those who have been initiated into the plans of the Jewish administration, and the body represents the Judaean nation, or the Jewish people. And Jewish women masquerading as French, Italians, etc., have the job of spreading "licentiousness" into the lives of the nations' leaders. Bernstein tries to make it seem as if Nilus could have plagiarised Lutostansky, by saying Lutostansky's work was published in 1907 and the passage in the Protocols is taken from "From the Nilus Epilogue, 1917". However, the passage also appears in the Marsden translation - with minor differences typical of an alternative translation - with a comment that it is from Nilus's Epilogue "to the 1905 Edition of the Protocols".

So Lutostansky plagiarised Nilus (1905) or Butmi (1906) or the Banner (Znamia, 1903), and Bernstein cites that as part of his 'evidence' for the Protocols being a forgery!

There is no doubt that the Protocols writer(s) plagiarised Joly's Dialogues. There are also similarities with Goedsche's Biarritz. The Protocols' references to "agent [Léon] Bourgeois" and the Panama scandal, the story of the Protocols being stolen from the Mizraim Lodge in Paris, and the original copy reputedly being in French, suggest a French writer. And the writer did not need to speak German in order to plagiarise Biarritz. "In July, 1881, the story was published in the French paper Le Contemporain". The Jewish "conspiracy theory" "debunker" David Aaronovitch also mentions that the story about events at the Jewish cemetery in Prague was published as the "Rabbi's Speech" in 1881 in Le Contemporain - which is three years after Goedsche died.

A Jewish writer of the Protocols had much stronger motives for plagiarism, compared to an "anti-Semite". Plagiarism would enable the Jews to play the "plagiarism, therefore forgery" card in the event of discovery. Indeed, the ability to point to parallel passages from other works - "discovered" by some anonymous person - would be their only real defense, since they would inevitably lose the argument about how closely the Protocols corresponded with future events, Jewish behavior and Jewish attitudes. Moreover, if the Protocols writer had already published work under his real name, he would be concerned that some idiosyncrasy of writing might link him to the Protocols. The more material that could be plagiarised, the better he would be shielded. The "sloppier" the paraphrasing, the less delay before the plagiarism's discovery - or the sooner some mysterious "Mr. X" could be announced as the "discoverer".

Apart from trying to smear Nilus with unjustified attacks on his character - it wasn't Nilus who forged checks and then tried to frame an innocent woman, and ran up bills with no intention of paying them, etc. - and trying to smear Sukhotin with an unsubstantiated allegation that he had peasants arrested for refusing to cart manure from infected animals, Bernstein also complains that Nilus kept changing his story of how he got the Protocols. The fact is that Nilus had promised to protect his sources, so until her death, Nilus had to refer to Glinka as an unnamed woman or a woman whose name he'd forgotten. Stepanov was clearly still alive as of April 17, 1921, whereas Sukhotin died in 1903 (according to information within a Russian article by Prof. Yuri Begunov). Jews often find it strange when Gentiles keep their promises and exhibit a belief in virtues such as loyalty. (Bernstein's source for his attack on Sukhotin is Fyodor Ismailovich Rodichev [1854-1933], who wrote about Jewish communists, anti-Semitism, Bolshevism, fled Russia for Finland, and then fled Finland for Switzerland. Rodichev was an outspoken wealthy "liberal" who was always having to apologize, such as when he referred to his political opponents as the "heirs of the Tatar horde", or when he referred to the hangman's ropes of Stolypin's field courts as "Stolypin neckties", and Stolypin, whose marksmanship was "common knowledge", challenged him to a duel. Rodichev even had a motive for assassinating Stolypin!)

The "British" Jew Norman Cohn was a self-styled "historian" who never studied history as a student, but clearly was quick to learn what sort of "historian" one had to be in order to enjoy a great career, not to mention a glowing entry in Who's Who in World Jewry. (He was born to a Jewish father and a Catholic mother, but Cohn's actions show that he took after his father rather than his mother Daisy.) Cohn's approach was to trawl through the data until he could find some way of concocting a politically correct hypothesis by cherry-picking a few irrelevant facts and then studiously avoiding the wealth of evidence that contradicted his hypothesis, such as the fact that a copy of the Protocols was found in the murdered Tsarina's room, and Tsar Nicholas also had a copy of the Protocols in his private library. (See this page of Peter Myers, which has excerpts from Cohn's Warrant For Genocide.)

Cohn proposed: "All in all, the most likely hypothesis is that Joly's satire on Napoleon III was transformed by de Cyon into a satire on Witte which was then transformed under Rachkovsky's guidance into the Protocols of the Elders of Zion." However, Cohn is honest enough to admit that: "The Okhrana archives at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, reveal nothing; and Rachkovsky's private archives in Paris (now lost) also revealed nothing when Boris Nicolaevsky inspected them in the 1930s. De Cyon's papers, which were kept by his widow in Paris until the Second World War, have disappeared." Cohn has also ignored how the fact that the six pre-revolution Russian printings of the Protocols were circulated only through obscure "right-wing" outlets with zero or negligible government association, together with the documented 1905 censorship decision on the Nilus edition, provides, as Ruud says, "convincing evidence of non-involvement by the Okhranka or any other government agency". And Cohn ignored Rachkovsky's failure to exhibit any "anti-Semitic" tendencies, his employing of Jews, the fact that tsarist government policy was to curb, not promote, anti-Semitic violence in Russia, etc.

Cohn attempted to rationalise his unnecessarily complex two-step "forgery" hypothesis: "Rachkovsky's political master and patron was Sergey Witte, the all-powerful Minister of Finance, and Witte's enemies were also Rachkovsky's enemies. And there is no doubt that Witte's enemies had a hand in the Protocols." (Ruud, in Fontanka 16, confirms that Witte thought very highly of Rachkovsky; Witte described him as a "remarkably intelligent man, in fact the most gifted and intelligent police official I have ever met.") Cohn describes how Witte's policies, from when he took office in 1892, were about modernising Russia. Coal, iron and steel production was more than doubled, and Russia's rate of railway construction was second only to the US. But Witte's modernisation program resulted in losses for those who were invested in the old agricultural order, and then there was in slump in 1898 which hit everyone. Witte was under pressure to resort to inflation, but resisted, making him even more unpopular. And the Protocols argue that slumps are used as a way of stirring up unrest in the proletariat and getting hold of the gold. Cohn says, "The Protocols have all the appearance of a weapon for use in the campaign against Witte [...] The intention seems obvious enough: it is to present Witte as a tool in the hands of the Elders of Zion." But Cohn has to admit: "It is inconceivable that a person of such seriousness and intellectual calibre as de Cyon should have sunk to writing a crude antisemitic fabrication", and "It remains rather puzzling that Witte's devoted servant Rachkovsky should have propagated a document which, even when transformed, is still largely directed against his master's policies". Cohn resorts to the improbable suggestion: "Perhaps his intention was that the book should be generally ascribed to de Cyon?"

Ruud, Fontanka 16 p. 109, tells of "anti-semitic bullies", of which one group, the Odessa White Guard, was led by Count A.I. Konovnytsin. In August 1906 there was an intelligence report of another such group of "anti-Semites" who were "attacking Jews with whips on the streets and even in their meeting places and pubs." That's clearly unacceptable behavior, and cannot be condoned. (And even if some act or custom was acceptable more than 100 years ago, that doesn't mean it should be acceptable today, since society's ethics should be getting better, not worse.) Of more interest regarding the claims of Rachkovsky forging the Protocols is that two months later there was a report of extremists who had vowed to kill Count Witte, "on the grounds that he had made disastrous concessions to leftist forces dominated by Jews." So, Rachkovsky's "political master and patron", Sergey Witte, certainly wasn't some sort of "anti-semitic bully" who would have wanted his underlings to forge a document that was designed to stir up hatred against Jews. Politically, Witte was so far apart from these "anti-semitic bullies" that they threatened to kill him. And since "Witte's enemies were also Rachkovsky's enemies", Rachkovsky was no friend of the "anti-semitic bullies". It doesn't exactly help the credibility of the idea of Rachkovsky having a hand in crafting an "anti-semitic" tract designed to foment hatred against Jews.

Despite clutching at straws in an attempt at justifying his politically motivated suggestion of a satire being turned into another satire and then being transformed into a forgery, Cohn was smart enough to know that whilst the chronologically and logically inconsistent balderdash spouted from Radziwill and her ilk might have fooled tinfoil-wearing crackpots, gullible Gentiles and members of the Gentile-hating cult in the first half of the century, something a little more sophisticated was called for in the late 20th century. Cohn conducted a more detailed analysis of the timing of events referred to in the Protocols, and attempted to refute his co-religionist Herman Bernstein and the Stepanov deposition. In order to arrive at his hypothesis of de Cyon rewriting Joly after the 1898 slump, followed by Rachkovsky forging the Protocols around 1902 out of de Cyon's work, Cohn has to ignore the Stepanov deposition that stated 1895, along with corroborating testimony from Madame Antonia Porphyrjewna Manjkowsky née Suchoton, and the fact that the Protocols has absolutely no mention of the Dreyfus Affair. The latter was widely reported by December 1894 and January 1895, and was the sort of event that would have been seized upon by "anti-Semites" eagerly attempting to discredit the Jews by compiling a forgery.

Cohn cites the end of Protocol No. 16, which states: "In France, one of our best agents, Bourgeois, has already made public a new program of teaching by object lessons". Cohn admits that Léon Bourgeois "frequently spoke in favour of a system of teaching by object lessons" from "1890-1896". In any case, if Bourgeois was their "agent", the Protocols author(s) would have had access to his future plans. And in Victorian England, the school curriculum included "object lessons" as early as 1873. Cohn mentions the threat in the Protocols to blow up capital cities from the underground railways, saying that plans for the Paris Metro were announced in 1894, the concession was granted in 1897, and the first line opened in 1900. However, the journey of the first Tube train on the London Underground was in 1863. By 1884, there were "over 800 trains running around all or part of the Inner Circle every day". Cohn cites Protocol No. 19's - actually No. 20's - observation that "the gold standard has been the ruin of the States which adopted it". Gold was used as money thousands of years ago in Asia Minor. By the 1870s, a gold standard was used by many countries including the United States and Germany. However, whilst Russia's finance minister Sergei Witte was a supporter of the gold standard, Alphonse de Rothschild and his schoolmate (and puppet) Léon Say, France's finance minister, supported the silver standard.

In Protocol No. 10, the Elders recommend fixing elections so that the 'winners' have some "Panama" in their past. Protocol No. 10 says:

In order that our scheme may produce this result we shall arrange elections in favor of such presidents as have in their past some dark, undiscovered stain, some "Panama" or other - then they will be trustworthy agents for the accomplishment of our plans out of fear of revelations and from the natural desire of everyone who has attained power, namely, the retention of the privileges, advantages and honor connected with the office of president.

It was November 1892 when the Panama Canal Scandal erupted in the French press. However, construction of the canal began in 1881, and by 1887 the project was in serious trouble from mounting financial, mortality and engineering problems. Jewish speculators were involved in the scheme from the start. Hundreds of French politicians were accused of taking bribes from the Panama Canal Company to conceal its true financial status from the public, and many French Senators and Deputies were accused of taking bribes from Ferdinand de Lesseps relating to the stock issue. The Jewish banker Baron Jacques de Reinach did most of the bribing; he worked "on the right wing of the bourgeois parties", whereas Cornelius Herz, also of German-Jewish origin, bribed the radicals. A third Jew, Léopold [Émile] Arton (or Aron or Aaron), was another of the "intermediaries" - aka bribe dispensers - between the company and the government. Arton helped Reinach to look after "those aspects of the financing of Panama that would look oddest on a balance sheet."

Howard M. Sachar, A History of the Jews in the Modern World, tells us that as early as 1879, "Ferdinand de Lesseps, builder of the Suez Canal, launched a comparable engineering venture for the Isthmus of Panama. Leaving the engineering details to his son, Charles, Lesseps concentrated on the business of raising share capital for his project. In that effort, he had recourse to a banker, Marcel Lévy-Crémieux, who formed an underwriting syndicate. Bribes were placed strategically to win press support (a common practice in France), and to secure political influence in the parliament. Ultimately, more than 60,000 Frenchmen purchased shares in the company. It was money down the drain. [...] Thousands of life savings were destroyed."

David McCullough, The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870-1914, states, "[Marc or Marcel] Lévy-Crémieux also sent his own man - an engineer - out to appraise the situation at Panama, and the man returned with the confidential report that the canal would never pay. Half a dozen companies would go down in ruin before any ship passed through Panama, the man insisted. But not a word of this was said publicly. [...] ...for the average person, the investor de Lesseps was banking on, it was very expensive stock: 500 francs was nearly a year's wages for about half the working population of France. The terms however, were tremendously appealing..."

Not surprisingly, in addition to Reinach, Herz and Arton (Aaron), the banker Lévy-Crémieux was Jewish. That's also confirmed at a French website that names Lévy-Crémieux along with Reinach and Herz as Jews: "les principaux corrupteurs étaient juifs : Lévy-Crémieux, Jacques de Reinach et Cornélius Herz". However, Lévy-Crémieux soon died, and Reinach took over as the enterprise's chief financial agent.

The "anti-Semite" Édouard Drumont did a great job of exposing the "Jewish menace" and the Panama Canal Scandal. Problems for the Jews and their corrupt lackeys came to a head when Reinach panicked and went to Drumont, promising to tell all regarding the influence peddling, provided his own name was kept out of it. Drumont agreed, but Herz was leaking information in his turn, and Reinach still came under investigation. The night after a warrant was issued for his arrest he apparently committed suicide by swallowing poison, and was found dead in his bed the next day on November 20, 1892.

So, tens of thousands of Frenchmen lose nearly a year's wages, thousands lose their life savings, and Drumont exposes the culprits. Is he hailed as a hero? No, he's "the dean of late nineteenth-century French anti-Semitism" and earns a mention in a book about "hate". Or he "exploit[ed] the matter" because Jews were involved and he was an "anti-Semite". To a Jew, the only good Frenchman is one who meekly lets Jews rip him off, rolls over, and doesn't emit so much as a whimper. By ganging up together and crying "anti-Semite", rather than standing up for truth and justice, condemning Jewish criminals, and arguing that not all Jews are like that, the Jews themselves create the appearance that the problem lies with Jews, rather than with Jewish criminals.

In the 1880s, Jewish schemers would have been hoping that the corruption could remain concealed, and they could blame the failure on naïveté, ignorance, incompetence, bad luck and so on. Thus, they were already well aware that the Panama Canal venture was a scam that was doomed to failure, and dozens of French politicians had been bribed and thereby were already associated with "some dark, undiscovered stain, some 'Panama' or other". And in subsequent elections, the Jewish Elders would want to arrange the outcome in favor of these bribed individuals, who would then have "in their past" the "stain" of a Panama bribe.

Léon Bourgeois, one of the Elders' "best agents" according to Protocol No. 16, was one of those accused of involvement in the corruption. Thus, before the scandal of widespread bribery of French politicians became known to the general public in France, and whilst those in the know included the Jewish bribers and speculators, Bourgeois, had the "undiscovered stain" of Panama in his past. This is consistent with the period 1884 - 1890, and the Protocols was probably compiled within that period. As for how Bourgeois could have been recruited, he was a "long-standing member of the most influential of France's Freemason lodges, the Grand Orient."

As of January 4, 1893, Bourgeois, the Minister of Justice, was "seriously ill" as Deputies and an ex-Minister were "charged with having received money from the Panama Canal Company". By the middle of March, Bourgeois temporarily resigned from his position in the French Cabinet so he could fight the charges. In 1905 he was Prime Minister of France. In 1920 he was President of the Council of the League of Nations. In 1923 he was replying to critics of the League, declaring it was "materially impossible" for it to be or become a "Super-State". This is clearly consistent with Bourgeois being one of the Jews' "best agents". The better the agent served the interests of Jewry, the better his career would be. They probably had something on him that remained unexposed. Had Bourgeois failed to do their bidding or even opposed them, you can be sure that he'd have been taken down by the Panama scandal, or any other way that they could get at him.

If an "anti-Semite" was forging the Protocols in the 1880s or 1890s and thought it would not only be a good idea to have the "Elders" claim Bourgeois was a Jewish "agent", but have them claim him as one of their "best agents", and also thought it would be a good idea to have the "Elders" propose a "Super-Government", he could not have guessed how accurate his predictions would turn out. Bourgeois's glittering political career spanned five decades, as he went on to champion the 'benefits' of supranational government organizations and ended up as the first President of the Assembly of one of them - years after he'd been Prime Minister of France. That's before we count the "anti-Semite's" understanding of Talmudists' contempt for the goyim and their hatred of other religions, the "anti-Semite's" prediction of how Jews would dominate the press, of how Jews would stage a revolution in Russia, and so on.

When the investigation began against Cornelius Herz, he absconded to Italy, then Germany, and then on to England. David McCullough's The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870-1914 tells of an interview that Herz gave while staying in a seaside hotel at Bournemouth. In fact, for reasons of privacy, he was renting the entire hotel. He refused to return to Paris to answer the charges on grounds that he was too ill - and that was confirmed by men from Scotland Yard, and physicians from both London and France. The latter reported that he was in a ghastly state - physically and mentally. But there was a woman who persuaded Herz to grant an interview - Emily Crawford, the Paris correspondent for the London Daily News. "He told her that de Reinach had been involved in a vast European intrigue, the object of which was a 'readjustment' of the alliances that then bound the central powers and to 'fill the pockets' of a syndicate of politicians who were working under the direction of de Reinach." According to Herz, the incriminating documents were in a safe place in London. But those documents were never found, and Herz died in 1898 without giving any further interviews or divulging any more information. McCullough comments, "How much or how little truth there was to the things he told Emily Crawford cannot be determined."

HerzCrawfordInterview photo HerzCrawfordInterview_zps93fe90d4.png

Source: The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal, 1870-1914, David McCullough

Between them, Herz, de Reinach and Arton had early knowledge of the Panama scandal, and knowledge that Bourgeois was an agent for the Jews. And one or more of them was based in Paris around the most likely time the Protocols was written - the late 1880s. Herz was in Paris from 1877 (although he would go to England for the winter), and founded societies for electric lighting and telephony in many European countries with the most important banks of Paris, including the Rothschilds banking house. Haaretz describes Herz as a "Jewish French crook" who "inspired the Hebrew word for 'interesting'." The Engineer says he did not love science for its own sake, but merely "as a means of making money", and he got rich after "getting the powerful aid of the Rothschilds". Herz and Baron Alphonse James de Rothschild (1827-1905) co-founded "the American Syndicate of Electricity, which afterwards amalgamated with the Westinghouse Syndicate". Rothschild is confirmed as a Talmudist; he broke his wineglass at the conclusion of his marriage ceremony in accordance with Talmud Berakhot (31a). Thus, with Alphonse de Rothschild, Cornelius Herz, Jacques de Reinach and Léopold Arton, we are getting close to the actual writer(s) of the Protocols. If it wasn't one of the four, the writer was receiving information from them or their close associates.

HerzObituaryTheEngineer photo HerzObituaryTheEngineer_zps07610ff5.png

Source: The Engineer

Naturally, Wikipedia has a glowing entry for Herz; he was "exonerated completely" of charges relating to the Panama Scandal, his "whole life up to 1892 was devoted to work, to great enterprises, and to science", etc. Whereas Haaretz says he was a "crook", and The Engineer says his interest in science was merely "as a means of making money". It is widely reported that he blackmailed Reinach.

Panama photo Panama_zps4178a2e8.png


Alphonse de Rothschild's daughter Béatrice "married the Russian-born banker Maurice Ephrussi (1849–1916) [...] who had been involved in with Rothschild families' oil business in the Baku area of present-day Azerbaijan." Jews already have a strong link to the north and east of the Caspian Sea. The territory of ancient Khazaria is generally regarded as a little north of Baku, but around 730 CE the Khazars held territory well to the south. They swept past Baku, and got to Mosul before being beaten back by the Arabs (see this map and this page: "Rise of Khazaria", "Arab-Khazar wars"), and Eran Elhaik's research showed that "almost all Eastern European Jews cluster with Georgian, Armenian, and Azerbaijani Jews within the Caucasus rim". Ashkenazi Jews such as Alphonse de Rothschild would have considered Baku oil to be "their" oil.

The first Baku oil boom was in the early 1870s, which attracted "a significant number of European Jews". In 1883, Alphonse de Rothschild founded the Caspian-Black Sea Oil Industry and Trade Society, and placed Jews in prominent positions, such as the engineer George Aron. The company was to become the leading member of the cartel - the "Baku Oil Council". After mergers and takeovers, by 1888 the Rothschild firm supplied 64 million gallons of kerosene, which was 58.6% of exports of the Russian empire. By 1901, Baku oil production was 11 million tonnes, more than half of the world's oil, and 95% of all Russian oil. After the death of Alphonse in 1905, ownership of his oil company passed to his younger brother Edmond James de Rothschild, the youngest child of James Mayer de Rothschild, who was the founder of the French branch of the Family and the youngest son of Mayer Amschel Rothschild. Edmond was a "strong supporter of Zionism", and his donations to the movement helped to form the rogue, apartheid state of Israel.

King Louis Philippe of France awarded James de Rothschild the Legion d'honneur, for services to the government. There were a number of loans in France issued by the king's government through Rothschild. One of these financed the construction of the Transcaucasia railway, connecting Baku and Batumi, which was finished in 1883. Rothschild's initial capital in 1883 was 1.5 million roubles; it exceeded 10 million roubles by 1912/1913. The Rothschilds sold their Azerbaijani oil interests to Shell in 1912, in advance of WWI and the Bolshevik Revolution. In 1912, a rouble was worth about half as much as a US dollar - Sergei Witte had put Russia on the gold standard, so the Rothschilds cleared their profit of around $5 million before the ensuing geopolitical events that, as "innocent" Jews, they were not supposed to be aware of.

After the Russian Empire collapsed in 1917, Azerbaijan was briefly an independent republic. The period included a British-controlled government, which only lasted a couple of months, but the situation was quite stable in 1919. Then the Red Army invaded in April 1920. The Azeris didn't give in without a fight, but 20,000 were killed, the country fell to the Soviets, the Azerbaijani oil industry was nationalized and all production went to Russia. The Rothschilds' main rival Nobel Brothers (Branobel) were really quite lucky. They escaped safely to Sweden, and negotiations to sell half of their oil interests to Standard Oil began before nationalization in April 1920, but weren't concluded until afterwards on July 30, 1920. The agreed price, US$11.5 million, to be paid over two years, was higher than might be expected, because at the time, it was believed that the communist regime would fall after a relatively short time - not last for another 71 years. And then, in 1921, Lenin's "New Economic Policy" (NEP) attracted foreign companies with oil concessions; the Soviets needed to import modern equipment from the West.

So, at the time that the Protocols was written in the 1880s or 1890s, Alphonse de Rothschild had a powerful motive to stage a revolution in Russia. As foretold in the Protocols, Jewish bankers would have Jews "appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from [the] oppression [of the] merciless money-grinding scoundrels who have laid a pitiless and cruel yoke upon the necks of the workers." The eventual $26 million cost of staging the revolution (money given to Trotsky and Lenin via Jewish bankers Jacob Schiff and Max Warburg, respectively,) was small compared to the likely profit from looting the country. WWI brought about conditions conducive to staging the Russian revolution, and was also part of Jewry's plans for grabbing Palestine. They got themselves the Balfour Declaration thanks to WWI, but it would take another world war, followed by Jewish terrorist atrocities such as the bombing of the King David Hotel, before World Jewry grabbed their Zionist State of Israel. (Now, even in 2015, it's a racist, terrorist, apartheid State in which children of the 'wrong' religion, playing football on a Gaza beach, are shelled and blown to pieces - what did the cowardly Jews think - that the football was being used "to store weapons"?) So although the Rothschilds had oil interests south of Russia, they were not going to call off their world war and their Bolshevik Revolution just for the possibility of getting another $5 million or $15 million from Azerbaijani oil. The program for political power and world conquest got priority. Moreover, by 1912 when Jewry were planning their world war and revolution, Edmond de Rothschild had taken over the oil business. He had other priorities - Zionism, scientific research, drawings and engravings, and he wasn't greatly interested in banking. And so he sold the oil interests to Shell, who didn't have inside information on when there was to be a world war or a communist revolution.

Asher Ginsberg aka Ahad Ha'am (1856–1927) has been suggested as a possible author of the Protocols. Ginsberg's "spiritual Zionism" stands in stark contrast to Herzl's political Zionism. And there is another dichotomy - between Herzl's overt (political) Zionism and the covert Zionist internationalist program that is set out in the Protocols and corresponds with world events, such as Jews gaining such political power that they can have their puppet presidents and poodle prime ministers take their countries into war on a false prospectus to replace regimes that refuse to submit to the dictates of the Jewish bankers. Ginsberg was based in Odessa from June 1886, which is within a few years of the time the Protocols was written. Alphonse de Rothschild's banker son-in-law Maurice Ephrussi, a Jew, was born in Odessa, where his father founded the Ephrussi bank. Maurice married Béatrice de Rothschild in Paris on June 5, 1883. Thus, Alphonse de Rothschild, leader of the House of Rothschild's French branch at the time the Protocols was written, was linked to Odessa by way of the Ephrussi bank which dealt with his Baku oil business.

However, when there are two dichotomies - between A and B, and A and C, that does not mean that B equals C. It has been asserted that in 1889 Ginsberg read out the Protocols to his group the Sons of Moses at his home in Odessa, which if true, would mean that the case for the Protocols being authentic could be concluded in a single sentence. The truth seeker will want to look at what Ginsberg is known to have written, and compare it against the Protocols. For example, see Ahad Ha'am's 1897 essay Jewish State and Jewish Problem. Ha'am / Ginsberg says:

"The 'secret of our people's persistence' is -- as I have tried to show elsewhere [3]--that at a very early period the Prophets taught it to respect only spiritual power, and not to worship material power. For this reason the clash with enemies stronger than itself never brought the Jewish nation, as it did the other nations of antiquity, to the point of self-effacement. So long as we are faithful to this principle, our existence has a secure basis: for in spiritual power we are not inferior to other nations, and we have no reason to efface ourselves. But a political ideal which does not rest on the national culture is apt to seduce us from our loyalty to spiritual greatness, and to beget in us a tendency to find the path of glory in the attainment of material power and political dominion, thus breaking the thread that unites us with the past, and undermining our historical basis. Needless to say, if the political ideal is not attained, it will have disastrous consequences, because we shall have lost the old basis without finding a new one."

To the Protocols writer, the key to establishing the Jewish despotism can be summarized as what Ginsberg describes as "the attainment of material power and political dominion". But this is the very thing that Ginsberg warns against, and values less than "spiritual power"! Ginsberg sees Judaism's strength as deriving from its spiritual or moral qualities.

When a group's spiritual or moral qualities lead it to perceive others as equivalent to "cattle", and to believe it's okay to promise a UN observer post would be spared fire and then fire upon it killing four UN observers, or to warn civilians to evacuate their homes in southern Lebanon, then bomb bridges so that they're trapped like sitting ducks and then to attack them, or to fire at the very center of the red cross on Red Cross ambulances, or to employ white phosphorus and cluster bombs against civilians, or to carry out a "sustained attack to disable and sink" a US ship in international waters - even shooting at survivors in the life rafts in an attempt to ensure no one is left to talk, and claim it was all an "accident", or to demolish three skyscrapers trapping thousands in two of them and causing others to die or suffer ill-health in years to come from airborne pollutants, then of course those who act as international pariahs will enjoy an advantage over those who believe that the murder and assault of innocent bystanders is wrong. The advantage, even if it lasted for millennia, could never be more than temporary, since eventually the majority would go on to exterminate the pariahs if they failed to change their ways. In the meantime, the Israelis should be disarmed, so that they are on a fair footing with the Arabs (prior to Israel's removal from the political map). If they want to fight, let them fight hand-to-hand. And they should never receive so much as another cent in "aid"!

In case anyone is thinking that deliberate targeting of children, UN officials, ambulances ferrying the wounded and so on is the sort of thing that these savages do only occasionally, e.g., in 2006, all you need is to wait for another Israeli offensive - such as Gaza, July 2014, and watch them. For example, the Israelis bombed a school that was designated as a shelter for refugees by the UN, killing children as they slept. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) Commissioner-General Pierre Krähenbühl said:

"This is an affront to all of us, a source of universal shame. Today, the world stands disgraced. We know that there were multiple civilian deaths and injuries including of women and children and the UNRWA guard who was trying to protect the site. These are people who were instructed to leave their homes by the Israeli army. The precise location of the Jabalia Elementary Girls School and the fact that it was housing thousands of internally displaced people was communicated to the Israeli army seventeen times to ensure its protection - the last being at 8.50pm last night, just hours before the fatal shelling."

The Israeli barbarians get all the "foreign aid" and ammunition they desire, and the only thing stopping them from killing even more Arabs is a cold, calculated weighing up of the 'benefits' of killing their foes against the political cost to Israel of doing so. They'll always try to cause as much harm as possible to the Palestinians for the lowest political cost, so they'll invariably hit a power station, restricting the supply of pumped water as well as electricity. They hit Gaza's only power plant in 2014, just like they did in 2006 and 2009, and the Lebanese power station in 2006. The Israelis reckon that they can only be blamed once, and hope that the worsening sanitation, with raw sewage spilling onto the streets as they target the civilian infrastructure, will continue to execute their ethnic cleansing program after the latest war has finished. It's no use hoping that the Israelis will show compassion, because it's not a part of their vocabulary. The Israeli military are a dead ringer for the Daleks of Dr. Who.

Ginsberg says, "We should never achieve sufficient political power to deserve respect". Firstly, Ginsberg vastly underestimates the political power that Zionism would achieve over the next century. It's understandable that most people at the end of the 19th century would underestimate that. However, those who knew of the Rothschild dynasty's "secret Zionism" and its plan for world conquest would be much more bullish. Protocol No. 3 says: "Today I may tell you that our goal is now only a few steps off." And Protocol No. 22: "...rushing into the flood of the great events coming already in the near future...". To the Protocols writer, the eventual success of the program is not in doubt; it's simply a matter of how long it will take until the Jewish "Utopia" is achieved. Secondly, political power engenders fear, not respect. People don't respect Zionist Jews; they fear their power. Respect must be earned, not by installing puppet presidents, bribing and blackmailing politicians, and setting up dozens of Jewish supremacist pressure groups, but by respecting others and acting like decent, honest human beings. And if a Palestinian is staring down the barrel of a gun held by a Jew, the Palestinian respects the gun, not the Jew, whom he will regard with contempt and perceive as a cowardly, paranoid, parasitical scumbag as a result of the interaction, which is a consequence of Zionism.

Ginsberg says that "Hibbath Tsiyon" ("love of Zion"), the pre- or proto-Zionist movement, knows that a Jewish State will not "provide a remedy for poverty, complete tranquility and national glory" until "universal Righteousness is enthroned and holds sway over nations and States". Now that is consistent with Ginsberg writing the Protocols. When Jews "come into [their] kingdom", the nation-state is replaced by the Jewish despotism as the heirs of King David take up the reins of rule. The appalling prospect of Jews establishing a Jewish "Utopia" would have these misfits impose their perverted 'morality' upon everyone else, so that cold-blooded murder of those who were branded as "wicked" rather than "righteous" (simply for not subscribing to Judaism's sick fantasies) would become the norm, along with universal genital mutilation. As Michael Higger chillingly observes in The Jewish Utopia (see above), Jews would then be "on the right road toward solving the major problems" and bringing about "the rabbinic conception of an ideal world".

Ginsberg's earlier work This is not the Way (1889) is not particularly coherent, but he is more interested in the spiritual rather than the political world. Judging from that work, he is not the sort of writer you would ask to document a political plan for world conquest. And This is not the Way is quite different to the Protocols, which was being written about the same time. However, Ginsberg was right and Herzl was wrong. Ginsberg rightly believed that a gradual bringing of Jews to Palestine would have worked out much better than the sudden declaration of a Jewish state, which anyone should be able to see has been an unmitigated catastrophe.

Some of Ginsberg's writing could be interpreted as consistent with the Protocols, but much of it is quite inconsistent with the Protocols. If Ginsberg had been persuaded to deliver a series of lectures at fringe meetings at the First Zionist Congress, it seems hardly likely that he would condone a scheme for getting "the gold in our hands" and then months later warn about the "worship [of] material power", or he would boast about setting up puppet politicians who would act as monkeys dancing to the tune of the Jewish organ grinder and then warn that "the attainment of [...] political dominion" was not the be-all and end-all, or he would advocate working for a "chronic shortness of food and physical weakness of the worker" so that "he is made the slave of our will", and then shortly afterwards bewail the existence of "natural laws which fetter man's freedom of action much more than artificial laws".

If the Protocols was written in the mid to late 1880s, and the Elders were using their inside knowledge about the Panama Canal bribes and the plans to have agent Bourgeois teach by object lessons, they would have been transposing from the future to the past tense with their prediction "Bourgeois, has already made public a new program of teaching by object lessons". The change in tense would be designed to make it consistent with the time of the first Zionist Congress in 1897, when the plan was to present the Protocols (probably delivered in Hebrew, at a fringe meeting at which the goyim would be personae non gratae, in the same way that such esoteric Hebrew-speaking meetings took place at the Israeli "moving company" Urban Moving Systems in advance of the 9/11 terror attacks).

However, what about "think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism" in Protocol No. 2? Note how the previous paragraph includes: "It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories." And a couple of paragraphs later the Protocols author is boasting: "Through the Press we have gained the power to influence whilst remaining ourselves in the shade; thanks to the Press we have got the gold in our hands...".

The New York Times says, "In 1889, when Friedrich Nietzsche suffered the mental collapse that ended his career, he was virtually unknown. Yet by the time of his death in 1900 at the age of 55, he had become the philosophical celebrity of his age." At first, it might seem to suggest the Protocols was written in the 1890s. But in 1885 (or 1886 when Nietzsche decided to have his future works published at his own expense by the firm C.G. Naumann), Nietzsche broke with his long-time editor and publisher since July 1874 (who published Zarathustra in 1883), the "anti-Semite" Ernst Schmeitzner. Were the Elders already aware in the mid-1880s that Nietzsche's popularity would increase with a change of publisher? More likely, his lack of popularity up until that time had been due to a combination of having had an "anti-Semitic" publisher, and a campaign by Jews to suppress works that were circulated through publishers of whom they disapproved.

In 1887 and 1888 Nietzsche corresponded with Georg Brandes (1842–1927), a "Danish" Jew whose real name was Kohn. "The series of lectures that [Brandes] gave on Nietzsche's thought [in early 1888], in which he described Friedrich Nietzsche's thought as 'aristocratic radicalism', were the first to present him as a world cultural figure in need of full intellectual notice." Encyclopaedia Judaica, Second Edition, Volume 4 says, "In the 1880s Brandes read the still unknown Friedrich Nietzsche and found a message for himself. His Danish article on the German philosopher (1888) was published in Germany (Aristokratischer Idealismus, 1890) and marked the starting point of Nietzsche's world fame."

Thus, the Jews were indeed behind Nietzsche's success. But if the Protocols was written after Brandes began promoting Nietzsche in early 1888, that avoids the need for postulating the existence of a plot to promote Nietzsche in the mid-1880s, as soon as he broke with the "anti-Semitic" publisher. However, the change in publisher was probably a factor that prevented Brandes from rejecting Nietzsche out of hand.

Bizarrely, Jewry's hypothetical "anti-Semite" who is supposedly "forging" the Protocols has not only taken the trouble to obtain a French - or Russian - translation of the Talmud, and to spend ages poring through it to get an understanding of the mindset of the Gentile-hating Jewish supremacist, and to come up with the best program for world conquest to date; he is also sufficiently well informed to note Nietzsche's gradual rise in popularity in the 1890s, to be aware of Georg Brandes' promotion of Nietzsche, to know that Brandes was Jewish, to connect the dots, and to incorporate it into his "forgery" along with mentions of Marx and Darwin. And all of this is supposedly for a "forgery" that is merely supposed to foment hatred of the Jews, in a target group who are none-too-bright and have probably never even heard of Nietzsche at that time!

(Was it in the 1880s, perhaps, when World Jewry came up with the idea of having a mighty battle - a world war - between Jewish supremacism and conservative forces who would defend against it? The Jewish fanatics would be presented as perfectly normal, albeit a "persecuted" minority. In an inversion of accusations, the conservatives would be presented as fanatical supremacists bent on conquering the world and establishing a "master race". And Nietzsche's Übermensch would be touted as the "philosophical foundation" of those "fanatical" conservatives, when in reality, it was the Jewish supremacists who had taken a liking to it, and whose plan was the establishment of a Jewish "Utopia" through world conquest.)

In 1870, one of Georg Brandes' published volumes was The French Aesthetics of the Present Day, dealing chiefly with Hippolyte Taine (1828–1893), a "French critic and historian", described as "the chief theoretical influence of French naturalism". Taine was another of Nietzsche's correspondents in 1887, and according to Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil, Taine was "the greatest living historian". Taine greatly influenced Émile Zola, a French writer said to be "the most well-known practitioner of the literary school of naturalism". Zola turned out to be a "Shabbos goy"; he was convicted of criminal libel in 1898 and fled to England, after publishing claims that were concocted to advertise the existence of new 'evidence' that was supposed to 'prove' that the Jew Alfred Dreyfus wasn't really a traitor who'd given away military secrets to the Germans. The idea that Dreyfus was actually innocent is blown apart by two words: "Jonathan" and "Pollard". Or we could add Larry Franklin. Or Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Or Ethel's brother David Greenglass. Or Morton Sobell. Or Robert Soblen. Or Morris Cohen. Or Harry Gold.

Not surprisingly, Zola was hailed as a great example of the "intellectual class". In other words, Zola was one of the brainwashed bleeding heart liberals, who shaped public opinion by selling the idea that the Jews were the best thing since the steam locomotive, whilst paving the way for two world wars, revolution and carnage in Russia, a slow but extended genocide of the Palestinians over many decades, economic crises and massive government debt and deficits, thousands killed in terror attacks in Manhattan and at the Pentagon, the destabilising of Iraq whilst turning much of it into a toxic or radioactive wasteland where babies would have genetic defects due to lead, mercury, depleted uranium and so on. And, thanks to this "intellectual class", a group of psychopaths - who should have been in straitjackets and padded cells - would obtain their own sovereign state as a springboard to world conquest, complete with a nuclear capability, including diesel-powered subs that could fire nuclear-tipped missiles with a 900-mile range.

Nietzsche, Taine and Zola were "goy" characters that Jewry was closely observing, to see if they could be exploited for turning public opinion in favor of the Jews and against those who would expose their crimes and oppose their political machinations. And the evidence points to Brandes being one of the observers and opinion shapers, who would interact with a potentially valuable "goy". But as mentioned above, the secret Zionism of the Protocols was a complete contrast to Herzl's overt political Zionism. Herzl approached Brandes, attempting to win support for his project, but Brandes said his interests were universal and Jewish matters were merely parochial. Herzl had better luck with Max Nordau.

As Peter Myers noted, the Protocols writer uses plenty of sophisticated words such as "cassate", "perquisitions", "interpellation", "inexpugnable", etc., which is hardly appropriate for an "anti-Semitic" "forgery". The evidence clearly places the Protocols writer as one of the Jewish "intellectual class", with an interest in philosophers generally, and in Jewish writers specifically. Thus, the Protocols writer was aware of Nietzsche's rising popularity, knew that it was a result of Georg Brandes' January 1888 promotion of Nietzsche, and knew that Brandes was a Jew. And given the Protocols writer's following of the Talmud and unshakeable belief in Jewish superiority, he couldn't resist boasting of how Jews had "arranged" Nietzsche's success.

The Literary and Cultural Reception of Charles Darwin in Europe, Thomas F. Glick and Elinor S. Shaffer, states: "What is remarkable about the Danish case is the fact that members of elite literary circles, not the scientific community, were leading the way in communicating evolutionary thinking to a wider audience through introductions to and translations of Darwin's main theoretical works, the Origin of Species, and Descent of Man. [...] The key to understanding the relationship between Darwin and Danish literature is what happened in the 1870s. This period is known in Danish literary history by the standard phrase 'The Modern Breakthrough'. It refers to a movement spearheaded by the literary critic Georg Brandes (1842-1927) advocating naturalism in literature. A number of young writers formed part of that movement and produced some of the most famous works in nineteenth-century Danish literature. With an outspoken self-confidence they declared to mark a clear break with tradition and embraced Darwin as providing the chief ideological material for their literary revolution."

So Georg Brandes, the Danish Jew, crops up again as playing a part in the ascent of Darwin. And it turns out that a second Jew, Brandes' brother Edvard, a journalist, is also involved.

In Man, Meaning, and Mystery: 100 Years of History of Religions in Norway, Sigurd Hjelde says, "The influence of Georg Brandes was profound in Denmark during the latter part of the 19th century. His lectures in 1871 became the breakthrough of modernism and among those greatly influenced were Jens Peter Jacobsen and Vodskov, with Vodskov the more critical. [...] Brandes hated Christianity and was a militant atheist." Jacobsen was not Jewish, but was "greatly influenced" by Brandes, and "was the most important populariser of Darwinism in Denmark in the nineteenth century. He translated the Origin of Species and Descent of Man and wrote several articles on Darwinism in the first half of the 1870s. [...] From 1872 Jacobsen had been on friendly terms with the young journalist and freethinker Edvard Brandes [Georg's brother], who was overwhelmed by what he regarded as Jacobsen's exceptional poetical talent. The influential Edvard Brandes made sure that Jacobsen's literary works were well received in the press...".

When the Protocols writer boasts of Jews arranging the success of the works of Darwin, Marx and Nietzsche, Georg Brandes would have been one of those Jewish "arrangers" that he had in mind. And when, a couple of paragraphs later, he brags: "Through the Press we have gained the power to influence whilst remaining ourselves in the shade", he may have been thinking of the "influential" journalist Edvard Brandes, who could ensure that works were "well received in the press", whenever it suited the plans of World Jewry.

Edvard Brandes' second wife, whom he married in Copenhagen on August 20, 1887, was Ingeborg Gad. Paul Gauguin, the French Post-Impressionist artist who was a stockbroker in his earlier career, had married Ingeborg's sister Mette Gad, but that marriage ended in 1884 after eleven years. Gauguin visited Panama in 1887, where he worked as "forced labor" on the early attempt to construct the Panama Canal. Thus, Edvard Brandes' wife's sister's former husband had first-hand knowledge of the situation regarding the Panama Canal construction in 1887, the year before the collapse of the Panama Canal Company. Of course, that doesn't mean Edvard received information from Gauguin. Jews were already involved with the Panama Canal scam. But the Protocols writer has mentioned Panama, how Jews arranged the success of Nietzscheism and Darwinism, and how they have "gained the power to influence" through control of the press, and the Brandes brothers can be linked to all four of those. So the link between the Brandes brothers and the Protocols writer may be much less than six degrees of separation.

A third brother, Ernst Brandes, an economist, writer and newspaper editor, killed himself by taking poison on August 6, 1892, after a conviction for "blasphemy". Apparently, the actual 'culprit' was Henrik Pontoppidan. It was the night of November 19/20, 1892, when Reinach killed himself by swallowing poison. So Ernst's suicide looks too early to suggest some link with the Panama Scandal. The two months' imprisonment had been commuted to a fine in December 1891, and the real 'culprit' had owned up to being the anonymous "Urbanus" writer, providing Ernst with evidence that his conviction was at least unfair, and perhaps even racially motivated. It seems that Ernst's despondency and suicide were because he inaccurately saw himself as a failure, overshadowed by his two famous brothers.

The Protocols writer's inclusion of "Darwinism", as one of the "theories" whose "successes" were "arranged" by the Elders, suggests that the scientific method - or even epistemology! - may not be his forte. That would be consistent with someone who gets much of their information from fanatical religious texts such as the Talmud. Was the Protocols writer a Creationist who believed Darwinism to be a false theory, which became popular not because it fits the facts, but with the support of the Jews? Or did he perceive the "goyim", with their "purely brute mind" that was "incapable of use for analysis and observation", as too stupid to recognize a true theory when they saw one, making it necessary for Jews to promote Darwinism?

The Protocols writer is not an idiot; his knowledge of political machinations rivals Machiavelli's, although much of that was taken from Joly. And he's adapted Joly, so that while Joly's Machiavelli says, "Death, expropriation, and torture should only play a minor role in the internal politics of modern states", the Elders favor the use of "punishment of an exemplary character", and are "obliged without hesitation to sacrifice individuals, who commit a breach of established order". He understands very well how Jews view the "goyim" with contempt, which is information that he didn't get from Joly. And he has enough understanding of economics to be aware that Marxism was only ever going to appeal to a tiny minority, and so Jewish revolutionaries, financed by Jewish bankers, would be needed to put it into practice. Marxism could never bring prosperity for the proletariat, but it could serve as a means of looting a nation for capitalists who wanted the State to help them grow rich off the backs of the workers. "Nietzscheism" might or might not have become popular, and it turns out that Jews were behind its success. But Darwinism didn't need selling; it became successful on its own merits. Nevertheless, Jews promoted it, because it was consistent with their agenda of destroying Christianity. Georg Brandes "hated Christianity and was a militant atheist".

If the predictions within the 1880s version of the Protocols had failed to bear fruit by the time of the first Zionist Congress, the Elders merely needed to make some simple revisions for when they came to deliver the lectures in Basle in 1897. They would revert to the future tense wherever necessary - or alternatively, edit out the failed predictions. In the early manuscripts that were sent to Russia, there were of course no such revisions. Were the Elders hoping in the 1880s that Marxism would have already enjoyed a major success by fomenting a Russian revolution and Jewish coup d'état by 1897, when in fact they had to wait until 1917, and the 1905 revolution was only successful in helping to pave the way for 1917? Or, they might have been expecting to have to wait for longer before political Zionism, the overt side of the coin, would be sufficiently popular for an international Zionist Congress, by which time, they believed a communist revolution would have already occurred. So, in 1897 they might have said, "think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism and Nietzscheism", omitting Marxism.

If only Nietzscheism were mentioned, that would weigh the evidence in favor of 1895 rather than the 1880s, since the Protocols writer is speaking of the success that has already been "arranged" for it. However, Marxism is included too, and Marxism hadn't delivered the Jewish coup d'état by 1895, the time that Stepanov received the Protocols from Sukhotin. So the writer has still chosen to switch to the past tense with his prediction, whether the time of writing was 1884, 1889  or 1895. As for Darwin, his theory of evolution was largely accepted by the 1870s, although there was resistance to some aspects such as natural selection until the 1930s or later.

Then there is Protocol No. 7, which says " what we shall represent as public opinion, secretly prompted by us through the means of that so-called "Great Power" - the Press, which, with a few exceptions that may be disregarded, is already entirely in our hands." The New York Times, which is hardly of so little importance that it can be "disregarded", was taken into Jewish ownership in 1896. So in this case, whether the Protocols writer is in 1884 or 1895, he has chosen to conjugate into the past tense as if the Times takeover were already fait accompli. So that's two examples of the Protocols writer projecting into the future, and strengthens the position that Glinka received the Protocols in the 1880s.

Cohn concludes "it is practically certain that the Protocols were fabricated some time between 1894 and 1899 and highly probable that it was in 1897 or 1898. The country was undoubtedly France, as is shown by the many references to French affairs". The evidence does indeed point to France as the origin of the Protocols, although Cohn's assertion that the Protocols were "fabricated" is of course unproven. His earliest date of 1894 fails to refute Stepanov's testifying to receiving the Protocols in 1895.

The Protocols Marsden translation doesn't explicitly state when the 2,500 francs payment was approved and the Jew Joseph Schorst took the French original of the Protocols from the Mizraim Lodge in Paris. The mention of 1884 most likely refers to the year that Justine / Yuliana Glinka was assigned as a Russian agent in Paris to gather political information. It's also the year of the Kattowitz Conference of Hibbat Zion societies, the 1880s precursor to Herzl's Zionism. As mentioned above, the reference to the success of Nietzscheism sets the earliest likely date for Glinka receiving the Protocols to 1888, soon after Brandes began promoting Nietzsche early that year. At a push, we could say 1885 or 1886, with the Jewish conspirators then aware of Nietzsche's change of publisher, but that's really too much of a stretch. Jewish speculators were involved with the Panama Canal project right from the start in 1881; by 1887 those involved would have been well aware of the mounting problems and the politicians who had been bribed. But 1888 or 1889 is even more reasonable, after the collapse of the Panama Canal Company. As mentioned, "object lessons" were part of the English school curriculum as early as 1873. Léon Bourgeois was prefect of police in November 1887, and under-secretary for home affairs in Charles Floquet's ministry of 1888. The late 1880s certainly fits the data much better than the mid 1880s.

And, as mentioned above, that would fit with Radziwill's books on Russian court life. One was published 1886: La Société de Saint-Pétersbourg: augmenté de lettres inédites - "Count Paul Vassili". Another was published 1890: La Sainté Russie; la cour, l'armée, le clerge, la bourgeoisie et le peuple - "Count Paul Vasili". It looks like the 1886 book was simply part of her regular, prolific creative output, and then the 1890 publication was the revenge action taken to try to discredit Glinka. Radziwill had already published several books with the title beginning "La Société de" prior to 1886, and wrote at least one more, so the 1886 book is part of that series, whereas the 1890 book stands out as a little different. An 1886 book as part of a campaign against Glinka, followed by another book, four years later, is not very credible. And the mention of Nietzscheism and Panama becomes just about possible in 1886, but that's quite a stretch. And it's really too early for agent Bourgeois.

[Radziwill's nom de plume "Vassili" was taken from her great-grandfather, Vassili Alexandrowitsch Pashkov (1759-1834). His daughter Елизавета Васильевна Дашкова (1809-1890) was Radziwill's grandmother, the mother of Анна Дмитриевна Ржевуская (1831-1858), Radziwill's Russian mother who died on April 4, 1858, only five days after giving birth to the future forger.]

So the best estimate for the date of the Protocols being taken by Schorst / Shapiro is about 1889, leaving time for Radziwill's revenge campaign of the 1890 book, to be blamed on Glinka. The Protocols could have been written a year or two earlier, and Jewish insiders would have had knowledge of the events referred to within.

If Jews wrote the Protocols between 1890 and 1894, that rules out the story of Radziwill retaliating against Glinka, and Glinka being banished to her estate in the early 1890s. Apart from that, it fits the references to events, and is consistent with the Stepanov deposition. But the story of Radziwill's retaliation in 1890 to counter Glinka is consistent with Jewry's use of Radziwill from 1921 through to 1935 in their unsuccessful attempts at refuting the Protocols, and consistent with how Radziwill had already "built up contacts with influential people in the journalistic world", years before her criminal acts of forgery in 1901.

In the event that "anti-Semites" concocted the Protocols, the latest possible date is fixed around November 1894 as mentioned above; the Dreyfus Affair erupted over the next month. This would have been all over the news in France, and an "anti-Semite" would surely have delighted in having the "Elders" boast about it in such a way that the reader would have no doubt that it was a reference to Dreyfus. The nearest hint is found in Protocol No. 12: "...if already now there is not a single State where there exist for us any barriers to admittance into what goy stupidity calls State secrets: what will our position be then, when we shall be acknowledged supreme lords of the world in the person of our king of all the world....". But the "anti-Semite", who has already had the "Elders" bragging of how the "purely brute brains of the goyim" with their "underdeveloped power of thought" is no match for the "Elders", who were "reared on analysis, observation, on delicacies of fine calculation" and "endowed [...] with genius", etc., would not be so restrained as to insert such an oblique reference to Dreyfus. As it is, the reference to "what goy stupidity calls State secrets" suggests a Jewish Protocols writer who was aware of Dreyfus's (or some other Jew's) spying operations, and Dreyfus hadn't been caught by the time of writing.

Protocol No. 12 actually says: "Even nowadays, already, to take only the French press...", further evidence that the writer was based in France, in addition to clues such as the mention of the "stain" of "some 'Panama' or other", along with "Bourgeois" the "agent".

The earliest possible time for an "anti-Semitic forgery" is set to about November 1892, when Jacques de Reinach's probable suicide was reported, and the cover up in the bribed French press fell apart. Almost all of the French press, with the exception of L'Economiste Français, had been bribed to stay silent about the corruption. Without inside knowledge of the scandal, the casual observer would have been unlikely to foresee Panama as becoming such a big scandal as to make the reference to puppet politicians having some "Panama" in their past. There was a report in the New York Times in November 1888, and then the cover up, specifically in the French press, was maintained for another four years. On the other hand, Jewish intriguers were fully aware of how many politicians had been bribed, and after 1892, it probably wasn't as big a scandal as they were expecting in 1889, since nearly all the politicians escaped criminal convictions for lack of evidence. Everything points to the Protocols writer following events in France; a report in a foreign newspaper that wasn't confirmed at home would have been very unlikely to sway an "anti-Semitic" writer into making the Panama reference.

On November 23, 1888, the New York Times reported of "WHOLESALE  CHARGES OF BRIBERY". F. Martin, an "ex-Agent of the Panama Canal Company", had sent a signed circular letter to French Deputies, "asserting that Messrs. Baihaut and Barbe, formerly Ministers of Public Works, had each received during the past two years large bribes in return for the official and Parliamentary assistance they had rendered the Panama Canal Company. In addition, M. Martin says that fully fifty members of the Chamber are implicated in a similar corrupt way in the fortunes of Comte de Lessep's scheme, but he reserves their names in order to concentrate the charge on these ex-Ministers...".

The Times (and this was all before falling into Jewish ownership) had already run an exposé as early as October 12, 1886, in an article "CORRUPTION AT PANAMA. MONEY MISSPENT TO LINE THE POCKETS OF GREEDY OFFICIALS". But that was about businessmen, not politicians. There is no reference to corruption of French politicians in that report, and it's quite a stretch to imagine that the France-based "anti-Semite" would have been aware of corruption in Panama and then extrapolated it to French politicians. Then, in December 1887, there was a report of "money wasted"; the Panama route was reckoned to be "financially impracticable". The Americans would later take over the project. And then by December 1888 the bankruptcy of the Panama Canal Company was well known.

Thus, any "anti-Semitic forgery" would need to be between November 1892 and November 1894.

And of course, how easy was it to get a French edition of the Talmud in 1886 or 1894, and would the hypothetical "anti-Semite" really have gone to the trouble of reading through the Talmud to get an understanding of the Talmudic supremacist mindset, just on the off-chance that there could have been something he could fit into his Protocols "forgery"? The Jewish protocols writer, in contrast, has been "reared on analysis" of the Talmud, poisoning his mind and turning him into the very sort of Gentile-hating misfit that, if you'd put him in charge of shelling a Gaza beach more than a century later, or in charge of a bulldozer, he'd have relished the opportunity to fire on innocent children, or demolish a disabled Palestinian's home before he could be helped out of the building. Or demolish three Manhattan skyscrapers, trapping thousands in the tallest towers, whilst murdering dozens more at the Pentagon as part of a plot to exploit an accounting system that was "in disarray" and "liberate" hundreds of billions of dollars of hard-earned money from the "goyim".

The Jews' latest version of their conspiracy theory claiming Mathieu Golovinski "forged" the Protocols draws upon research by the Russian historian Mikhail Lépekhine. It was set out by Eric Conan, a Jewish French "historian", in the November 18, 1999 issue of L'Express, and an English translation of November 24/25 was by John Morris. There is another English translation by NotBored.Org. Here are the more pertinent points in the timeline:

Mathieu Golovinski was appointed as a civil servant in St. Petersburg and worked in the 1890s for Constantin Pobiedonostsev, the Attorney General of Saint-Synode and one of the inspirers of Alexander III's militant Orthodox Christian program of evangelization among the pagan peoples of the Volga and Tchauvaches. Pobiedonostsev was aided in establishing the program by Mathieu Golovinski's uncle and by Ilya Ulyanov, father of the future Lenin. [...] The chief of the Department of the Press, Michel Soloviev, a fanatic[al] antisemite, ma[de] Golovinski his "second writer." "Golovinski's writing job was easy. The job was a sinecure, and for five years, he carried on this shadowy duty with some pleasure as a gifted dilettante," adds Mikhail Lépekhine who has read much of Golovinski's writing from this period.
Golovinski's pleasant sinecure ended abruptly: Soloviev died and Pobiedonostsev did not have the same influence over the new Czar, Nicholas II, who appeared eager to proceed in a much different fashion. The men in the shadows were replaced, and Golovinski was exposed publicly as an "informer" by Maxim Gorky. He was exiled to Paris, a city where he stayed for some considerable time,  and where he found the same type of "work" he had been doing with an old hand of the Sainte-Fraternité, Pierre Ratchkovski, who directed the services of the Czarist political police in France. [...]
According to Mikhail Lépekhine, it was thus in Paris, at the end of 1900 or in 1901, that Golovinski adapted the Protocols from Maurice Joly's lampoon against Napoleon III.
Source: The Nizkor Project

The Jewish News website JTA has the interpretation: "Golovinski started work on the forgery toward the end of 1900 or the beginning of 1901".

Will Eisner, a Jewish cartoonist, aided by Umberto Eco, an Italian fiction writer who served as his Shabbos goy, made another unsuccessful attempt to refute the Protocols based on the Conan/Lépekhine Golovinski gambit, whilst inadvertently helping to confirm the Protocols. He helpfully filled in some more of the timeline for the Jews' latest conspiracy theory, confirming its physical impossibility. In Greg Goebel's review of The Plot: The Secret Story of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, by Will Eisner and Umberto Eco, it states that Golovinski was exiled to Paris in 1896. Then a representative of Russia's conservative faction met Golovinski in Paris in 1898, and requested that he produce a document to demonstrate the existence of a Jewish conspiracy. This concurs with Conan's statement that Golovinski worked for Pobiedonostsev for five years in the 1890s before Soloviev died, Golovinski was exposed as an "informer", and exiled to Paris. So Golovinski was supposedly asked to "fabricate" the Protocols in 1898, and the project was completed two or three years later.

So, according to the Jews' own conspiracy theory, Golovinski is not even supposed to have drafted the Protocols until "the end of 1900 or in 1901" at the earliest, which is five or six years after Philip Stepanov received the Protocols from Alexis Sukhotin in 1895, according to his signed deposition. Even if the Jews had got it wrong, and Golovinski had somehow managed to complete the Protocols in 1896, the very first year he was exiled in Paris, this scenario requires that the Protocols are produced a year after they have already been produced. That's before we even count the work of historians such as Charles A. Ruud and Sergei A. Stepanov, who conclude that "solid data on the actual publication of the Protocols before the revolution explode the thesis of Okhranka involvement".

Conan's article on Lépekhine's work has an interesting section that goes like this:

It was in the files of the Frenchman Henri Bint, who was for thirty-seven years an agent of the Russian police services in Paris, that Mikhail Lépekhine found that Mathieu Golovinski was the mysterious author of the forgery. In 1917 in Paris, Bint met with Serge Svatikov, the envoy of the new Russian government of Kerenski, who was charged with dismantling the Czarist secret service and "debriefing"--and sometimes recalling--its agents. Bint explained to him that Mathieu Golovinski was the author of the _Protocols_ and that he himself was in charge of remunerating the forger. The last ambassador of the Czar, Basile Maklakov, absconded with the files of the Russian embassy and, in 1925, gave them to the American Hoover Foundation. Meanwhile, Serge Svatikov bought Henri Bint's personal files. When he broke with the new Bolshevik leadership in Russia, Svatikov deposited the Bint files in Prague, in a private foundation called the "Russian Files Abroad." In 1946, the Soviets seized the foundation and moved the files to Moscow, archiving them with the files of State of the Federation of Russia.
A Small Trick of History
Golovinski's secret was thus preserved until the fall of Communism and the opening of the Soviets' files in 1992. Because the antisemitic forger had indeed become a "fellow traveler" of the Bolsheviks in1917, the Soviets preferred not to reveal this small trick of history, which seems awkward even today.
Source: The Nizkor Project

Golovinski, who died in 1920, was an aide to Trotsky. The idea that the Jew "Trotsky" / Bronshtein might have been embarrassed by exposing an "anti-Semitic" "forgery" concocted by the former Tsarist regime is improbable enough. But even if it were so, then as Stalin was building up his power in the 1920s, he would have relished the opportunity to score a propaganda victory over his opponents by exposing how a Trotsky aide had "forged" the Protocols. And the Jewish Western press would have taken great delight in broadcasting how "Uncle Joe" had exposed the "forgery". The fact that there was no such exposure suggests that there was nothing to expose.

What a "coincidence" that it should turn out to be 1917, just as Jews assume control of Russia, when Henri Bint is alleged to have told someone that Golovinski forged the Protocols! Even according to the Jews' various contradictory conspiracy theories, that is about 12 to 17 years after the Protocols were supposedly forged by Golovinski. And how interesting that Lépekhine's 'evidence' should remain hidden for so long, until 1999, and then turn up in Moscow, decades after a Jewish-led revolution in Russia. The alleged conversation between Bint and Sergei Svatikov is supposed to have occurred when Svatikov was "the envoy of the new Russian government of Kerenski". Alexander Fyodorovich Kerensky aka Aaron Kuerbis aka Adler (1881-1970), whose position as Russian prime minister lasted only from July to October 1917, was Jewish through his maternal grandmother and possibly through his father, although in recent times Jews have denied that as part of their attempts to rewrite history. Kerensky's job was to prepare the way for the Bolshevik Revolution.

On October 5, 1927, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency revealed that: "A Jewish corps in the Russian army consisting of volunteers was planned by Alexander Kerensky in the first days of the fight between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks prior to the fall of the republican regime. [...] The corps was planned as a part of the military force which was to be created to fight the Bolshevik revolution. Joseph Trumpeldor, the Palestine Jewish pioneer who died a heroic death in defense of Gallilee was to have been the chief of staff of the Jewish corps."

So, a rational person would conclude that Kerensky was a Jewish traitor posing as a Russian patriot, whose job was to install his co-religionists, supposedly as fellow patriots, who would pretend to be loyal to the Russian republican regime and pretend to defend it against the revolutionaries, whilst giving the latter their full support. In Jewry's version of events, a Russian Gentile patriot inexplicably plans a Jewish corps to defend the regime against the revolutionaries, most of whom turn out to be Jewish, the regime falls within months, the revolutionaries assume control, and all of that is purely coincidental.

On August 17, 1917, Kerensky began releasing jailed Bolsheviks. Unlike Kerensky, General Lavr Kornilov, Supreme Commander of the Russian Army, really was a Russian patriot; he was in the Russian White Movement that fought the Bolsheviks. He began plans to overthrow Kerensky, was arrested on September 14th, but later escaped.

There is a bizarre contradiction in Golovinski's later role as a "prominent" Bolshevik. According to Jewry, he's supposed to have started out as a Jew-hating secret police forger, who revelled in his job as the "second writer" of the "fanatic" and "antisemite" Michel Soloviev, and forged the Protocols to make people hate the Jews. But then, in 1917, when the Jewish Bolsheviks assume power, they don't take revenge and kill Golovinski. They forgive him, let him switch sides and give him a top job! They must have had a powerful motive, such as knowing full well that the claim about Golovinski forging the Protocols was simply false, and that they could use him to back up their own web of lies.

As early as 1889 or so, when Jewry became aware that Glinka had obtained a copy of the Protocols, they launched a limited counter attack, by having their agent Radziwill write a book that would displease the Tsar and could be attributed to Glinka. But there wasn't much else they could do for another 28 years. Initial circulation of the Protocols in Russia in the early 20th century was limited, and so it was better for Jewry simply to ignore it. Providing the oxygen of publicity at that time would have been akin to shooting themselves in the foot. But then in 1917 the Bolsheviks took power, preceded by their ally Kerensky, and the Jews could continue their efforts behind the scenes to refute the Protocols. It would be another few years before they took the battle to the New York Times and the American Hebrew. In 1919 and 1920, translations of the Protocols were being published in France, Germany, Britain, the US, etc., so by 1921 there was no longer any reason for Jewry to remain silent. But in 1917, they realised that Golovinski was potentially useful to them. Jewry may have been hoping to have Golovinski speak out to back up their other assets, who turned out to be Radziwill and Hurlbut in Jewry's American Hebrew / New York Times press campaign of February / March 1921, but were thwarted by the fact that Golovinski died in 1920.

One important detail to note is how Jewry's conspiracy theory, as of 1917 to 1921, had Golovinski forging the Protocols in 1905, and then, in 1999 for example, Jewry have Golovinski forging the Protocols "at the end of 1900 or in 1901". The best explanation for the changing story is that when the Jews were still touting the 1905 claim in 1921 (via their mouthpieces Radziwill and Hurlbut), they were unaware of P.A. Krushevan publishing the Protocols in Znamia in August and September of 1903. Later, the Jews were forced to revise their timing. But the person who was aware of the 1903 publication and decided to revise the claim to 1900/1901 was probably ignorant of Stepanov's deposition, and also had not studied in sufficient depth to see that any "anti-Semitic" tract produced in France after 1894 couldn't have failed to mention the Dreyfus Affair.

Thus, Jewry's first conspiracy theory requires that the Protocols are produced two years after they have already been published in Znamia. Jewry's new, improved conspiracy theory still requires that the Protocols are produced five or six years after Sukhotin and Stepanov were in possession of the Protocols, and the "anti-Semitic" "forgers" inexplicably forget to exploit the Dreyfus Affair. One of the more striking features of Jewry's conspiracy theories is that they invariably require the existence of time travel into the past and the failure of various other laws of nature such as thermochemistry, thermodynamics / probability, aerodynamics / Newton, psychology, and so on.

Jewry's attempt to change history again, by pretending that Golovinski forged the Protocols in 1900/1901 when that is not consistent with what Bint actually told Svatikov in 1917 and 1921, is further evidence of Jewry's intent to deceive. Not that we needed any more, after their reliance upon the testimony of charlatans, money-grubbers and traitors!!

Charles A. Ruud and Sergei A. Stepanov, Fontanka 16 [p. 209] tell us:

"In his fuller account in an unpublished manuscript from this same year [1921], Svatikov says that he interviewed Foreign Agency detective Henri Bint both in 1917 and 1921 and learned from him that Rachkovsky planned to hone a more readable and compelling Protocols tract in 1905. Allegations credited to Bint sharply contradict the princess's timing of events; first, that what inspired Rachkovsky to take up the pseudo-document for the first time was the Protocols text that Nilus published in 1905 (censor Sokolov recommended in September that authorities examine it); and, second, that Rachkovsky initiated his project to 'deepen' the Protocols without informing his superiors in the Police Department (Rachkovsky did not rejoin the department until July 1905).19
To prove that Rachkovsky had undertaken the embellishment project in 1905, writes Svatikov, Bint claimed personally to have taken part by obeying a directive that year from Rachkovsky at the Department of Police (thus in July or later) that sent him to a bookdealer in Frankfurt to order specific anti-Semitic books, all of which he picked up and then mailed from Paris to Rachkovsky at the Police Department in St Petersburg. According to Svatikov, Bint believed that Rachkovsky intended to publish the revived Protocols to incite Russians against the revolutionaries, not against the Jews. To support his contention, Bint in 1921 had shown Svatikov several contrived pamphlets - all devoid of anti-Semitism - that Rachkovsky had, on his own initiative, published in Paris before 1902 to accomplish that same aim."

So, from 1921, that fits in with Jewry's early New York Times / American Hebrew claims about Golovinski's "1905" work on the Protocols. The Google Books preview doesn't include page 209. It includes page 350 which carries a footnote 19 for that first paragraph above:

S.G. Svatikov "Sozdanie 'Sionskikh protokolov' po dannym ofitsial' nogo sledstviia 1917 goda," Hoover Institution Archives, Nicolaevsky Collection, box 20, folio 1.

The Hoover Institution Archives website's 1,353-page .pdf register of the Boris I. Nicolaevsky Collection has Box 20 folder 1, relating to Svatikov, as the first listing, page 48 of 1,353.

So, there are two separate pieces of 'evidence' of the Rachkovsky / Golovinski "embellishment project". Firstly, as examined by Charles A. Ruud and reported in Fontanka 16, there is Svatikov's unpublished manuscript from 1921 at the Hoover Institution Archives in the US  which claims Bint told him Rachkovsky planned to produce a more readable version of the Protocols in 1905 - after Rachkovsky rejoined the department in July, after Nilus published in late 1905, and after the censor Sokolov had brought the Protocols to the attention of the authorities on September 28, 1905. Secondly, there are Bint's personal files that were allegedly bought by Svatikov, stashed in Prague, seized by the Soviets in 1946, and discovered by Lépekhine in Moscow in the 1990s. And by then, Rachkovsky's project to revive the Protocols is said to have occurred in 1900 or 1901.

Two players common to that are Bint and Svatikov. Henri-Jean Bint was born September 12, 1851, so he would have been already about 66 by the time he allegedly met Svatikov in 1917. A 294-page .pdf on the Okhrana records at the Hoover Institution Archives site tells us that Bint "served the Okhrana from 1884 to 1917". However, he was recruited for the Druzhina in 1881, and Ruud says he was with the Okhrana for 35 years. (In 1915, Bint was doing surveillance on Lenin and Trotsky. In 1916 he revealed Trotsky as an "Austrian agent". In 1915 he reported on the foundation of a "National Jewish League" in New York.) As a Frenchman and a loyal Okhrana agent for well over thirty years, it's hardly likely that at the age of 66 Bint would decide to switch sides and start a new career, become a communist revolutionary and a traitor, join the Bolsheviks, and perform as an agent of World Jewry. (One of Bint's aliases was Joly; probably a real coincidence.) Whatever Bint happened to have said is probably true.

But it was Sergei Svatikov (1880-1944) who was the envoy of the Jew Kerensky who served as a springboard for the Bolsheviks to take Russia in 1917. It was Svatikov who aided Jewry's attempts to refute the Protocols by providing a signed article for the August 26, 1921 edition of the Evreiskaia Tribuna (the Jewish Tribune) alleging the mysterious "Madame K", whom du Chayla claimed was Nilus's source for the Protocols via Rachkovsky, as Madame Komarowsky. Svatikov's allegation about Nilus and Madame K, according to Karl Bergmeister, was later contradicted by a written statement dated 13 July 1936 from Rachkovsky's son Andrej Petrowitsch Rachkovsky, who declared that his father had never been acquainted with Madame Komarowsky. And it was Svatikov who went on to testify in favor of Jewry at the Berne trial in 1934/1935.

What would be easier - a conspiracy including Rachkovsky and Golovinski forging the Protocols, inexplicably conducted at a time when there was no motive to produce such a forgery (late 1905, or 1901) and conducted under the noses of Jews who never saw what was happening, with Rachkovsky managing to leave no paper trail, and having everyone think he was not an "anti-Semite"? Or for Svatikov to write a 1921 manuscript with false information about what Bint had told him, and for Svatikov, possibly aided by a handler, to forge a "private" paper of Bint?

Svatikov was quite a prolific writer and a keen collector; he authored many books and collected plenty of clippings and photographs. The Svatikov papers, in Columbia University, New York, consist of ca. 40,000 items in 101 boxes and 1 oversized folder. He's a somewhat dubious character on account of his story about "Madame K", although certainly not as dubious as other witnesses such as Radziwill. And some of the details recounted by Bint / Svatikov are not what Jewry would want to hear - the part about Rachkovsky wanting to incite Russians against the revolutionaries, not against the Jews. And the part about Rachkovsky taking up the Protocols "for the first time" after both Krushevan and Nilus had already published.

Svatikov could have been telling the truth. It's quite possible that Rachkovsky, in his final brief spell at the Police Department in St. Petersburg from July 1905 to July 1906, learnt about the Protocols from the censor Sokolov in September 1905, and decided to conduct a feasibility study to see if the material could be useful for propaganda purposes. A file at the CIA library confirms that Bint ran the office accounts and was tasked with paying other agents. Thus, Bint's job would have included "remunerating the forger" - or the person whom he believed to be a forger. And of course, this "forger" is the person, e.g., Golovinski, who was going to be writing the embellished, revived Protocols in 1905, a project that probably never got off the ground before Rachkovsky left the Police Department in 1906, and has absolutely nothing to do with the question of who created the Protocols in the first place. But Jewry will not mention that; they'll just talk about the "forger" - "[Bint] was in charge of remunerating the forger", and hope people will fall for the idea that this "forger" was the original compiler of the Protocols.

"In Harting's first survey he reported to headquarters that not only the external service but also the Russian clerks in the Okhrana office were being paid through the Frenchman Bint, who in fact even kept the office accounts. Bint was paying himself up to 1,000 francs a month, and the pay of all external agents had been greatly increased without justification, because at least during the last twelve months they had been almost inactive."

The most plausible scenario consistent with the known facts is that someone writes the Protocols before 1895, Alexis Sukhotin and Philip Stepanov have manuscripts in 1895, Krushevan publishes the Protocols in 1903, Nilus publishes in 1905, and that inspires Rachkovsky in late 1905 to look into the possibility of honing a "revived", "more readable and compelling" revision of the Protocols that targets the revolutionaries, not the Jews. Thus, if the project is ever completed, the new Protocols would have no indication of a hatred of the "goyim", and no Talmudic supremacist boasts such as "In this difference in capacity for thought between the goyim and ourselves may be clearly discerned the seal of our position as the Chosen People and of our higher quality of humanness, in contradistinction to the brute mind of the goyim". Bint is in charge of remunerating Golovinski, Bint goes to the Frankfurt bookseller to buy "anti-Semitic" books and mails them from Paris to Rachkovsky in St. Petersburg, Bint tells Svatikov in 1917 and 1921 of Rachkovsky's "embellishment project", Svatikov buys Bint's personal files and stores them in Prague, the Soviets seize them in 1946 and take them to Moscow, and then in the 1990s Lépekhine discovers Bint's claims about Golovinski and thinks he's discovered the identity of the "forger".

And conveniently, by the time Conan tells the story, the "embellishment project" and the "first draft" (as described by Radziwill in 1921) have blurred into one and the same, the 1905 date has morphed into 1900 or 1901, and not surprisingly, Conan and Lépekhine make a point of not showing their primary documents, requiring everyone simply to accept their word that Lépekhine has discovered the identity of the "forger". As Michael Hagemeister says, Lépekhine became a "leading Russian historian" overnight, which is how he was described by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

The embellishment project was probably never even completed by the time Rachkovsky left the Police Department for good in July 1906, which would explain why there is no evidence of the finished product, with the only evidence of any embellishment attempt being assertions by Bint that he bought books for Rachkovsky and was in charge of paying Golovinski, and allegations by charlatans such as Princess Radziwill. So although there may be a little bit of truth to the idea of Rachkovsky or Golovinski working on the Protocols, Jewry's claim of Golovinski forging the Protocols is well short of being a half-truth or a quarter-truth, and is best described as a lie.

As a Jew, Conan must have enough knowledge of the Protocols and the various contradictions between Jewry's claims and reality to know that his conspiracy theory is balderdash. That just leaves the question of whether Lépekhine - who originally had no interest in the Protocols - chose to go along with Conan's disingenuity for career purposes, or is an honest but naive historian who failed to examine the archives in California and was duped by documents that he discovered in Moscow. In the latter case, then Bint's "personal" papers could have been doctored by Svatikov, a handler of Svatikov, the Soviets, or someone else who got to the papers before Lépekhine. Lépekhine should take a trip to California to see how the Hoover Institution documents match up against the Bint papers that he found in Moscow. And Conan and Lépekhine should make available their primary sources, rather than expecting people to take them at their word.

Jews have a long history as forgers. The Jewish "historian" Flavius Josephus (approx. 37-100 CE) quoted and summarized material that he "repeatedly" cited as the work of 4th century BCE Greek historian Hecataeus of Abdera. The fragments purported to 'prove' that Hecataeus had written a separate book on the Jews ("On the Jews"). And naturally, the material supposedly showed that early Hellenistic authors had not only referred to the Jews but even admired their religion, and it included claims about Jewish origins that were used to legitimize Jewish settlement in Egypt. Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Professor of Ancient Jewish History, Tel Aviv University, recently proved that On the Jews was a forgery, most likely fabricated by one of the "moderate conservative Jews of Alexandria",  "a Diaspora Jew between 107 and 93 BCE". And this Jew, dubbed "Pseudo-Hecataeus", most likely concocted On Abraham and the Egyptians. In any case, scholars regard the latter work, attributed to Hecataeus, as "definitely the work of a Jewish author", so if two authors were involved, the second Jewish forger plagiarized the first Jewish forger! In May 2014, Haaretz reported that Jewish settlers have been using forged documents to defend illegal settlements built on Palestinian land on the West Bank. Al-Watan, subsidiary of the settlement organization Amana, has a history of using "dubious documents". "Time after time, it turns out that the settlers' claims of purchase, which always happen at the last minute, are based on forged documents."

The Jewish "historian" Elias Tscherikower (1881-1943) was one of those testifying for Jewry at the Berne trial, and may have been coaching Svatikov or others on what to say. Tscherikower was active in the Russian revolutionary movement after joining Zionist circles in Odessa, and later specialized as a pogram "historian". In other words, the Jews did their level best to loot and destroy the Russian nation, and afterwards, whenever there was a hint that Jews might be getting a tiny taste of the same medicine that they'd dished out, Tscherikower would milk it for all it was worth in an attempt to fool the gullible into imagining that Jews had been hard done by. If he'd lived another couple of years there would have been a renewed demand for his services. Clearly, Tscherikower would have been well aware of the authenticity of the Protocols and the need to peddle the "Protocols was a forgery" line. When WWI broke out, Tscherikower made damn sure he was well out of harm's way in New York. After the February Revolution he returned to Russia. He wrote on the Leo Frank case, and you can bet it wasn't on the side of truth and justice.

Michael Hagemeister is a historian and scholar who does not believe the Protocols are authentic, but nevertheless provides useful information and is critical of the errors and wackiest claims in support of forgery. He tells us that du Chayla was paid "four thousand Swiss francs, a very large sum at that time" to appear as a witness at the Berne trial, and "The historian Boris Nikolaevskii, a coordinator of the Bern trial and an expert on the czarist secret police, admitted in a confidential letter that his own research had convinced him that Rachkovskii 'under no circumstances could have had anything to do with the preparation of the Protocols.'20 Nevertheless, Nikolaevskii did not present his findings at the trial, since, as he wrote later, this 'would have been a stab in the back of the Russian experts and would have objectively disorganized the campaign against Hitler.'21 He called du Chayla a 'swindler' (prokhodimets), who had no idea about the origins of the Protocols.22"

Hagemeister photo Hagemeister_zps250722f3.png

Source: Michael Hagemeister

Even the most devout believers in the "Okhrana forged the Protocols" myth accept that Princess Radziwill was an unreliable witness whose testimony was riddled with "errors". Du Chayla was supposed to be the new, improved, error-free "key witness" in support of the forgery allegations. But as already noted above, du Chayla was a liar and a traitor who would say whatever the highest bidder asked him to say. And it turns out that the historian who coordinated the Berne trial believed du Chayla to be a "swindler", his own research had convinced him that the allegation of Rachkovsky forging the Protocols was total nonsense, du Chayla was paid 4,000 Swiss francs for his testimony, and Burtsev and Svatikov were "financially distressed". Moreover, back in 1913, "du Chayla had come out as an anti-Semite who himself believed in conspiracy theories" during the Kiev "blood libel trial" against Mendel Beilis. As a journalist, du Chayla had "supported the blood accusation and called on the 'secret leaders of the Jewish nation' to repent."

In his 1999 L'Express article, Eric Conan says:

"This 'secret document' was almost immediately questioned by Count Alexander of Chayla, a French aristocrat who had converted to the Orthodox Church and who would later fight with the White Army against the Bolsheviks."

Conan is either an appallingly bad historian and researcher, or has deliberately omitted inconvenient facts about Armand Alexandre du Chayla that don't suit his political agenda. Du Chayla was a traitor who was pretending to be on the side of the White Army, whilst writing pro-Bolshevik propaganda. He was arrested, and, when he suspected he might be hanged, tried to commit suicide but merely wounded himself. The only thing that allowed him to escape with his life was the fact that his superiors who had failed to stop him were allowed to leave the country.

"'Let us admit that the _Protocols_ are false,' Nilus declared to [du Chayla]."

Nilus never said anything of the sort. Conan takes the word of du Chayla as gospel truth, when du Chayla was a known liar, deceiver and traitor who would pose as anti-Catholic and anti-Judaic when he wanted to ingratiate himself with Russian Orthodox Christians, and would lie for the benefit of World Jewry when it paid him.

There is Radziwill's vague claim of February/March 1921 about a "first draft" of the Protocols that was inspired by General Orgewsky in 1884, allegedly to convince Alexander III that Jews were behind the 1881 assassination of his father. So in this scenario, Orgewsky has his agents conduct such a detailed study of the Talmud that they understand all about Talmudic supremacism and Talmudists' hatred of "goyim", just as if the secret police agents were themselves Talmudic supremacists and had undergone many years of rabbinical education. And they produce the best program for world domination that anyone has ever come up with. And they produce an extraordinarily accurate forecast of future events and an extraordinarily accurate record of past events, such as how Jews brought about the French Revolution. And all of these efforts are in vain, because Orgewsky doesn't have any personal contact with the Tsar, and can't persuade General Cherevin (or Tcherewine) to pass it on to the Tsar. Eventually, the Protocols gets passed on to Tsar Nicholas II after Cherevin leaves it to him in his will. Strangely, the Tsar and Tsarina both possess copies of the Protocols "forgery" when they are murdered by Jews. Does anyone seriously imagine that if the Protocols was a "forgery", the Tsar would make a copy for the Tsarina, and both would proudly keep their own copy for twenty-two years?!?! The claim of the Okhrana forging a first draft of the Protocols is preposterous and contradicted by all the evidence.

Far more plausible is that Glinka obtained a French manuscript of the Jewish-authored Protocols from the Jew Schorst, passed the original on to Orgewsky, who handed it onto to Cherevin, who merely filed it as he was under obligation to wealthy Jews, and then on his death in 1896 willed a copy of his memoirs containing the Protocols to Nicholas II. So by this time there's a new Tsar, and he's so impressed with the Protocols that when Jews slaughter him and his family in cold blood 22 years later in 1918, Nicholas II has a copy of the Protocols in his private library, and a copy of the Protocols is found in the murdered Tsarina's room too. In the meantime, Sukhotin receives a copy of the Protocols from Glinka by 1895, and gives Stepanov a copy that year.

Jews would have become aware that the Russian secret police were in possession of the Protocols, either through their debtor Cherevin, or through Jewish infiltrators such as Leonid Menschikoff or Ivan Manasevich-Manuilov. And those infiltrators didn't expose the "forgery", because they knew it wasn't a forgery.

Radziwill claims Cherevin gave her a copy of the first draft of the Protocols because she was "one of his closest and dearest friends". At the same time, he left the original manuscript to Tsar Nicholas II. Well, Radziwill being friends with Cherevin is at least consistent with Radziwill and Cherevin both being assets of Jewry. Unfortunately for her story, Radziwill never provided her "copy" as evidence, which suggests that she never had one. If she had, there would have been analyses conducted in 1921 with Jewish scholars comparing Radziwill's early draft with the published versions, rather like the comparisons with Joly's Dialogues, and all serving to prove how those 'evil' "anti-Semites" forged the Protocols.

Princess Radziwill, as "Paul Vasili", Behind the Veil at the Russian Court (1914), reveals how Jewry benefited after the assassination of Tsar Alexander II: "One of the first cares of Alexander III when he began to reign, was the financial condition of Russia. [...] It was impossible to do without [foreign credit], for the national deficit could not be met from the resources of the country alone. At length, under endless trouble, a loan was arranged, but under terrible conditions, imposed by the Jewish banking world of Paris and Berlin. With this loan the Rothschilds absolutely refused to have anything to do, on account of the massacres of Jews that had taken place in the south of Russia, especially in Kischinev."

So Jewish bankers provided the loan, but the Rothschilds refused to get involved on moral grounds? More likely, the Rothschilds lent through Jewish proxies, exploited the allegations of "massacres of Jews" as a means of imposing tough interest rates and conditions, and gained propaganda points from the story about how they'd "declined" to do business with Russia.

And in the February 25, 1921 Times article, Radziwill claims Orgewsky's agents "compiled citations from Jewish philosophers". Thus, she is effectively admitting what any thinking person who's already researched the subject already knows - that the Jewish contempt for the "goyim", as expressed in the Protocols, is reflected in the Jewish Talmud and in the writings of "Jewish philosophers".

Books said to have parallel passages to those in the Protocols include:

Machiavelli, Montesquieu and Rousseau - Jacob Venedey (1850)
The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu - Maurice Joly, originally anonymous (1864)
Biarritz, featuring a chapter "At The Jewish Cemetery in Prague" - Hermann Goedsche, originally as "Sir John Retcliffe" (1868).

The Protocols writer undeniably plagiarised passages from the latter two titles, and both plagiarisms would provide Jewry with the opportunity to cry "forgery" in the event of discovery. But the claim of a Joly - Venedey link is false. The only similarity is of the titles of Venedey and Joly's books.

In the Marsden 1934 edition, Chapter III, More Attempts At Refutation, (p. 126), it says that "passages quoted from the Protocols as plagiarised from the Dialogues of 1865, are similar to several in Venedey's book of 1850". An example cited is "the passage referring to Vishnu", which is claimed to appear in Protocol No. 12, Joly's Dialogues (1864) and Machiavelli, Montesquieu and Rousseau by Jacob Venedey (1850). A proponent of the forgery theory, Ronald S. Green, says, "However intriguing this sounds, a perusal of Venedey's book reveals no such similarities to Joly or to the Protocols.(37) One searches in vain for Vishnu."

Green is correct. There's no mention of Vishnu whatsoever. Jacob Venedey's (sometimes "Benedey") book is split into two volumes: I is on Machiavelli and Montesquieu; II is on Rousseau. Unfortunately it's only available in German, and the 19th-century German Gothic font is not very legible. An eBook for Parts One and Two is available free from Google Books. Copying each page and doing some tidying up allows sections to be sequentially put through Google Translate so that the whole material can be scrutinised. There is a problem whereby words are split up by an intervening line break, but after searching for "ishnu", "ischnu", trying various combinations of inserting a space and / or a hyphen part-way through, looking for references to "god", "hundred", "arms", "hands", etc., and reading the whole material in English, it is obvious that the parallel passages in Joly and the Protocols do not appear in either of Venedey's volumes. Volume I has a reference to Indians, Chinese, etc.; this is where he discusses Montesquieu's work on the influence of climate and land on the customs, spirit and laws of the people. For example, "Er verlangt, daß der Gesetzgeber die Laster des Climas bekämpfen solle, und zeigt, wie dies den Chinesen gelungen ist, während die Indianer das Clima frei walten lassen und ihm dann unterliegen."

Machiavelli's The Prince has a passage about how it is better for the ruler to be feared rather than loved, if he cannot be both. There is another about how he should not be hated or despised. And another is about how the ruler must learn from the fox and the lion. Venedey's book mentions all of those, but they are within quotes, or clearly attributed to Machiavelli. Venedey focuses on the three characters and any gossip he has on them, rather than their politics, whereas Joly and the Protocols are very much about the political program. Venedey hasn't plagiarised Machiavelli, and Joly hasn't plagiarised Venedey.

All evidence points to the Protocols writer being Jewish and a French citizen. Based on internal evidence, and external evidence such as Radziwill's book on Russian court life being published in 1890, the time of writing is likely to be about 1889. Thus, the suspects were born in the 1860s or earlier, and must have died around 1890 or later. There are other desirable qualifications such as Talmudic / rabbinical education, an association with the Rothschilds, an involvement in banking, and a liking for revolutionary politics.

Asher Ginsberg has been suggested as the Protocols writer, but as mentioned above, his writings are inconsistent with the Protocols. Adolphe Crémieux (1796–1880) is another suspected of involvement; he's been described as "James Rothschild's man". But he died too early. And so did James de Rothschild (1792-1868), the fifth son of Mayer Amschel Rothschild.

Émile Durkheim (1858-1917), the sociologist, social psychologist and philosopher, was born as David Émile Durkheim in Épinal in Lorraine, and came from a long line of devout French Askenazi Jews. His family was one of the most locally important Jewish families, given its heritage in the rabbinical line. His father Moïse (Moses) Durkheim was the Chief Rabbi of the Vosges and Haute-Marne, his mother Mélanie was a merchant's daughter, his great-grandfather Simon Simon Durkheim was appointed a rabbi in Mutzig, Alsace, in 1784, later to be succeeded by his son and Émile's grandfather, Israël David Durkheim.

David Émile began his education in a rabbinical school, but in his youth, through a local teacher, "came under the influence of a mystical form of Catholicism". He soon rejected that, but on completing secondary school he moved to Paris. Then he dropped his Hebrew first name of David to make himself seem more French, and decided to pursue a more secular career. Towards the end of 1879, Durkheim was admitted to the École Normale Supérieure (ENS) at the third attempt, where he studied philosophy. He "remained active in the Jewish community, collaborating with Jewish scholars and involving himself in French-Jewish affairs", according to Jews who are happy to include him in a Jewish Hall of Fame of the "greatest Jews who have ever lived". This corroborates Wikipedia's statement that "Many of his most prominent collaborators and students were Jewish". The social anthropologist Marcel Mauss was his nephew and the mother of the anthropologist Maurice Bloch was his niece. Durkheim "never deliberately and irrevocably cut himself off from all his Jewish roots and connections. [...] he did not convert to Christianity nor did he remain completely aloof from attendance at the synagogue, though it was obvious that he only attended on rare occasions, when, for example, he was in Epinal [...]. Without any shadow of doubt Durkheim wanted to be seen as a Frenchman, as an unqualified patriot." He "never denied his Jewish background and indeed was prepared to declare openly that he was a Jew", for example, when he was speaking about "anti-Semitism" at Henri Dagan's inquiry in 1899 during the Dreyfus Affair. Durkheim "married a Jewess, Louise Dreyfus".

Durkheim wrote his Latin dissertation on Montesquieu - Quid Secundatus politicae scientiae instituendae contulerit - in 1892. It was submitted in November that year, following his March 1892 main thesis on the division of labor. He wrote Montesquieu and Rousseau: Forerunners of Sociology in 1893; common terms and phrases appearing within included "authority", "despotism", "force", "laws of nature", "political law", "primitive", "reason", "sovereign power", "superior", and "thinkers", which also feature in the Protocols. And he wrote that it was "unjust to compare Montesquieu with Machiavelli". Given his interests, there is little chance that Durkheim was unaware of Joly's The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu. Was his subject choice a consequence of having plagiarised Joly to write or part-write the Protocols, three years prior to completing his Latin thesis on Montesquieu? Or was he already an expert on Montesquieu with knowledge of Machiavelli - and thereby the ideal person to produce what was much more than just a simple plagiarism of a book on Montesquieu and Machiavelli - at the time he worked on the Protocols? The internal evidence is consistent with the Protocols having been written in 1892, if the story about Radziwill retaliating against Glinka in 1890 by writing a book is erroneous.

The Glinka story mentions 1884, although this is too early to tie in with other evidence of the Protocols' date of completion. If 1884 was when Glinka began work as an Okhrana agent, and she received the Protocols from Schorst in 1889, that fits much of the other evidence, including the story about Radziwill retaliating by publishing the 1890 book. If the information about the Radziwill retaliation is incorrect, or if it was some later book in the early 1890s, then the Protocols could be dated to 1892, which certainly fits a lot of the data. But 1889 ties in nicely with Georg Brandes' promotion of Nietzsche in early 1888, and the well established bankruptcy of the Panama Canal Company by December 1888, along with Jewish speculators' insider knowledge of how dozens of politicians had been bribed. Nathan Birnbaum coined the terms "Zionist" and "Zionism" in 1890, and "Political Zionism" in 1892, which is consistent with a decision to launch a front movement as the Protocols is being documented, followed by the creation of a phrase to help distinguish between Covert and Overt Zionism. (If there was only one brand of Zionism, why preface it with an adjective?!) And there is another reason to prefer 1889...

In 1889, Durkheim wrote a review of an 1888 thesis by Polish philosopher Wincenty Lutosławski on the State Constitution according to Plato, Aristotle and Machiavelli. Durkheim writes: "Two questions dominate the whole of Aristotle's doctrine: how do revolutions arise, and how can they be prevented? In other words, what causes constitutions to perish? What causes them to last?"

We can be sure that the Rothschilds and other prominent Jews found those questions particularly intriguing. The Rothschilds would have been interested in any material on Machiavelli, particularly if a Jew was involved. And the name Machiavelli is retained in the title of Durkheim's review: "Lutoslawski, W., Erhaltung und Untergang der Staatsverfassungen nach Plato, Aristoteles, und Machiavelli." Durkheim's review could have brought him to the attention of the Rothschilds in 1889, and any resulting association could have developed into the compilation of the Protocols.

Durkheim says, "It is indeed true that Aristotle was the first to establish a theory of revolution, but he found the elements and subject-matter in Plato." And Durkheim adds that "there are many points" where the political doctrines of Aristotle and Machiavelli coincide, but Aristotle's The Politics was not a source for Machiavelli because The Prince contains none of the historical examples frequently occurring in The Politics, which Machiavelli would certainly have made use of, and so Machiavelli's source must have been some derivative work in which Aristotelian political science had been elaborated and set out.

If we suppose that Socrates was the prime mover, then if Anytus ever imagined that the 'problem' of "corrupting the youth" had been solved by condemning Socrates to drink hemlock, Anytus would be turning in his grave today on learning that a program for world conquest had been documented in the Protocols, and the Rothschilds had been putting it into practice for more than a hundred years!

(Thirty-one years later, Lutoslawski would go on to write a book Bolshevism and Poland, a work that was truthful rather than politically correct, and would not have won him any friends amongst World Jewry. For example, he wrote, "German money has created the Bolshevist revolution in Russia", and "...nobody can deny now, after the publication of the British White Book on Bolshevism, Jews have been the chief leaders of the criminal gang which has destroyed for a long time to come the resources of Russia, and which murdered thousands of Poles carried away to Russia by the retreating Russian armies". As a Polish patriot, he was critical of the Germans and the Russians, but he was aware of the Jews' responsibility for genocide, destruction and misery.)

Anyone who takes the trouble to carry out their own comparison of the Protocols and the Dialogues will find that there is relatively little material where the plagiarism is strikingly obvious, but rather more where some of Joly's principles have been taken, inserted into the Protocols writer's own creation, and totally manipulated so that the finished product is not only a superb blueprint for world conquest, but functions as excellent material for a series of fringe lectures at an international Jewish conference that will serve as a rallying point for Jewish supremacists bent on creating a global Jewish "Utopia", whilst the conference is ostensibly about "Zionism" and creating a national homeland for Jews. For example, compare the Dialogues text with the Protocols text, make a note of the initial size of the Protocols file (after taking out all the introductory sections down to the start of Protocol No. 1), and take out the obvious plagiarisms. As a useful aid in this task, see the three Graves articles on the similarities, as published in the London Times. Look at the size of the revised Protocols file. The reduction will probably be around 5%, and certainly quite a small proportion of the total.

According to Jewry's conspiracy theory, "the real writer of the Protocols, who does not seem to have had anything to do with Nilus and may have been some quite unimportant précis writer employed by the Court or by the Okhrana, was obliged to paraphrase the original at short notice." Well, the part about the real writer having nothing to do with Nilus is correct. But if the writer was "some quite unimportant précis writer" and the Protocols was a rush job and a "forgery", we would expect to see a far greater proportion as obvious plagiarism, in which the "quite unimportant précis writer" had been merely transforming the text to make it appear to emanate "from the Jewish leaders". Instead, the Protocols is a superb blueprint for world conquest that is padded with a relatively small proportion of blindingly obvious plagiarism that allows the Jews to cry "forgery". The Protocols writer actually showed a remarkable skill and intelligence in producing a workable scheme for Jewish world domination and a workable rallying call for Jewish supremacists, whilst inserting sufficient passages of obvious plagiarism such that these could be compiled in the press as 'proof' of "forgery". Just about everyone reading the Times would think, "That part's been plagiarised, and that part, and that part...", would be suitably impressed, and would go on to extrapolate that nearly all of the material was just as obvious a "forgery". However, for a précis writer, creative writing and departing from the original writer's version of events would be totally alien to his regular work.

And, as already mentioned, the Rothschilds and other Jewish leaders were never in the least bit concerned about plagiarising their money-grubbing and power-grabbing exploits from others - they were only interested in using schemes that worked. If someone else had already demonstrated the scheme's success, or documented the strategy, so much the better.

Michael Hagemeister reproduces some of Will Eisner's cartoons showing Rachkovsky and Golovinski plotting to compile the Protocols.

EisnerCartoon photo EisnerCartoon_zps02484aa1.png

Source: Will Eisner, via Michael Hagemeister

In a more accurate version consistent with the facts, as opposed to a fiction concocted to cover up Jewry's crimes, the discussion would go something like this:

Durkheim: "Baron Rothschild, from my new science of sociology, I can produce a detailed thesis of how we can set up a political regime so that social facts will exercise coercive power over the individual, and therefore society will manipulate goyim behavior to our advantage. As you know, every society is despotic, at least if nothing from without supervenes to restrain its despotism. Still, I would not say there is anything artificial in this despotism: it is natural because it is necessary, and also because, in certain conditions, society cannot endure without it. Not do I mean that there is anything intolerable about it..."
Alphonse James de Rothschild: "It's too complicated, and will be too lengthy. The material is to be read out as a series of lectures over a few days at an international Jewish conference, whenever we can set one up. Its purpose is to show the adherents of our secret plot how the fortunes of the goyim are to be transferred over to the Jewish people, whilst the goyim are impoverished and emasculated, to be used as our livestock cattle."
Durkheim: "Okay, I have the solution! Here is a 25-year-old book from someone named Maurice Joly. It contains the blueprint for our despotism, which I can use. I merely need to change it so that it emanates from us, the Chosen Ones. It's even been divided up so that the second part - from the Eighth to the Seventeenth Dialogue - is the longest part; the shorter parts can be delivered on the opening and concluding days."
Rothschild: "Ah, The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu. Good! And some of us can embellish it after you've finished, eh, Durkheim? I might insert some financial material. When you copy it, make sure that your paraphrasing is so sloppy that the plagiarism is blindingly obvious. That way, if someone discovers it, we'll be able to claim it's a forgery that was fabricated by anti-Semites, on the grounds that we innocent Jews, who are as pure as the driven snow - hah! - would never stoop to such a trick as plagiarism. We'll say the forgery was, quote unquote, discovered, by some anti-Semite or other, and passed to one of our press reporters via an intermediary - one of our assets whom we can allow to rise to the head of a secret police agency in one of our puppet States. Or let the goyim call it an intelligence agency, even though goyim intelligence is an oxymoron. Let them amuse themselves until the hour strikes! Hmmmm, secret police... now, there's an idea. We can say that agents of a secret police compiled the forgery. I love it! We don't need to fool all of the people all of the time, just most of the people most of the time. And those whom we cannot fool, we shall denounce as anti-Semites or conspiracy theorists."
Durkheim: "I'll be publishing a thesis on Montesquieu within the next two or three years, and as an additional measure to shield my writing style, I'll write it in Latin. There's another book that might be useful to us: It's called Biarritz, and written by some German anti-Semite who uses a British pen name. There's a chapter about events at a Jewish cemetery in Prague."
Rothschild: "You've got papers to write, lectures to do and people to teach. Like you said, you've already been working ten hours a day. I can't ask you to do any more than the transformation of Joly. We'll do the rest. And speaking of education, we'll have agent Bourgeois bring on those object lessons for the dumb goyim, eh, Durkheim? Once you've done your job of plagiarising Joly, I'll have a go with this anti-Semite's book if I have time to spare from the horse racing and art collecting. Or the Rabbi can help. Or maybe the Rabbi knows someone suitable. As you know, I don't bother much with the wine making these days; that was just a front and a pretext for some of the English branch to come over to France and help with planning world conquest. It's got to look like we're doing something, or the anti-Semites might get suspicious; they might think we're plotting world domination or something! Of course, officially, I'm making this trip from Paris to Bordeaux as one of my occasional visits to attend to our vineyard in Pauillac. And I'm having to sort out some Russian pirates. As you know, the route necessitates travelling via Bordeaux unless you have some way of crossing the river. It's a hard job, but someone's gotta do it. First we Jews are, second we never deign to be."

Around 1889 or 1890, Alphonse Rothschild would have taken a keener interest than usual in his Château Lafite vineyard in Pauillac, northwest of Bordeaux. Château Lafite Rothschild started bottling a large proportion of their wine in 1890. This was partly due to requests from "negociants", who would buy in advance of bottling, shipping, marketing, etc., and partly to combat a problem with piracy. It had become apparent that merchants from countries such as Russia were bottling cheap wine and selling it with "Lafite Rothschild" labels on the bottles.

Durkheim spent a year in Germany during 1885/1886, mostly at Leipzig. The philosopher Hjalmar Neiglick is said to have introduced Durkheim to the works of Karl Marx, while they were both working in the laboratory of Wilhelm Wundt in Leipzig. Shortly thereafter, in 1887, Durkheim acquired a teaching position at the University of Bordeaux. During his "Bordeaux period" from 1887 to 1902, his "primary responsibility was to lecture on the theory, history, and practice of education. Each Saturday morning, however, he also taught a public lecture course on social science, devoted to specialized studies of particular social phenomena, including social solidarity, family and kinship, incest, totemism, suicide, crime, religion, socialism, and law."

Rabbi Elliot J. Cosgrove said, in a 2012 sermon, "For Theodore Herzl, the founder of Political Zionism, it was the Dreyfus trial that spurred him to reject the promise of emancipation and turn to the establishment of a Jewish State. Durkheim's scholarship, concurrent with Herzl's activism, provided French Jewry with the language and tools to express their particularity as full participants in the revolutionary principles of liberty, equality and fraternity." And: "For that matter, [Mordecai] Kaplan's book [Judaism as a Civilization], written some forty years after the Dreyfus trial, reflects a sociological move similar to Durkheim's book [The Elementary Forms of Religious Life] in. [sic] By framing Judaism as a system of folkways, Kaplan effectively announced American Jewry as full participants in the project called America."

In Emile Durkheim, His Life and Work: A Historical and Critical Study, Steven Lukes says: "Durkheim, like [Jean] Jaurès at that time [when Durkheim was at the École Normale Supérieure in the early 1880s], was entirely persuaded by the rhetoric of republicanism and convinced of the need to establish a national creed based on 'liberty, equality, fraternity'; they both admired Gambetta as the spiritual embodiment of the Republic and thus as 'the heroic defender of the good society, who worked for justice at home and peace abroad'. Durkheim is reported to have spent the entire day demonstrating in the Paris streets during the fourteenth of July [Bastille Day] celebrations of 1880."

In Emile Durkheim: An Introduction to Four Major Works, Robert Alun Jones says: "Despite constant fears of failure, which plagued him throughout his life, Durkheim became an active participant in the high-minded political and philosophical debates that characterized the Ecole; and, like Jaurès, he was soon a staunch advocate of the republican cause, with special admiration for Léon Gambetta, the brilliant orator and "spiritual embodiment" of the Third Republic...".

Léon Gambetta was of Jewish stock through his Crypto-Jewish "Italian" father, although some Jews deny this today and try to rewrite history with the claim that Gambetta merely had a French mother and Italian father. The New International Encyclopaedia, Vol. IX (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1920) 440-441 says: "He was born April 3, 1838, at Cahors, of a family which had come originally from Genoa, and which is said to have been of Jewish origin." Benjamin Ginsberg, in The Fatal Embrace, Jews and the State, says: "Jews were very active in the political life of the Third Republic. Before the First World War, they were most closely identified with Leon Gambetta's liberal 'Opportunist' faction of the Radical Republican party. Prominent Jewish Gambettists included Crémieux, Leven, and Lehmann as well as Isaie Levaillant, Edouard Millaud, Joseph Reinach, and David Raynal. Crémieux was Gambetta's first political mentor; Reinach was the owner and editor of the Gambettist newspaper. Jews figured so prominently in the Gambettist faction that its opponents often charged that Gambetta himself must be a Jew. After Gambetta's death, Jews continued to be closely aligned with his most prominent political heir, Jules Ferry." A poster at going by the name of Gambetta claims to be of "the same origin" and says that "the Gambetta belong to the same clan of converted Jews in Italy, see the scientific biography 'Léon Michel Gambetta,' he was the son of a Jewish father from Italy and his mother was French. He helped the Jewish cause in France and Algeria and his partisans were Jews also...". The Inter Ocean of Chicago ran a long obituary on January 2, 1883, that included: "Leon Michel Gambetta was born April 3, 1838, at Cahors, where his father, a Genoese of Jewish origin, was engaged in commercial pursuit. [...] He was for some time secretary to the late M. Crémieux, the veteran democrat." (In other reports, the father's occupation is described as a "grocer", and as a "tradesman dealing in crockery".)

Everyone accepts that Léon Say - Alphonse's schoolmate - was a Rothschild agent, but so was Gambetta. Herbert R. Lottman, in Return of the Rothschilds: The Great Banking Dynasty Through Two Turbulent Centuries, says: "Not even Léon Gambetta - that flagbearer of progressive France - could ignore the power of the banks in general and of the Rothschilds in particular. A witness (the dramatist Ludovic Halévy) recorded a dinner meeting of Gambetta and Alphonse de Rothschild in April 1881, when the politician was president  of the Chamber of Deputies, kingmaker rather than king. Reproached by the politician with responsibility for the defeat of conservative leader Adolphe Thiers eight years earlier, Rothschild was heard to reply, "That isn't true. I obviously did have some influence on a large number of legislators, and I kept Thiers in office six months longer than he'd have lasted without me."

Perhaps more specifically, Gambetta should be seen as Adolphe Crémieux's man; he said Crémieux treated him like an adopted son, whereas Crémieux was James Rothschild's man. Crémieux formed the Alliance Israelite Universelle and was its president until his death in 1880. He was certainly a major figure in Freemasonry. The Jewish Encyclopedia states that Crémieux was the Sovereign Grand Councilor for the Supreme Council of the Orient from 1868 to 1880.

Evidence against Durkheim writing the Protocols is that his son André was killed in 1916 in WWI, on the Bulgarian front. The Protocols writer might have been expected to "do a Tscherikower" and make sure his family was well out of harm's way when war broke out, rather than have his son sacrificed in a war that the "goyim", with their "underdeveloped power of thought" and their "purely brute brains" had been manipulated into fighting for the benefit of Jewish bankers. However, it is known that Durkheim was anxious to present himself as a patriotic, assimilated, French Jew. He may have thought that fleeing the country in advance of the war would have increased the chances of exposure of his role in compiling the Protocols, and maybe he gambled with his son's life, hoping that he would come back and could be hailed as a hero to bolster the legend of Émile Durkheim the patriotic Frenchman. If his son died, it would further reduce the likelihood of Durkheim being suspected as the Protocols writer. And if Durkheim was wracked with guilt after his son died, that would contribute to Durkheim's death from a heart attack the next year in 1917 after withdrawing into a "ferocious silence" and forbidding his friends even to mention his son's name in his presence. That's assuming the official story of a natural death (variously attributed to a "heart attack", or a "stroke", or "cancer") is correct, rather than a suicide. Durkheim was an expert on the latter; one of his major works was entitled Suicide.

Durkheim's death, on November 15, 1917, came a mere eight days after the armed insurrection in Petrograd, and is the day when Soviet power reached Moscow. Russia didn't adopt the new Gregorian calendar until 1918, when Wednesday January 31, 1918 was followed by Thursday February 14, 1918, so the "October" Revolution was really the November Revolution. From the point of view of someone in France, October 25 of 1917 was really November 7 of that year. But it would take until the next year before Russia deteriorated into a Jewish-run hellhole. In January 1919, for example, a report named the Jews as being in charge of terrorising the rest of the population:

"The Bolsheviks can no longer be described as a political party holding extreme communistic view. They form relatively small privileged class which is able to terrorise the rest of the population because it has a monopoly both of arms and of food supplies. This class consists chiefly of workmen and soldiers, and included a large non-Russian element, such as Letts and Esthonians and Jews ; the latter are specially numerous in higher posts. Members of this class are allowed complete licence, and commit crime against other sections of society."

The above report also mentioned the Esthonians, but they were victims of the Bolsheviks. In February 1919, a report "ATROCITIES PERPETRATED BY THE BOLSHEVIKS IN ESTHONIA" described the fates of Esthonian victims of the Bolsheviks:

"All the bodies showed signs of the rage and revenge of the Bolsheviks. The victims were all robbed of everything except their linen, their boots also having been taken. The Bolsheviks had shattered the skulls of thirty-three of the bodies, so that the heads hung like bits of wood on the trunks. As well as being shot, most of the murdered had been pierced with bayonets, the entrails torn out, and the bones of the arm and leg broken. [...] The women were to be killed first, as their cries were so heartrending the murderers could not listen to them any longer. One woman tried to escape, but did not get far. They fired a volley, and she sank to the ground wounded. Then the Bolsheviks dragged her by the feet into the grave. Five of the murderers sprang after her, shot at her, and stamped on her body with their feet till she was silent. Then a further volley was fired at the other victims. In the same way they were thrown into the graves and done to death with butt-ends and bayonets. After which the murderers once more stamped on the bodies."

There is no evidence that Durkheim was a bloodthirsty monster who relished war, torture, murder, executions, etc. That is, unless his rabbinical training in his childhood had left such a profound influence that he could not escape it, and his decision to take a secular and scientific approach and pursue a career in sociology belied how he really thought, which seems most unlikely. Had he lived for another year or two, he would surely have been horrified by reports of what was happening in Russia. However, his views on despotism, the State, and crime, were a bit odd, to say the least.

Durkheim would have been hired to transform Joly's Dialogues into a first draft of the Protocols. As a political scientist, he was the ideal member of the Jewish intellectual class that the conspirators required to produce their first draft. That would have been a gentler, kinder version of the Protocols, featuring Durkheim's view, as he expressed in Professional Ethics and Civic Morals, that "every society is despotic, at least if nothing from without supervenes to restrain its despotism. Still, I would not say there is anything artificial in this despotism: it is natural because it is necessary, and also because, in certain conditions, society cannot endure without it. Not do I mean that there is anything intolerable about it...".

And Durkheim was a statist who believed that the State must permeate into "all spheres of social life and make itself felt": "The State must therefore enter into their lives, it must supervise and keep a check on the way they operate and to do this it must spread its roots in all directions. For this task, it cannot just withdraw into the tribunals, it must be present in all spheres of social life and make itself felt."

So the completed Protocols still retains some of the kinder, gentler elements of the first draft; the 'benevolent' "patriarchal" State that believes it has the right to meddle into the affairs of the individual. Protocol No. 15 says:

"Our government will have the appearance of a patriarchal paternal guardianship on the part of our ruler. Our own nation and our subjects will discern in his person a father caring for their every need, their every act, their every inter-relation as subjects one with another, as well as their relations to the ruler. [...] As you see, I found our despotism on right and duty: the right to compel the execution of duty is the direct obligation of a government which is a father for its subjects. It has the right of the strong that it may use it for the benefit of directing humanity towards that order which is defined by nature, namely, submission. [...] And so shall we be this something stronger for the sake of good."

Protocol No. 22 says:

"We shall contrive to prove that we are benefactors who have restored to the rend and mangled earth the true good and also freedom of the person, and therewith we shall enable it to be enjoyed in peace and quiet, with proper dignity of relations, on the condition, of course, of strict observance of the laws established by us."

Durkheim, in his 1895 work The Rules of the Sociological Method, said that crime was "necessary", "useful", and even "indispensable" (a word that appears sixteen times in the Protocols). In an argument that would not seem out of place coming from Machiavelli or even the Protocols, he says, "the criminal no longer seems a totally unsociable being, a sort of parasitic element, a strange and inassimilable body, introduced into the midst of society. On the contrary he plays a definite role in social life." That's not how the victims of crime would see it!

After others had embellished the Protocols, the version that reached Nilus would include, as featured in Protocol No. 3, the Jewish fanatics' admission that they were interested in "the diminution, the killing out of the goyim". If Durkheim had in fact worked on the first draft, then his death came at a very opportune moment for the other conspirators. They would have been well aware of what was to come in Russia over the next year or two, and would have been taking a grave risk by allowing Durkheim to remain alive, with the possibility of him speaking out and exposing Covert Zionism's diabolical program. After all, if Joseph Schorst leaked the Protocols, they could employ a convicted forger to claim it was a "forgery", along with a convicted traitor and a money-grubbing coffin chaser to assist with damage control. If Alfred Nossig revealed how the Protocols was eagerly discussed at the First Zionist Congress in 1897, they could pretend it never happened, and later wreak revenge by alleging Nossig was a Gestapo agent and murdering him as a "Jewish traitor". They could never have kept up the pretence if one of the authors of the Protocols had spoken out!

Also inserted would be some of Alphonse Rothschild's financial views, such as how "the gold standard ha[d] been the ruin of the states which adopted it". As Lewis E. Lehrman said in his book The True Gold Standard, "Gold convertibility and wide circulation of legal tender gold coins put the ultimate regulation of the money supply in the hands of a free people – removing it from arbitrary government control, central bank manipulation, and control by the banking cartel." Just like nowadays when some politician says that a particular policy is in the interests of America or Britain, etc., and they really mean it is in the interests of their Jewish mentors and the Rothschilds, Rothschild hardly wanted to see control of the money supply put in the hands of the people. In Rothschild-speak, anything good for the people and bad for the Rothschilds is "the ruin of the states which [adopt] it".

At this point, we might well ask why the Protocols was written in France. Why not England, or Germany? Or Russia, even, where much of the action would take place within a generation or so? As already mentioned above, more than 50% of the Rothschilds' fortune was concentrated in the Paris house by 1874. Nathan Mayer Rothschild's fourth child Nathaniel "Natanyahu" de Rothschild of the English house moved to Paris in 1850, and he was the founder of the French winemaking branch of the family. The answer could be that France is famed for its winemaking, there is a link between the Talmud and winemaking, and those Rothschilds who were involved in planning and documenting their conspiracy for world conquest needed a front; some activity that they could claim as their occupation.

RAbbi SHlomo Itzhaki aka "Rashi" (1040-1105), born in Troyes, Champagne, in northern France, was the author of a comprehensive commentary that covered nearly all of the Babylonian Talmud (30 tractates in total). It became so popular that it's been included in every edition of the Talmud since the first printing in the 1520s.

(The Chosen Ones sometimes do the reverse by starting with the 'acronym' and picking a suitable name: MOSSAD ===> urban MOving SyStems incorporAteD. It's rather like their predilection for starting with a conclusion and concocting 'facts' to fit their conclusion! Mossad wasn't originally an acronym, although katsa is. There are actually thousands of Hebrew acronyms and abbreviations, which are found at the website

The Chabad Lubavitchers tell us that "Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki - Rashi [...] made his living from the sale of wine, like his father used to do". In response to a poster at that page who questioned the source of the information, one of the members said the information seemed to be "quite widespread" and "is mentioned in the Jewish Encyclopedia article about Rashi". According to the site, "Indeed, Rashi was a vintner; he was involved in the growing of grapes and the manufacture and sale of wine". Eliezer Cohen, in The Jewish Magazine, says that "Rashi, in keeping with the custom of not taking money for teaching, was a successful wine merchant". These references are all mentioned, since more recently, some have started to play down Rashi's involvement with wine. For example, in a February 22, 2013 Haaretz article, David B. Green says, of Rashi, "It is also known that he owned a vineyard, though there is no historical support for the popular belief that he was a winemaker."

It's generally agreed that Rashi had a tremendous impact on Jewish learning over the past thousand years, because of how his commentaries on the Talmud - and on most of the books of the Tanach - made the teachings more accessible by presenting them in such a lucid and concise manner. His grandsons wrote their own interpretations - sometimes in disagreement with Rashi - and after dispersing throughout Europe, "were responsible for the increase in the level of Talmudic learning among the European Jewry". But "Rashi's commentary still remains the undisputed prime source for understanding".

Given that some Jews are known to have indulged in human ritual murders, and the victim's blood is mixed into the wine and bread of the Passover meal, politically motivated Jews would have a reason to play down any connection between wine and the Talmud. But the association is undeniable.

The Rothschilds could simply have used horse racing as their preoccupation, in which case England would have served just as well as the center of the conspiracy. However, horse racing didn't have the same Talmudic overtones as winemaking.

Nathaniel "Natanyahu" de Rothschild (1812-1870) got involved in his Uncle James' banking business, but in 1853, a mere three years after moving to Paris, he bought the Château Brane-Mouton vineyard for 1,175,000 francs in gold and renamed it Château Mouton Rothschild. He and his brother Anthony (1810-1876) had already established racing stables at Lamorlaye, France, in 1838, and Nathaniel married his cousin Charlotte, the daughter of his future boss Uncle James, in 1843. If a decision was taken in the mid-18th century to have a member of the English House settle permanently in France and launch the Rothschilds' winemaking activities, Nathaniel was a good choice. It would not be until August 1868 that James Mayer Rothschild bought Château Lafite Rothschild for 4,400,000 francs - after prompting by his sons. Alphonse, Gustave and Edmond inherited it three months later when James died.

The composer Frédéric Chopin (1810-1849) "frequently visited" the Rothschilds in Paris in the 1840s. Charlotte de Rothschild began studying with him in 1841, and he dedicated his Ballade in F Minor, Op. 52, to her, apparently prompted by her 1843 marriage to Nathaniel. Chopin is also known to have played at Berlin for Prince Antoni Henryk Radziwill (1775-1832 or 1833). Other notable musicians of the time, including Beethoven and the violinist Niccolò Paganini, also performed at Radziwill's palaces in Berlin, where guitar, cello and opera concertos were played by Radziwill himself. And Antoni Radziwill visited Chopin's home in 1829. The infamous Princess Catherine Radziwill (1858-1941), who would go on to become a convicted forger, jailbird, and asset of World Jewry, married Prince Wilhelm Radziwill at the age of 15, and moved to Berlin to live with his family. Antoni's son Wilhelm Pawel Radziwill (1797-1870) was the father of Wilhelm Adam Radziwill (1845-1911), whom Jewry's jailbird asset Katarzyna Radziwill née Rzewuska married in 1873. Thus, there are only two degrees of separation at most - via Chopin - from the Rothschilds to the Radziwills, including the Princess's father-in-law Wilhelm Pawel, who was already an adult when Chopin was playing at Berlin and Paris. Moreover, Paganini had an association with the Rothschild family as well as with Prince Antoni Henryk Radziwill.

Incidentally, in that amusing Kansas City Star report from 1917 where Radziwill tells her preposterous "doubles" story, she says, "My Radziwill was Prince Adam Charles Radziwill, and hers [the "double's"] was Prince William Charles Radziwill". At the time she was married to Charles Louis Danvin, and she'd been divorced by Wilhelm Adam Radziwill in 1906 following her forgery conviction. She fabricated two fictitious individuals, and, to make her own lies memorable, took the Wilhelm/William and Adam names from her ex for "their" first names, and inserted the first name of her then husband as "their" middle names. Then she just had to remember that the "double's" Radziwill's first name was her Radziwill's first name, and "her" Radziwill's first name was her Radziwill's middle name.

Radziwill's lies could only ever convince those who would not bother to verify them, or who simply accepted her word after being bribed. But when Dubya revealed at the Orlando Convention Center in Florida in December 2001 that he "saw an airplane hit the tower" on "TV" before he went into Booker Elementary School in Florida on 9/11/01, before he was advised by Andy Card that a second plane had crashed, and before he continued to read a story about a pet goat, Jewry's crooked leaders must have been wishing that their puppet had Radziwill's skills in creative story-telling! And they must have winced upon learning that Bush repeated the same story a month later at the Ontario Convention Center in California, when he said he'd already "seen this plane fly into the first building" on a "TV set", prior to going into the school and being advised of the second crash. Given that Bush repeated the same story, it was probably true; he just wasn't supposed to reveal that there must have been a live feed from the North Tower to a screen in his limo, set up by someone with foreknowledge of the first plane crash. That's what the Elders of Zion get from choosing puppets "with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience"!

By 1880, the conspirators had their banking empire, their vineyards, and their horse racing and breeding interests. James Mayer de Rothschild created racing stables at his Ferrières estate outside Paris in 1835. After his death, his sons Alphonse and Gustave expanded the operation to include a stud farm, and then moved the studs in 1873 to Meautry, near Deauville in Normandy. Nathaniel de Rothschild was "one of the first Jews to be elected to the French Jockey Club." So what they needed now was their own private library, where they could document their plans for world domination, and stock some existing books for reference - and perhaps to plagiarise, out of sight of the "goyim".

La Société des Études Juives (The Society of Jewish Studies), headquartered in Paris, was founded in 1880. The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia includes the description: "Society for the study of Jewish history and literature, and especially of the history and literature of the Jews of France; its headquarters are in Paris. It was founded in 1880, chiefly through the efforts of Baron James Edouard de Rothschild, Isidore Loeb, Arsène Darmesteter, Charles Netter, and especially Chief Rabbi Zadoc Kahn." The Society's annual review included the previous year's accounts, mentioned various society members and founders such as Edouard de Rothschild, and featured current publications by the members.

EtudesJuives photo EtudesJuives_zps83994074.png

Source: Revue des Études Juives

Alliance Israélite Universelle hosted La Société des Études Juives. Adolphe Crémieux, the Alliance Israélite Universelle's President, died in 1880 around the time the Society was founded. Nathaniel de Rothschild had died in 1870, and his son Nathan James Edouard (1844–1881) died soon after helping to found the Society. Alphonse's son Edouard (1868-1949) was probably in his early twenties when the Protocols was written. Alphonse was the top Rothschild at the time, and is a suspect for writing some of the financial sections in the Protocols - the parts that weren't taken from Joly.

Some of the other players, such as Isidore Loeb (1839, Sulzmatt, Alsace – June 3, 1892, Paris) and Chief Rabbi Zadoc Kahn (1839, Mommenheim, Alsace - 1905, Paris), are interesting suspects for completing an embellished manuscript of the Protocols around 1889, after Émile Durkheim or a similar Jewish intellectual had plagiarised Joly and produced a first draft. As long as the embellishers don't omit the plagiarised passages, they can spew as many hate-filled rants against the goyim as they like, since Jewry is always able to cry "forgery".

Note how, as remarked above, the part in Protocol No. 2 about having "arranged" for the success of "Darwinism" indicates an epistemological weakness on the part of the Protocols writer, who thinks that centuries-old, anti-Gentile, hate-filled rants in the Talmud, the Tanakh and the Mishna are the fount of all knowledge and wisdom. Protocol No. 2 also includes:

"...we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories. The intellectuals of the goyim will puff themselves up with their knowledge and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our agentur specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want."

And from Protocol No. 13:

"Therefore we shall continue to direct their minds to all sorts of vain conceptions of fantastic theories, new and apparently progressive: for have we not with complete success turned the brainless heads of the goyim with progress, till there is not among the goyim one mind able to perceive that under this work lies a departure from truth in all cases where it is not a question of material inventions, for truth is one, and in it there is no place for progress. Progress, like a fallacious idea, serves to obscure truth so that none may know it except us, the Chosen of God, its guardians."

The first Protocols writer, e.g., Durkheim, being aware of Georg Brandes' promotion of Nietzsche and Darwin, had probably just made a comment about how his co-religionists were responsible for promoting such theories. So then the next Protocols writer takes over, and this writer is a Talmudic supremacist and Tanakh-thumping Creationist who thinks that "truth is one" and "in it there is no place for progress" (Protocol No. 13). His 'truth' is what he was taught - say, in the 1840s or 1850s. His beliefs resemble those of a classical rabbi who thinks that 'truth' was revealed to Moses about six thousand years ago, that the Jews' "G-d" made man and all the animals, and so on. In his world there is no place for the scientific method, for looking at the evidence, for proposing a hypothesis, and for looking to see if the evidence continues to support the hypothesis. It is this Protocols writer who had a "blind confidence" in his "theories" and who "puff[ed]" himself up with his 'knowledge' without any logical verification. It is this Protocols writer whose mind had been "direct[ed]" and "turned" by Judaism's early leaders who wrote the Tanakh and the Talmud, and it is this Protocols writer who was unable to see how that work was "a departure from truth".

The Jew Isidore Loeb, according to the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, was a "French scholar; born at Sulzmatt (Soultzmatt), Upper Alsace, Nov. 1, 1839; died at Paris, June 3, 1892. The son of Rabbi Seligmann Loeb of Sulzmatt, he was educated in Bible and Talmud by his father. After having followed the usual course in the public school of his native town, Loeb studied at the college of Rufach and at the lycée of Colmar, in which city he at the same time attended classes in Hebrew and Talmud at the preparatory rabbinical school founded by Chief Rabbi Solomon Klein. In 1856 he entered the Central Rabbinical School (Ecole Centrale Rabbinique) at Metz, where he soon ranked high through his knowledge of Hebrew, his literary ability, and his proficiency in mathematics. In 1862 he was graduated, and received his rabbinical diploma from the Séminaire Israélite de France at Paris, which had replaced (1859) the Metz Ecole Centrale Rabbinique. [...] He went to Paris, where he was appointed (June 1, 1869) secretary of the Alliance Israélite Universelle, which position he held until his death. It was largely due to Loeb's labors that this association became an important factor in the progress of Oriental Judaism; and he created the library of the Alliance, which is one of the most valuable Jewish libraries in existence. Meanwhile he continued his historical and philological researches, and developed an extensive literary activity. The chair of Jewish history in the Rabbinical Seminary of Paris having become vacant through the resignation of Albert Cohn (1878), Loeb was appointed his successor. He held this position for twelve years. His main activity, however, was devoted to the Société des Etudes Juives, which was organized in Paris in 1880. Beginning with the first number, he successfully edited the "Revue des Etudes Juives," the organ of that society, and was, moreover, a voluminous and brilliant contributor thereto."

There is an interesting quote, attributed to Loeb:

"The nations will gather to pay homage to the people of God: all the fortunes of the nations will pass to the Jewish people, they will march captive behind the Jewish people in chains and will prostrate themselves before them, their kings will bring up their sons, and their princesses will nurse their children. The Jews will command the nations, they will summon peoples whom they do not even know, and peoples who do not know them will hasten to them. The riches of the sea and the wealth of nations will come to the Jews of their own right. Any people or kingdom who will not serve Israel will be destroyed."

That's not quite what Loeb said. The French source is La Littérature des Pauvres dans la Bible [pp. 219-20], Isidore Loeb (1892). Théodore Reinach, who was involved with La Société Des Études Juives, wrote the Preface. Vicomte Leon de Poncins, in his Judaism and the Vatican, quotes (in English) Georges Batault, Le Problème Juif [p. 135], who quotes Loeb. (And the French edition of de Poncins' book is here.) As shown by de Poncins and Batault, and as evidenced by Loeb, Jewish messianism is merely imperialism in disguise.

BataultLoeb photo BataultLoeb_zps852a18b1.png

Source: Judaism and the Vatican [p. 79], Vicomte Leon de Poncins

To be fair to Loeb, what he actually wrote was a summary of much of what Jews would find interesting in the Book of Isaiah.

LoebIsaiah photo LoebIsaiah_zps69d0e9ec.png

Source: Revue des Études Juives; available in all formats; [p. 169]

The link states 1880, which is when the library was formed; the front cover states 1891, but it has the 1891 accounts and internal dates are January 1892, and sections from Loeb's 1892 book are included, which fortunately includes the passages of interest here. The quote starts on p. 169 of that newsletter, paragraph 247: "Les Nations se réuniront pour aller porter leurs hommages au peuple de Dieu...". It finishes on p. 170 with "...Le peuple et le royaume qui ne te serviront pas seront détruits". (In Batault's Le Problème Juif it goes from the bottom of page 133 to page 134. And the last part has become "Le peuple et le royaume qui ne serviront pas Israël seront détruits." But that could be a revision made by Loeb by the time it got in his book.) Bataulf has quoted Loeb minus the references showing Loeb's Biblical sources. For example, Loeb has Isaiah 60:3 et seq.; there is also a little bit from 45:14 about how "the labour of Egypt and merchandise of Ethiopia [...] shall be thine". That part continues: " chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God." Also see 49:22. And Bataulf has deleted some of the less "interesting" parts, retaining Loeb's most controversial points.

De Poncins, quoting Batault's commentary in English, adds: "The Jews' international dream is to unite the world with the Jewish law, under the direction and domination of the priestly people ... in a general form of imperialism, which does not prevent Loeb, Darmesteter, Reinach or Lazare and so many others calling this conception universal fraternity."

Also in La Littérature des Pauvres dans la Bible, not mentioned by Batault or de Poncins, is a paragraph that summarizes the central problem with Judaism. For his co-religionists, Loeb has compiled all the 'evidence' from the Hebrew Bible that Jews are the Chosen Ones, God's People, and so on, complete with chapter and verse references pointing to the location of this 'evidence'. When a tiny group of racial or religious supremacists believes it has the right to treat its fellow men as equivalent to bipedal beasts, it's bound to end in tears. One has merely to look at how Jews treat the Palestinians to see the more obvious examples of how their supremacist beliefs translate into action. But on a larger scale, Jews are applying their same primitive mode of thought to the entire world.

"C'est surtout envers les Juifs que Dieu exerce sa vertu et sa bonté. Il est le Dieu du peuple juif (XL, 1, 3, 9; XLI, 10, 13, etc.), le Dieu d'Israël (XLI, 17; XLV, 15; XLVIII, 1, 2), le saint d'Israël (XLI, 14, 16, 20 ; XLIII, 3, 14, 15; XLV, 11, etc.),il est saint et son nom est saint (XL, 25; LVII, 15), il est le roi d'Israël et le roi de Jacob (XLI, 21 ; XLIII, 15 ; XLIV, 6), le fort de Jacob [two Hebrew words] (XLIX, 26 ; LX, 16). Le peuple juif est son peuple ([Hebrew word] XLVII, 6 ; LI, 4, 16; LVII, 14; [Hebrew word] LI, 4), le peuple de sa sainteté (LXIII, 18), et on l'appellera plus tard peuple de la sainteté (LXII, 12). Dieu est le père du peuple juif (LXIII, 16 ; LXIV, 7), les Juifs sont ses fils et son héritage (XLV, 11 ; LXIII, 17; XLIII, 6, où il n'est pas impossible cependant que les fils et les filles de Dieu représentent les fidèles de toutes les Nations)."

That is paragraph 232, p. 26 of the above Revue des Études Juives link. (Identification of the four Hebrew words is best left to Hebrew speakers; we'll suppose there is no coded secret conspiracy there.) So the English translation is:

"It is especially toward Jews that God exercises his virtue and goodness. He is the God of the Jewish people (XL, 1, 3, 9, XLI, 10, 13, etc.), the God of Israel (XLI, 17; XLV, 15; XLVIII, 1, 2), the saint of Israel (XLI, 14, 16, 20; XLIII, 3, 14, 15;. XLV, 11, etc.), he is holy and holy is his name (XL, 25; LVII, 15), he is the king of Israel and the King of Jacob (XLI, 21; XLIII, 15; XLIV, 6), the strength of Jacob [two Hebrew words, a reference to Jacob becoming the firstborn?] (XLIX, 26; LX, 16). The Jewish people are his people ([Hebrew word] XLVII, 6; LI, 4, 16, LVII, 14; [Hebrew word] LI, 4), the people of his holiness (LXIII, 18), and they shall call later people of holiness (LXII, 12). God is the father of the Jewish people (LXIII, 16; LXIV, 7), the Jews are his son and his legacy (XLV, 11; LXIII, 17; XLIII, 6, where it is not impossible, however, that the son and daughters of God are the followers of all Nations)."

In paragraph 236, Loeb writes about sacrifices. He says, "Les sacrifices humains sont abhorrés (LVII, 5)", or "Human sacrifices are abhored (LVII, 5)". Isaiah 47:5 says: "Enflaming yourselves with idols under every green tree, slaying the children in the valleys under the clifts of the rocks?" According to the commentary on this page on Isaiah 47:5:

"The sacrifice of their children to Moloch was largely practised by the Jews in the later period of the kingdom of Judah. It seems to have been originally introduced by the superstitious Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, who 'made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen' (2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chronicles 28:3). Suspended during the reign of Hezekiah, it was renewed under Manasseh, who followed the example of his grandfather in himself sacrificing one of his sons (2 Kings 21:6). Under the last three kings it prevailed to a very wide extent, and the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel are loud in their denunciations of it (Jeremiah 7:31, 32; Jeremiah 19:2-6; Jeremiah 32:35; Ezekiel 16:20; Ezekiel 20:26; Ezekiel 23:37, etc.). Arguments have been brought forward to prove that the child was merely passed before a fire, or between two fires, and not burnt; but the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming (see the article on 'Moloch' in Dr. W. Smith's 'Dictionary of the Bible,' vol. 2, pp. 403, 404). The rite belonged especially to the worship of Chemosh and Moloch by the Moabites and Ammonites (2 Kings 3:27; Micah 6:7), from whom it was adopted by the Israelites (2 Kings 17:7) and Jews."

In the 12th-century Jewish ritual murder of Harold of Gloucester, whose body as described above was found in the Severn with marks of melted wax in the eyes and ears, some teeth knocked out, and thorns in the head and armpits, "He had been placed between two fires so that his whole body was burned [...] Fat had been poured over him, like roasted meat. Burns covered his eyes, ears and face". This certainly matches the ritual of passing the child between two fires and burning him, although no one is suggesting that this is a normal feature of Judaism.

Loeb isn't as guilty as if he'd composed his material from scratch and claimed "all the fortunes of the nations will pass to the Jewish people", etc. The problem is that in plugging the material from the Hebrew Bible about a Jewish imperialism to Jews, some of them are going to believe it as "fact". A disclaimer or mental health warning, for those who might be silly enough to believe it, would help. Such as "the book of Isaiah is a work of fiction, or the product of a diseased mind, or the product of a racist bigot". If Loeb knew that predictions of Gentiles serving the Jews were simply nonsense, but promoted the idea nevertheless, and failed to include some disclaimer, he would be guilty of inciting racial or religious hatred. However, there's no evidence that Loeb didn't sincerely believe it himself; it's what he's been taught. In which case, he's really just suffering from a mental illness called Judaism, an illness that you catch from Jews, and going on to propagate the disease in his turn. Whether or not Loeb believed in Jewish imperialism / messianism, his promotion of it is consistent with the underlying theme of the Protocols.

Those Jews whose epistemology is sufficiently crippled, and whose bullshit detectors are sufficiently faulty, as to fall for the Biblical material and sincerely believe it to be true, will genuinely believe that Gentiles will willingly come bearing gifts, will prostate themselves before the Jews, will be happy to live under Jewish rule, and happy to live to serve the Jews as they "sit like an effendi and eat". After all, Jews have already fallen for the claim that their "G-d" spoke to three million Jews at Mount Sinai. (Funny how he keeps such a low profile these days. An extended "holiday"?) When these Jewish true believers encounter hostility towards them by the "anti-Semites", their surprise is genuine, as fantasy collides with reality. What those Jews need to learn is that they've bought into a fairy tale. There is no astral magician coming to save us, not in another 100 years, and not even in another 10,000 years. Our destiny is determined by our own choices. The fact is that Gentiles don't want to live as servants of the Jews, and they don't want to live under Jewish rule. They want to make their own laws. However, what would surely be acceptable to almost everyone, is a system that treats everyone fairly, where everyone has equal rights, and no one has special rights. A system dedicated to peace, and to the alleviation of poverty and suffering - for all.

(There is of course the possibility that friendly, advanced intelligent life-forms - with such an astounding mastery of technology that humans would perceive them as gods - would come to visit a peace-loving, emerging species that had learned its lessons. However, a species that goes to war on a false prospectus, in which there is proof of intent to deceive, such as British-manufactured gas generators for inflating weather balloons represented as mobile bio-weapons labs, and forged documents about yellowcake from Niger represented as authentic, is not the sort of animal that any advanced intelligent life-form would want to see roaming interstellar space.)

Both Durkheim and Loeb were working on material with a strong Protocols theme in 1892. That doesn't tell us whether the Protocols was written in 1892, or was written about 1889 and served as inspiration for their next work, but at least, it's consistent.

So in Paris in 1892, within two or three years of the time that the Protocols was being completed in Paris by a Jewish supremacist who exhibits the mindset of a trained rabbi who obtains his 'truth' from the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud, we have Isidore Loeb - a trained rabbi who was educated in Bible and Talmud by his father Rabbi Seligmann Loeb of Sulzmatt, graduated in 1862 and received his rabbinical diploma from the Séminaire Israélite de France at Paris, was appointed (June 1, 1869) secretary of the Alliance Israélite Universelle, and in 1880 was co-founder of its library La Société Des Études Juives - promoting the very same theme of Jewish imperialism as seen in the Protocols. Isn't this the very sort of person who would have viewed Darwinism as a false theory? Moreover, it turns out that Loeb functioned as a Jewish propagandist in Paris around 1890, trying to sell the idea of the poor, persecuted Jews to any Gentiles gullible enough to swallow it. Also, it appears he had something of a reputation for reproducing, almost unchanged, the work of Gentiles. These works, with relatively little input from Loeb, would go on to win him praise from the Jewish community for "his" contributions.

In 1890 Loeb wrote Le juif de l'histoire et le juif de la légende. The full text is available online in French. He begins by asserting that a lot of the stories about Jews are merely "legends": Jews are materialistic, people without ideas, usurers, avaricious, they hate mankind in general and Christians in particular. They have poisoned the wells, stolen and pierced the hosts, and they kill Christian children to drink their blood. Loeb claims it's just a "tissue of lies, slander and error". However, as shown above, whenever you actually carry out research to ascertain whether the "anti-Semites" are telling the truth, it almost invariably turns out that they are, whereas the Jews are lying, and are employing liars, fraudsters, traitors, gold diggers, etc., to convey Jewish lies and propaganda. There are bound to be some exceptions. For example, Ronald S. Green was correct in that Joly did not plagiarise Jacob Venedey. And it would indeed be slanderous to classify every Jew as an evil villain. But the general rule of Jewish duplicity holds - obviously exaggerated by the fact that the biggest liars enjoy the connivance of the mass media in broadcasting their deceptions.

In one of Loeb's footnotes, where he hopes to show that the idea of prosperous Jews was merely a legend, he cites the fact that 637 Jews died in Paris in 1884, 620 in 1885, and 686 in 1886, out of a population of 36,000 to 40,000. If we accept his figures, then an average mortality rate of 648 out of 38,000 is ~1.7% per annum and consistent with a life expectancy of 58.6 years. In 1885, life expectancy in Paris was 49 (France in general was higher, at 52). That was at age 5, too. Thus, Jews were doing relatively well. (The total population of Paris was well over 2 million in the city proper in 1885, so Jews were less than 2% of the population.) By 2008, 46% of Americans Jews were earning a six-figure annual income, compared to the overall US average of 18%. In 2013, 25% of American Jews had an annual income exceeding $150,000, which compared with 8% of adults in the public as a whole.

Loeb says that it is undeniable that the Jews, collectively, are "poor, miserable and starving". He says it's generally assumed - as of 1890 - that there are some seven million Jews in total, and some one-and-a-half million of those lived in "satisfactory" conditions. These "satisfactory" Jews were those living in Western Europe and most of the US; the poverty-stricken Jews were in Turkey, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, part of Hungary, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Persia, parts of Russia, etc. He concludes that at least five million were in deepest destitution. As of 2013, GNI per capita in Morocco was $3030, so it's not only 19th-century Jews who were poverty-stricken.

Seven years after Loeb wrote that, Max Nordau would employ a similar theme at the First Zionist Congress, where he spoke of two forms of "Jewish misery" - the material and the moral. The former was seen in Eastern Europe, North Africa and Western Asia, where Jews suffered from "the painful fight for the maintenance of a bare existence". In Western Europe, the "misery" was "moral" according to Nordau, because Jews weren't granted the rights that they should have.

Ten years after Loeb was promoting the idea of at least five million Jews in deepest destitution, Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise spoke of "six million living, bleeding, suffering arguments for Zionism" at a Federation of American Zionists meeting at Cooper Union in Manhattan on June 10, 1900. By 2012, there were nearly fourteen million Jews, by their own admission.

There is another statement by Loeb that, for 1890, displays astonishing prescience if he wasn't involved in writing the Protocols: "L'histoire des persécutions subies par les Juifs est une honte pour l'humanité et qui doit rendre modestes ceux qui parlent de civilisation, de progrès, de morale et de charité. Ce n'est pas seulement au moyen âge, c'est aujourd'hui et tous les jours que nous voyons se produire, au sujet des Juifs, les mensonges les plus effrontés, les exagérations les plus ridicules, les documents inventés de toutes pièces, des allégations prises en l'air et affirmées avec un aplomb inouï." He says the history of the "persecution" of Jews is a "disgrace to humanity", and claims, as one of his examples, "documents invented from scratch". Note that 1890 is also years before Jewry's claim that Dreyfus was "framed" on the basis of "numerous documents" that were "forged", in addition to being 31 years before Jews would try to refute the Protocols in 1921 by claiming it was a false document, a "forgery". And amusingly, Jews have been forging false documents from Hellenistic times - e.g., fabricating Judeophilic quotes attributed to Hecataeus of Abdera - to modern times, such as Al-Watan's regular forging of fake documents for Jewish settlers to defend illegal settlements built on Palestinian land on the West Bank. (Esterhazy already served as a Jewish asset in the early 1890s, writing articles defending the Jews, and after taking the rap for Dreyfus, was allowed to flee to England, where he lived until 1923, and received sums of money at a post office from an "unknown source".) Now admittedly, Jewry claims the Protocols was plagiarised rather than "invented from scratch", but in both the Protocols and the Dreyfus Affair, Jewry falls back on the same defense of false documents fabricated by their opponents to serve as evidence against Jews, as already cited by Loeb as early as 1890.

It's a matter of same writer, same boss, different audience. On the one hand, Alphonse Rothschild has to sell his program for Jewish imperialism to revolutionary Jews - and to those who would finance them - at a fringe meeting at the forthcoming international Jewish conference in 1897. Jacob Schiff, who would provide Trotsky with $20,000,000 in gold, and had funded Japan's war against Russia, was then a 50-year-old German-born "American" Jewish banker, already the head of Kuhn, Loeb & Company. Max Warburg, who would provide Lenin with $6,000,000, was then a 30-year-old "German" Jewish banker, whose brother Paul would go on to draft the plans for the American Federal Reserve private banks and had already married the daughter of Solomon Loeb. Neither are on the attendees list for the First Zionist Congress, but the fringe group would hardly want to advertise its existence and movements. And if the top bankers didn't attend, they could send their proxies and then peruse the minutes at their leisure.

On the other hand, Rothschild has to peddle the theme of the poor, persecuted Jews for general Gentile consumption, even as the Jews are getting all the gold in their hands, the press in their hands, the politicians and the judges in their pockets, and so on. The goyim, with their "purely brute brains", are just not supposed to notice all that, like turkeys that are unaware of what happens at Thanksgiving or at Christmas. So Rothschild might as well employ the same writer for both jobs. Isidore Loeb can put his name to his Le juif de l'histoire et le juif de la légende work published in 1890; if his other anonymous manuscripts, on which he was working at just about the same time, should fall into Gentile hands, they play the forgery card, as already allowed for in their contingency planning. Given that Rothschild had just fallen prey to wine pirates at the very same time - Russian merchants were bottling cheap wine and selling it with "Lafite Rothschild" labels on the bottles; in other words, forging "Lafite Rothschild" labels - that was likely to have been the inspiration for the plan to plagiarise previous works and make the parallel passages strikingly obvious so that they could cry "forgery".

Jews found themselves in a quandary that led to a delicious contradiction. They needed to forge documents that demonstrated how Gentiles supposedly admired them. For example, the fragments of text quoted by Josephus, which he attributed to Hecataeus of Abdera. Yet every time some Gentile criticises the Jews, exposes their criminality, or simply doesn't lavish sufficient praise on them, they are "anti-Semites" who simply "hate" the Jews for no reason at all. And of course, whenever Gentiles admire the Jews, it's supposed to be for perfectly valid reasons. It's hard to be envious of the Jews; they certainly have their work cut out!

There is some evidence that Loeb tended to copy other people's research and present it, almost unchanged, as his own work. In 1866, Dr. Christian David Ginsburg, an English Christian, published The Kabbalah, Its Doctrines, Development and Literature: An Essay. Arthur Edward Waite, in The Doctrine and Literature of the Kabalah (1902), devotes a lot of his discussion to Ginsburg's essay (he dates it at 1865 in a footnote in the Preface). Towards the end of his book, he has a few things to say about Isidore Loeb's essay on the Kabbalah, which was published as an entry (q.v. here) in La Grande Encyclopédie, a 31-volume encyclopedia published in France from 1886 to 1902. Starting from p. 409, Waite comments:

"There is a period of a quarter of a century between the two writers, and as their point of view is in general respects almost identical and, indeed, suggests that the French critic has profited by the English, it is interesting to note the one matter over which they diverge, namely, the authorship of the Zohar. [...] If we take in connection with this the fact that M. Isodore [sic] Loeb, who so closely resembles Dr. Ginsburgh, abandons the theory of unqualified imposture... [...] For M. Loeb the Kabalah is a part of the universal mysticism which seeks to explain the disparity between an infinite God and a finite world by means of intermediate creations through which the Divine Power descends, diminishing in its spiritual qualities as it removes further from its source, and becoming more imperfect and material. [...] On the whole, I do not think that M. Loeb's critical faculty, or indeed his erudition, is at all comparable to his graceful synthetic talent."

So, apart from making "almost identical" reproductions of previously published work, Loeb is clearly pro-mysticism and anti-science - the sort of character who would perceive Darwinism as a false theory, and his forte was his "graceful synthetic talent", which is the very quality required of someone whose job was to plagiarise or embellish already existing work. And unlike Durkheim, Loeb didn't quit his rabbinical training part way through and take a secular approach to his education.

The Isaiah-derived Loeb quote "The nations will gather to pay homage to the people of God: all the fortunes of the nations will pass to the Jewish people..." is sometimes erroneously or mischievously attributed to the fictitious "Rabbi Reichhorn" in "Funeral Oration for Grand Rabbi Simeon-ben-Ihuda", an idea that was inspired by "Sir John Retcliffe" (Herrman Ottomar Friederich Goedsche). Herman Bernstein did at least usefully show the various stages of the "Rabbi's Speech" series in his book The History of a Lie. In the "Rabbi's Speech" series, first there was Goedsche's Biarritz novel in 1868, which included the chapter "At The Jewish Cemetery in Prague". Goedsche died in 1878. Then in 1907 G. Butmi published a Russian language "Rabbi's Speech", in which the various fictional speakers at the cemetery have morphed into one. Their various points are all consolidated into a speech made by a fictional "Rabbi Reichhorn". For the sake of argument, let's suppose Goedsche really did write that new revision before he died, and it was published in Russian decades later - after several publications of the Protocols. Bernstein says the Rabbi's Speech was sent, in French, to the Odessa newspaper Novorosisk Telegraph and published in No. 4996 of that newspaper, dated January 15, 1891, which interestingly enough, is within a year or two of the time that the Protocols was being compiled in French. But then in La Vielle France, on March 10, 1921, (or October 21, 1920 by some accounts) an entirely new version of the "Rabbi's Speech" appeared, set out as a 19-point program. The resemblance between that and the Protocols is much more striking than in the case of the previous work by Goedsche. Problem is, the 1921 edition of the "Rabbi's Speech" is not found in Goedsche's works. It was plagiarised from the Protocols in 1920 or 1921.

If the false attribution of Loeb's words is deliberate, then linkage with an easily debunked fictional "Rabbi's Speech" that was masquerading as "fact" would be a ploy to cast doubt upon the authenticity of the Loeb quote.

What seems to have happened is that Durkheim plagiarised Joly, then Loeb took over the Protocols and revamped Durkheim's draft by plagiarising Goedsche, and then in February/March 1921, years after the Protocols had already been published several times and Jewry's deception was coming apart at the seams, Jewry launched their press campaign to cry "forgery" (by employing a convicted forger, a convicted traitor and a gold-digging coffin chaser!!!). This time, Jews - or their assets - plagiarised their own (albeit Joly- and Goedsche-inspired) Protocols, and forged Goedsche's work, to fabricate an embellished "Rabbi's Speech" in which the Protocols - "Goedsche" similarity was strikingly obvious. In fact, Princess Radziwill would have to be a prime suspect as the 1920/1921 forger of Goedsche's work!

Zadoc Kahn (1839, Mommenheim, Alsace - 1905, Paris) was chief rabbi of Paris, 1868-1889, and of France, 1889-1905. His correspondents included Elkan Nathan Adler, Hermann Adler, Abraham Bloch, Felix Bloch, Heinrich Graetz, Paul Haguenauer, T. Hermann, Jacques Levy, Eugene Manuel, Felix Meyer, Moise Netter, Max Nordeau, Louis Oury, Edgard Seches, Moise Weil, and Jonas Weyl. According to Encyclopaedia Judaica and the Jewish Virtual Library, his father was a village pedlar, and his "mother was the daughter of Rabbi Isaac Weyl (Reb Eisik) of Wintzheim, whose father, Jacob Meyer, was a member of the Sanhedrin convened by Napoleon I, and chief rabbi of the Lower Rhine department. Kahn [...] became director of the Talmud Torah, a preparatory school of the Ecole. In 1866 Kahn became assistant to Chief Rabbi Isidore Lazare of Paris, whom he succeeded in 1868." Kahn's claim to fame was a result of his highly acclaimed thesis, "L'Esclavage Selon la Bible et le Talmud" (1867; later translated into German and Hebrew). "After the death of Adolphe Crémieux in 1880, French Jewry had no recognized secular leader, and institutions and individuals turned to Kahn for advice and leadership." Kahn was the leader of the proto-Zionist movement Hibat Tsiyon (Hibbat Zion, Love of Zion) in France; he directed operations from Paris, and was also responsible for putting the movement's leaders in contact with Edmond de Rothschild.

Hibbat Zion was established in the early 1880s. Its founders were Perets Smolenskin, Mosheh Leib Lilienblum, and Eli'ezer Perlmann (later Ben-Yehudah), and the founding conference was held in 1884 in Kattowitz, Germany (now Katowice, Poland). The first Jewish settlement in Palestine, Petah-Tikva, was founded in 1878, but the original settlement failed. Edmond de Rothschild provided financial support in 1888. Meanwhile, in 1882, seventeen Jewish families founded another agricultural settlement: Rishon LeZion. This also needed Rothschild's backing; he initially provided 25,000 francs, and later visited the site in 1887 after his experts had concluded that the soil was suitable for growing wine grapes.

The Jewish Encyclopedia tells us that Kahn "gave much of his time to the work of the Alliance Israélite Universelle, which elected him honorary president in recognition of his services". (The president, from 1882 to 1898, was Salomon Hayum Goldschmidt.) "Zadoc Kahn was one of the founders, the first vice-president, and, soon after, president, of the Société des Études Juives (1879). He was considered a brilliant orator, and one of his most noteworthy addresses was delivered on the centenary (11 May 1889) of the French Revolution — 'La Révolution Française et le Judaïsme'."

Loeb was a more prolific writer; Kahn was more of an orator. The evidence most strongly points to the Jews Émile Durkheim and Isidore Loeb as the hired writers of the Protocols - and plagiarisers of Joly and Goedsche respectively, whereas Kahn had all the connections and could have provided Loeb with information from people whom Loeb didn't have access to. As mentioned above, Alphonse Rothschild may have hired Durkheim after learning of his 1889 review of Lutosławski's 1888 paper, which between them addressed the subject of Machiavelli and revolution, and Rothschild would have had a pretext to go to Bordeaux after learning that Russian pirates were forging labels bearing the brand name of his wine. Kahn may have recruited Loeb, his fellow Alsatian, also born in 1839. And Kahn could have been supervising operations and reporting back to Rothschild.

The Reinach family provide a strong link between La Société des Études Juives, the Panama Canal Scandal, and political figures. As mentioned above, Cornelius Herz is linked to Alphonse de Rothschild through their shared interests in electricity and telecommunications; for example, Herz and Rothschild co-founded the American Syndicate of Electricity, later to amalgamate with the Westinghouse Syndicate. The Jews Herz and Baron Jacques de Reinach bribed politicians in relation to the Panama Canal project (scam), and thereby knew that many Deputies had "some dark, undiscovered stain, some 'Panama' or other" before the scandal broke late in 1892. Of the three Reinach brothers, Théodore (1860-1928) was the secretary of S.E.J. for "many years", Salomon (1858-1932) published various articles in the S.E.J.'s Revue and served as its president (as well as a vice president of the Alliance Israélite Universelle), and Joseph (1856-1921), a protégé of Gambetta in 1881, was elected to the Chamber of Deputies in 1889, and re-elected in 1893.

Baron Jacob Jacques Adolphe de Reinach (1840-1892), the banker and chief bribe dispenser who apparently killed himself as the Panama Canal scandal broke, was the cousin of the above three brothers. Often described as their "uncle", he was also Joseph's father-in-law. Jacques was the son of Baron Adolphe von / de Reinach (December 4, 1814 - 1879), who was the twin brother of the Paris banker Hermann-Joseph Reinach (b. December 4, 1814), both being the sons of Joseph Jacob Reinach (1781-1856). Hermann-Joseph was the father of the brothers Théodore, Salomon and Joseph Reinach, and so the brothers were first cousins of Baron Jacques de Reinach, all four sharing the grandfather Joseph Jacob Reinach. Jacques de Reinach's daughter Henriette-Clémentine married the eldest brother Joseph Reinach, and so Jacques was also Joseph's father-in-law.

Rather than information being passed from Herz to Rothschild to Kahn to Loeb, it's more likely that one of the Reinach brothers simply informed Loeb about how the "goyim" had been bribed, when both happened to be working in the S.E.J. library some day and the brother was recounting his cousin's / "uncle's" Panama Canal exploits. So then Loeb decided to make a comment about it in Protocol No. 10 for the impending address at the international Jewish conference, which was still to be organized.

Of the other founder members of La Société des Études Juives, Charles Netter died on Oct. 2, 1882. Arsène Darmesteter died on Nov. 16, 1888, but he turned away from religion and believed that science was destined to transform and unite humanity. His keen interest in philology doesn't match the subject matter in the Protocols. And James Edouard de Rothschild died in 1881. Alphonse would probably not have involved his son Edouard (b. 1868) in the Protocols compilation, probably only informing him later. Alphonse's younger brother Edmond (1845-1934) was involved in financing the early Jewish settlements in Palestine, and while Edmond was probably aware of the conspiracy, there is no requirement that he played a significant part in it. By 1917, Durkheim was the only one of the prime suspects left alive, and he was to die on the very day that Bolshevik power reached Moscow, from what has been variously described as a "heart attack", a "stroke", or "cancer", before there was any chance of him speaking out when the horrors of Bolshevism became evident in the course of the following year.

In November 1917, at the time of Durkheim's death, Edmond and Édouard were two surviving Rothschilds who were aware of how their dynasty's program for world conquest had been documented, nearly thirty years previously, and aware that terrible events were imminent in Russia. The Rus(sians) would soon learn what happens to those who drive the Khazars out of their beloved kingdom of Khazaria; Tsar Alexander I's descendants would soon find out what happens to those who thwart the Rothschilds' plans for world government at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, and Russian merchants would soon know what happens to those who cross the Rothschilds by pirating their wine brand in the late 1880s. The world was about to witness a social science experiment that was doomed to failure, and to see how revolution-for-profit worked out.

The First Zionist Congress fringe meetings of 1897, at which the Protocols formed a series of lectures, were probably attended by a select few in a hotel room in Basle. And there would have been no secretary taking the minutes; the Protocols themselves served as the minutes. The attendees were probably all Hebrew-speaking, Talmud-thumping fanatics who believed in "the diminution, the killing out of the goyim" - the sort of thugs who would later go on to commit atrocities in Russia, and later blow up the King David Hotel in Palestine, shoot up the USS Liberty in international waters, target UN observers, Red Cross ambulances, children playing on a Gaza beach, and so on. At the very least, when Bolshevik atrocities became evident in 1918, they would not be expected to start talking about what they'd heard in Basle, twenty-one years previously. Also, there is a difference between merely hearing someone read out someone else's work, and creating the work in the first place. Durkheim, as a compiler of the Protocols, would still be quite familiar with the program 29 years on, whereas those who had merely heard the lectures in 1897 would have forgotten much of the material 21 years later. Moreover, there is Dr. Yuri Begunov's investigation of the Bernese archive on the Protocols and finding that Alfred Nossig - who was later murdered as a "Jewish traitor" - had attended the First Zionist Congress, and later revealed that the Protocols was discussed there in French.

It's possible, but not necessary, that Loeb would have approved of "the diminution, the killing out of the goyim". If so, then Loeb could have inserted that comment; if not, then Rothschild could have put it in when making the final touches, along with adding some financial commentary, e.g., about the "gold standard". Either way, Loeb died in 1892, so there was no chance of him speaking out when Jewish Bolsheviks butchered the "goyim".

The Derenbourg (Derenburg) family deserve a place on the list of Protocols compiler suspects. Joseph Derenbourg (1811-1895) was quite a prolific writer, whose works included Talmud, in the Encyclopédie des Sciences Religieuses, by Lichtenberger, xii., Paris (1882); Commentaire de Maïmonide sur la Mischnah, Seder Tohorot, 3 parts, Berlin (1887-89); Johannis de Capua Directorium Humanæ Vitæ, Alias Parabola Antiquorum Sapientum, Paris (1889). There are some similarities with Durkheim's career. To the age of thirteen, Joseph Derenbourg's education was confined exclusively to rabbinical studies, and then he decided not to become a rabbi. After gaining a PhD, a part of his career in the 1850s included proof-reader of Oriental texts at the Imprimerie Impériale. The 1898 Revue des Études Juives includes a detailed biography of Joseph, mentioning how his father educated him in Bible and Talmud for eight hours a day, from the age of five to thirteen. Joseph and his son Hartwig (b. 1844, Paris) were involved with La Société des Études Juives. Joseph is listed as one of the S.E.J. presidents. Hartwig was a member of the central committee of the Alliance Israélite Universelle, and became president of the Société des Etudes Juives in 1890. However, he was preoccupied with investigating Arabic manuscripts. And Joseph had problems with his eyesight since the end of 1876. He was still writing for a limited time each day around 1885-1887, but soon he was just dictating letters and signing his signature. Then there was not even a signature, so by the time of the Protocols' composition, his affliction had probably already ruled him out as a suitable candidate to carry out a plagiarism job.

Israel Lévi (1856-1939), secretary of La Société des Études Juives in 1880, was a close confidant of Zadoc Kahn, and the grand rabbi of France (1920-1939). But there's nothing really to link him to the Protocols.

Nathan Birnbaum (1864-1937), who coined the term "Zionist" in 1890 and spoke at the First Zionist Congress, was associated with the cultural rather than the political side of Zionism. In his Gottes Volk ("God's People"), Birnbaum wrote of how he was calling for deeds until "the end of days when the mountain of the house of the Lord will be established at the top of the hills and all the nations will stream to it (Isaiah 2:2)." He claimed "there must come a time when G-d will hearken to man's longing to be saved from the tragedy of these contradictions, from the pains of failure. The divine plan of world government must provide for this salvation -". Birnbaum certainly was in every way the crazed religious nut who, like the Protocols writer, dreamed of a day when a world government would be established, the Jews would have come into their kingdom, and could impose their twisted values and beliefs upon normal people. However, Birnbaum was living in Vienna, not France, which appears to rule him out as the Protocols writer.

The First Zionist Congress attendees from France were I. Bahar (Paris), Mrs. Blanche Bahar (Paris), F. Beer (Paris, a sculptor), L. Buchmil (Montpellier), B. Katzmann (Montpellier), A. Ludwipol (Paris), Izchak Mirkin (Paris on survivors' list, Montpellier), Dr. M. Nordau (Paris), M. Padua (Paris), M. Ch. Schornstein, Paris, Dr. E. Valentin, Montpellier. See here, here and here for the list.

(Incidentally, it was of course 1860 when Jews founded their Alliance Israélite Universelle. A "Dr." Alexander Bein, in the Jubilee of the First Zionist Congress, claims it was 1870. These blundering buffoons are so busy trying to concoct fake variations of history to peddle to the Gentiles for political and business purposes that they can't even remember their own history!)

Max Nordau, (1849–1923), co-founder of the World Zionist Organization, is an interesting suspect for the Protocols author in some regards. He attended the First Zionist Congress in 1897, was based in France, and his address is shown as "Paris" on the list of attendees. But he seems to be ruled out by the following review of his Der Sinn der Gesittung ("The Essence of Civilization"), written in 1920 and published in 1932: "Nordau argued the case of 'solidaritarian socialism', which assigns to private property its proper limits without, however, abolishing it. Nordau regarded Communism as entirely unacceptable and, in its Bolshevik form, as 'socialism gone mad'."

However, the Jewish bankers didn't need to believe in communism in order to exploit it to make a killing for themselves. No one apart from a few impressionable youths and fanatics could possibly imagine that communism would prove successful and lead to a Utopia. Even Marx must have been smart enough to know that his Das Kapital "consists predominantly of nonsense", is "the biggest pile of flapdoodle ever written", and was never anything more than a scam for the enrichment and empowerment of Jews. According to an official report by Captain Peter Wright, "Bolshevism spells business for poor Jews; innumerable posts in a huge administration; endless regulations, theref for the Bolsheviks punish heavily, every offence being treated as a form of treason; but big profits. The rich bourgeois Jew also manages to get on with it in his own way, 'Jiidische Weise' as the Jews call bribery. Many Jews who are by no means poor, try at the present time to escape into Russia, so fine are the business prospects." Of course, in response, the Jewish press denounced Captain Wright's report as a "libel against the Jews of Poland", admitted that it had become history, and added that "it certainly would have been better if 'history' had not been made."

Although an opposition to communism wouldn't necessarily rule out authorship of the Protocols, stronger suspects than Nordau have already been mentioned above.

Finally, two more French Jews worthy of mention as suspects are Henry Blowitz (1825-1903), the Bohemian-born journalist who moved to France and became the chief Paris correspondent of the London Times, and Maurice von Hirsch (1831-1896), who was born in Munich and inherited a considerable fortune. Hirsch, whilst only supposed to be a clerk, became the "master mind" of Bischoffsheim & Goldschmidt, the Brussels international banking house, which had offices in London and Paris, and would eventually grow into Paribas following mergers. He made a lot of money on his own account by embarking on railway enterprises and speculating in sugar and copper. His main residences were in Paris, and he donated large sums to the Alliance Israélite Universelle, including a million francs in 1873 alone. Like the Rothschilds, he "moved among European nobility"; his family were court bankers. But he refused to help Herzl's Political Zionism, since he regarded the creation of a Jewish state as a "fantasy".

However, the strongest evidence for authorship of the Protocols points to Émile Durkheim and Isidore Loeb.

The evidence in favor of Jewry's Protocols forgery theory could be written on the back of a postage stamp: (i) Plagiarism. (ii) The Jews say so. And ironically, both of those are evidence for authenticity, given Jewry's powerful motives for plagiarism, and Jewry's extensive record of lying. On the other hand, a summary of the evidence in favor of authenticity is so extensive that a separate page has been dedicated to it.

There remains plenty of mystery - the actual writers are not confirmed. Was there really a series of fringe meetings at which the Protocols was read out? If so, who was/were the speaker(s)? Who were the attendees? These remaining questions do not alter the inescapable conclusion that Jews authored the Protocols to document an international Jewish conspiracy.

Jewry's attempts to refute the Protocols have just about come to the end of the road. The Protocols documentation exists as evidence for a Jewish conspiracy, corresponds with external events that prove the existence of a Jewish conspiracy, and the burden of proof rests with those who are attempting to refute it. After more than ninety years of trying, Jewry has singularly failed to do so.

Continue to Volume Two: The "Holocaust"

Return to Introduction