Evidence for the authenticity of the Protocols of Zion
- Jews had more motive for plagiarism than "anti-Semites"; Jews needed a
contingency plan in event of discovery that would allow them to cry
"forgery" and blame "anti-Semites" for authorship.
- Around 1889 at the time of the Protocols' compilation, Alphonse de
Rothschild found that Russian merchants were pirating his wine brand by
cheap wine and forging "Lafite Rothschild" labels, which served as
inspiration for Rothschild's contingency plan of plagiarism so as to be able
to play the "forgery" card.
- The similarity of several parallel passages is so strikingly obvious
that it is indicative of 'evidence' deliberately being planted in such a way
to guarantee its discovery, rather than an "anti-Semite" on a rush job.
- The Okhrana archives were saved, shipped to the US, and were made
available to researchers at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University,
California, more than 50 years ago. There is zero evidence of a conspiracy
to create the Protocols, and there is no evidence of "anti-Semitism".
- Jews have a long history of resorting to plagiarism, and Rabbi Avraham Yosef, son of the late Rabbi Ovadia Yosef,
says that plagiarising academic papers is permitted under Jewish law. French
Chief Rabbi Gilles Bernheim, an Ashkenazi Jew,
was found to have "long passages" in his 2011 book
Forty Jewish Meditations that "repeated word for word an earlier book by
the eminent philosopher Jean-François Lyotard."
And Bernheim, who lied about his academic credentials when he claimed to
have a doctorate in philosophy, even stooped to plagiarising Elie Wiesel!
The actor Shia LaBeouf, born to a Jewish mother, was such a habitual plagiarist
that after one particular instance of having been caught, his apology was
itself found to have been
lifted from a 2010 post on Yahoo! Answers, and Time Magazine ran a piece entitled
A Brief History of Shia LaBeouf Copying the Work of Others, citing no
less than fourteen examples.
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.
- Jews have a long history as forgers. The Jewish "historian" Flavius
Josephus (approx. 37-100 CE) quoted and summarized material that he
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."
- Jews have a long history as liars. Around 2,000 years ago, they were lying about their origins to justify a Jewish settlement in Egypt. Today, they lie about their origins
when they claim that most Jews, even most Ashkenazi Jews, are of Semitic
heritage (known as the "Rhineland hypothesis"), in an attempt to legitimize their disastrous annexing of Palestine. The fact is that the vast majority of today's "Jews" are descended
from the Khazars, a Turkic Asiatic tribe, and the 20th century's lies about
their origins were merely a political ploy to grab themselves
8,000 square miles of Palestinian land.
A 2012 study published in a
peer-reviewed journal by Eran Elhaik, a Jewish Israeli-born molecular
geneticist, demolished the fraudulent Rhineland hypothesis, and
concluded: "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)."
- Jews have a long history of deception. The motto of Israel's Mossad is
"By Way Of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War". There is
overwhelming evidence of Israel's
central role in the 9/11 terror attacks, all from mainstream sources and
an FBI report, and the best proof, often
overlooked due to technical discussions on how "office fires" supposedly
brought about the total collapse of three steel-framed 110-story or 47-story high-rises on the same day,
when it had never happened before and has never happened since, is the fact
that three Israeli Jews - Oded Ellner, Yaron Shmuel and Sivan Kurzberg - had proven
foreknowledge of the attacks on the World Trade Center, knew that both
Towers would be hit, and were celebrating the attacks by high-fiving,
hugging each other, holding up a
lighted lighter like they were at a rock concert,
telling macabre jokes, and
grinning like Cheshire cats (the FBI reported that "the
Israelis are visibly happy on nearly all of the" "76"
photographs that they took). They claimed to have read about the first plane crash on the
internet whilst at their "moving company" offices, but were seen atop their
Urban Moving Systems van with their cameras filming the attacks and
celebrating at the Doric
apartment block, 100 Manhattan Avenue, Union City, New Jersey, within four-and-a-half
minutes of the first plane crash and before the news had even broken on 1010
WINS, the local AM news station. Even at the best of times - and this was a
Tuesday morning rush hour before 9 a.m. - it's a four- to five-minute drive from 3 West 18th
Street, Weehawken, where UMS had its offices, to the Doric apartment block
in Union City.
From the roof of UMS, the top of the North Tower was visible, but the South
Tower was obscured by the North. Ellner subsequently admitted under FBI
questioning that they made the decision to go to Doric because it "gave them
a view of the entire length of both towers". Thus, the decision to go to
Doric was taken not only before news broke of the first plane crash, but
before any innocent person knew the South Tower would also be hit! Of course,
it's patently obvious that the Israelis were in fact already at Doric with their
cameras already set up when the first Tower was hit. Ellner would later admit on Israeli
TV, when safely out of reach of US authorities, that "our job was to
document the event". By the time they were arrested on the afternoon of
9/11/01, the Israelis must have offloaded the video camera, possibly at
White Glove Movers of 930 Newark Avenue, Jersey City.
- Their well-honed skills in plagiarism, forgery, lying and
deception could be employed to document their plans for Jewish imperialism and world conquest
in a format that could be read out at a series of fringe meetings held at
the same time as a Jewish international political conference, to sell the
revolutionary program to prospective financial backers, whilst at the
same having a built-in contingency plan in the event of discovery. Previous
books would be plagiarised, and the final work "forged" to look like the
product of "anti-Semitic" "forgers" who'd fabricated it to seem as if it
were the minutes of the official meetings at the international conference.
- The Protocols is far more than just a simple plagiarism; it's a superb
blueprint for world conquest, padded with blindingly obvious plagiarism.
- All of Jewry's various conflicting conspiracy theories about the
compilation of the Protocols have fatal chronological problems; they are not
in accordance with the laws of causality.
- One of the star witnesses (Princess Radziwill) for Jewry's forgery conspiracy theory
convicted forger, fraudster, briber, blackmailer and jailbird, who tried to
conceal her past by concocting an amusing story about having a "dead" "double".
- Another of the star witnesses (Count du Chayla) for Jewry's forgery conspiracy theory
convicted traitor and a two-faced liar, with a reputation as a "swindler".
- Another of the star witnesses (Mrs. Henrietta Hurlbut) for Jewry's forgery conspiracy theory
gold-digging legacy chaser.
- Jewry continued to channel their asinine conspiracy theory through the
convicted forger for at least fourteen years after her antics had been
thoroughly exposed. For example, Princess Radziwill's scams go back at least to 1900 when she claimed to have been
robbed of jewellery worth ten thousand pounds,
and it turned out that the
were merely paste, and the real jewels were in a safe place.
In December 1921, Radziwill was held in $1,000 bail after failing to pay
a hotel bill of $1,239, and Assistant D.A. Gibbs
told Magistrate Levine that
she'd served eighteen months in the South Africa House of Detention
swindling Cecil Rhodes in a forgery of $200,000. It is inconceivable that
the finest brains of World Jewry were all too dense to see through her act
for another fourteen years, up until the 1935 Berne trial.
- A group of people who had been wrongly accused - e.g. of conspiring to
achieve world conquest and of documenting their program for world conquest -
and were attempting to set the record straight and clear their reputation
would have honest characters testifying in their support; they would not
select a convicted fraudster, a convicted traitor, and a money-grubbing
coffin chaser to convey the evidence.
- A group of people who were seeking world conquest, and whose documented
program for world conquest had been discovered and publicly exposed, would
employ dubious characters whom they could pay to lie for them, such as a
convicted fraudster, a convicted traitor, and a money-grubbing coffin
- The Protocols' plan to have the press in their hands corresponds to the
fact that, by their own admission, Jews dominate the mainstream media.
- The Protocols' plan to control newspapers representing all shades of
political opinion corresponds to the fact that Jews control newspapers and
TV channels representing all shades of political opinion, so that those who
repeat the opinion of any one of them is merely following the flag that Jews
hang out for them.
- As in the Protocols, presidents and prime ministers of Western
"democracies" are simply puppets
who - upon election - invariably adopt policies that benefit organized Jewry, Israel, Zionism
and the Rothschilds, such as a "War on Terror" that has these
fighting Muslim nations. In those rare instances where a president opposes
the Rothschilds' interests, such as
JFK's opposition to Israel
weapons, or Saddam's
rebellion against the petrodollar system, it does not fare well for them.
- The Protocols' plan for Jews to appear "as alleged saviours of the
worker" from the "oppression" of "merciless money-grinding scoundrels"
corresponds to the fact that revolutionary Jews such as Trotsky and Lenin,
financed by Jewish bankers such as Jacob Schiff and Max Warburg, appeared in
Russia as alleged saviours of the worker and proposed that the worker enter
the fighting ranks of their communists, prior to Jews looting the nation and
wreaking havoc. 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,
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 admission in the Protocols that the Jews are interested in "the
diminution, the killing out of the goyim" corresponds to the deaths of
tens of millions of Gentiles in the USSR and in two World Wars, and is
consistent with the behavior of Jews who have Gentiles lined up in their
sights, e.g., USS Liberty, Arabs, Christians, peace
activists, UN observers, Red Cross ambulance drivers, etc.
- The Protocols' plan to subdue the nation-state by setting up a
"Super-Government Administration" corresponds to the setting up of the
League of Nations, the United Nations, NAFTA, the European Union, etc.
- The Protocols' plan to bring about a rise in wages that would not
benefit the worker because of prices rises corresponds to the fact that
inflation rocketed in Russia in 1917, with prices in 1917 being four times
higher than in 1914.
- The frequent boasts in the Protocols about having "the gold [...] in our
hands" corresponds to the Rothschilds' obsession with gold, and their
amassing of around $2 billion by 1900 at 1900 prices.
- The Protocols' plans for the Jews to operate as moneylenders who exploit
over-spending by the "goy" governments corresponds with the fact that in
1910 the Jew Paul Warburg drafted much of the plan to set up the
privately-owned Federal Reserve Banks, Rothschild proxies have a controlling
interest in the stock, there hasn't been a non-Jewish chairman of the
Federal Reserve since 1987, and the US public debt now exceeds 100% of GDP.
- Discussion in the Protocols of how "wealthy foreigners" would benefit
from lending money to governments, with the "poor taxpayers" having to pick
up the tab so that the money would flow into the Jews' "cash-boxes", is
consistent with the fact that the Rothschilds made substantial profits from
foreign loans operations.
- A reference in the Protocols to "repeated discussions" of how
"anti-Semitism is indispensable to us" correspond to Herzl's statements of
how "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." It is not consistent with an "anti-Semitic" Russian
secret police agent on a rush job who didn't even have time to disguise his
plagiarism, and would not have had time to research the Jewish mindset.
- The reference in the Protocols to how the conspirators "have in [their]
service persons of all opinions, of all doctrines, restoration monarchists,
demagogues, socialists, communists, and utopian dreamers of every kind"
is consistent with the existence of right-wingers, left-wingers, liberals,
republicans, monarchists, etc., who all perform as assets of Jewry.
- The Protocols' reference to having "merciless vengeance, hatreds and
malice" as "weapons in [their] hands" for "the diminution,
the killing out of the goyim" corresponds to the subsequent
"diminution" and "killing out" of tens of millions of Russian Christians in the decades
following the Jewish Bolshevik takeover of Russia; the choice of Russia as
target was in revenge for
the Rus' having
driven the Asiatic Khazars out of
their beloved kingdom of Khazaria around 1,000 years ago, and all ties up with
the fact that most of today's "Jews"
- including all of Israel's prime ministers -
are descendants of the Khazars.
- The Protocols' reference to "the "all-engulfing terror" corresponds to
Stalin's Great Terror, and, more recently, Jewish false-flag terror
operations such as 9/11,
and others. It is most definitely not consistent with Joly's Machiavelli
saying, "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."
Protocol No. 2's statement: "...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" is consistent
with how the Rothschilds got rich from profiteering from various battles and wars from Waterloo to the war in Iraq,
and from tricking the "goyim" into fighting each other, with Jewish
control of the press playing an increasingly important part of the deceit. The
"oceans of blood and tears" refers to the fate of those hapless "goyim" who were
killed, crippled and wounded in wars for Jewry.
- The Protocols' prediction of an economic crisis, which would "stop
dealings on the exchanges and bring industry to a standstill", and "throw
upon the streets whole mobs of workers simultaneously in all the countries
of Europe" is consistent with The Great Depression, starting with the Stock
Market Crash of "Black Tuesday" on October 29, 1929, which led to the
unemployment of the Thirties.
Protocol No. 3's statement: "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"
is consistent with the fact that the Ashkenazi Jew Marx called the French
Revolution the "old" and "great" revolution, and with the fact that
Jews such as Haym Salomon of Portuguese Sephardic heritage, 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, financed the American Revolution, that -
according to Lord Acton - served as "the spark that changed thought into
action" in France, and brought about the French Revolution.
The fact that the Protocols writer boasted about starting the French
Revolution is certainly not consistent with a scenario in which the
Protocols was an Okhrana forgery and Jews had nothing to do with the French
Revolution, because in such a scenario there would be no evidence to support
the claim and no motive for the "forger" to boast that "his" group of
supposed Jewish supremacists were behind the Revolution, since the "forger"
has a motive to make his document look credible with points that could be
The fact that the Protocols writer boasted about starting the French
Revolution is consistent with a scenario in which the Protocols is an
authentic Jewish creation and Jews orchestrated the French Revolution,
because in such a scenario, it's only natural that the Protocols writer
would boast about starting the Revolution, and the writer has no need to
sell his assertions to his co-religionists, who are well aware of how they
orchestrated the Revolution, whatever evidence happened to be in the public
The fact that the Protocols writer bragged 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" is
consistent with a scenario in which the Protocols is an authentic Jewish
creation, Jews orchestrated the French Revolution, and Jews were in fact the
first to cry, 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,' whatever the evidence in the
public domain; it is not consistent with a scenario in which the Protocols
was an Okhrana forgery, since a forger would have no motive to insert a
claim that could not be verified.
Protocol No. 4's statement: "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" is consistent with Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise's
The Israelite of America:
"Masonry is a Jewish institution whose history, degrees, charges, passwords and
explanations are Jewish from beginning to end", and with Jews'
admissions that by "the middle of the 18th
century Jews joined the lodges, not only in England but also in Holland,
France, and Germany".
Protocol No. 1's prediction of Jews getting into their 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" is consistent with how the Russian
aristocracy, in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution, came to be called the
with how the French Revolution's Reign of Terror forced the aristocratic
classes to flee or face the guillotine, and with how in England, the
proportion of the land owned by the landed aristocracy declined from more
than half in 1880 to
a quarter or less
Protocol No. 17's statement: "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..." is
consistent with Jewry's long-standing hatred of Christianity and of using
their puppets in government and the judiciary to do everything they can to
weaken it, such as penalizing a Christian counselor who refused to advise
gay couples and ordering a New York court clerk to issue same-sex marriage
Protocol No. 17's statement: "...as to other religions we shall have
still less difficulty in dealing with them, but it would be premature to
speak of this now" predicts how, more than a century after the
compilation of the Protocols, and in the wake of a Jewish false-flag terror operation
targeting the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Jewish press went on
to establish Muslims as the villains. There's no mention of that in Joly or
Protocol No. 13's statement: "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..." predicted reality TV and game
shows, more than 35 years before John Logie Baird's public demonstrations in
the mid 1920s. There's no mention of that in Joly or Goedsche.
Protocol No. 14's statement: "In countries known as progressive and
enlightened we have created a senseless, filthy, abominable literature"
foresaw how Jews such as Al Goldstein, Reuben Sturman and Seth
Warshavsky would go on to become the top players in the pornography industry.
There's no mention of that in Joly or Goedsche.
The Protocols' frequent boasts of how the Jews are supposedly superior to
the "goyim", 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", is consistent with the
opinions of a Jewish supremacist indoctrinated and radicalized by the
Talmud, is consistent with Talmud statements such as: "The Jews are human
beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts" (Baba Mecia 114, 6), is consistent with the views of a religious fanatic such
as Rabbi Ovadia Yosef: "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," and is not consistent with the writing expected of a Russian
secret police agent who was on a rush job to plagiarise Joly or Goedsche.
As Bernard Lazare, an honest Jew, said: "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
the world wherever there are or have been Jews such an opinion, it has seemed to
could not spring from a mere whim or fancy, but must be the effect of deep and
deposition by Philip Stepanov that he had a manuscript copy of the Protocols
in his possession by 1895 is inconsistent with Jewry's old conspiracy theory
- as proposed by Princess Radziwill - that the Protocols was "forged" in
1905, and with Jewry's modern conspiracy theory that Golovinski "forged" the
Protocols at "the end of 1900 or in 1901"
- as proposed by Mikhail Lépekhine and Eric Conan.
The allegation that Rachkovsky helped to compile the Protocols in Paris
in 1905 is inconsistent with the fact that Rachkovsky left Paris and the
secret police in November, 1902, and was based at St. Petersburg, not Paris,
throughout his final spell in the secret police from
July 1905 to
The allegation that Rachkovsky headed a project to forge the Protocols is
inconsistent with testimony by his son Andrej, who 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.
Claims by Jewry's eyewitnesses Radziwill, du Chayla and Hurlbut that they
saw a manuscript of the Protocols with a blue ink stain are inconsistent
with the fact that 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, and there was no ink blotch on either the
French or Russian translation of the Protocols.
Testimony by A.S. Spiridovich, who knew Rachkovsky personally,
corroborates testimony elsewhere about Rachkovsky never exhibiting any
"anti-Semitism" and having Jews as friends and collaborators - such as "the Jew Gol'shman"
who was Rachkovsky's secretary, and the Jew "Gekkel'man" who was Rachkovsky's "chief assistant",
and is inconsistent with the allegation of Rachkovsky being in charge of a
conspiracy to forge the Protocols to smear the Jews.
The claim that the Russian secret service forged the Protocols is
inconsistent with the fact that the revolutionary Jew Leonid Menschikoff told of how he infiltrated the Russian
secret service, had access to secret documents and the ability to copy them, and "remain[ed]
for twenty years in the enemy's camp", throughout the entire period that
Jewry assures us that the Okhrana forged the Protocols, yet Menschikoff
remained completely oblivious to this "forgery" operation that was
supposedly going on right under his nose.
In the German .pdf report of the Berne trial
(p. 71 of 203, section V),
Boris Nicolaevsky, one of Jewry's witnesses,
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 Counte
du Chayla were very well known, but Jewry pretended not to know that!
The fact that Jewry never employed people to work through the Berne
trial transcript, make a fresh, clear digitized copy, translate into
various languages and put them online, shows that they don't believe the
Berne trial proceedings would convince any fair-minded person that the
Protocols was a forgery, which is not consistent with the Protocols being a
The Berne trial's failure to serve as a convincing proof of forgery is
even more glaringly at odds with the position that the Protocols was a
forgery, given that the judge was in the pocket of the Jews. As evidence of
the judge's allegiance, he allowed nineteen (19) witnesses for the Jews
(including three cited but unable to attend court) in 1934 but only
one for the defense, whilst refusing dozens of witnesses that the defense
wanted to call. (See part 3 of
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.
Jewry's lackeys never let facts get in the way of a good piece of
Given that Princess Radziwill was a known fraudster and liar who was in
need of money and had already "built up contacts with influential people in
the journalistic world" in the 1890s or earlier, and there is no dispute
that Jews are and were "influential [...] in the journalistic world", Jewry
had the means, motive and opportunity to employ Radziwill as one of their
propaganda agents to plug their "forgery" conspiracy theory.
Given that Henrietta Hurlbut was an associate of Princess Radziwill, and
in late 1920 needed money for her lawsuit to attempt to win a bigger share of a $1.7
million legacy from Mrs. Frank Leslie (Baroness de Bazus), Jewry had the
means, motive and opportunity to employ Hurlbut in March 1921 as one of their propaganda
agents to plug their "forgery" conspiracy theory.
The fact that Hurlbut's story contradicts Radziwill's
account - by way of Radziwill claiming Golowinsky was the "proud" secret police agent
who called on her and showed the
manuscript to her and her friends, whilst Hurlbut said, "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...", and Hurlbut said she could "substantiate Princess Radziwill's
account in every detail" - is not conducive to the idea that Radziwill and
Hurlbut were credible witnesses.
The fact that Paris registry records had no trace of a Princess
Radziwill residing on the Champs-Élysées in 1904-5, which is where Hurlbut
claimed Radziwill had a home, does not support Hurlbut's testimony.
If the Russian secret police were hard at work in Paris in 1905 forging
an anti-Semitic tract for political purposes, they would not 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. And they would not show it to the fraudster's friends, too!
Jewry's forgery conspiracy theory has the Jew Ivan Manasevich-Manuilov
involved in forging the Protocols, in which case 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 were "forged" to make people hate the Jews by
claiming a Jew helped to forge the Protocols to make people hate the Jews!
Princess Radziwill denied that any of the Csars were
murdered by Jews,
which demonstrates that her allegiance was to Jewry, rather than to Russia,
country of birth.
Count du Chayla's remarks to the Russian lady Tatiana Fermor on the
theme of how "One
must have a good pogrom in Russia" is in sharp contrast to du Chayla's
subsequent testifying in defense of the Jews against the Protocols, but du Chayla's
is entirely consistent with his being convicted of treason after it was found
he was running articles that praised the achievements of the March
Revolution and attacked the Whites whilst he was chief of propaganda for the
Don Cossack Corps of General Wrangel's army.
The convicted traitor du Chayla's allegation that "Madame K"
was Nilus's source for the Protocols via Rachkovsky is contradicted by
Sergei Svatikov's testimony that "Madame K" was Madame Komarowsky,
together with a July
13, 1936 statement by Rachkovsky's son Andrej that his father had never been acquainted with Madame Komarowsky.
The fact that convicted traitor du Chayla was paid 4,000 Swiss francs
(32,105 CHF or ~ $35,000 at 2013 prices) to attend the Berne trial in 1934
is hardly conducive to an independent, unbiased testimony.
The historian Boris Nicolaevsky admitted privately that he believed Count
du Chayla was a "swindler" who knew nothing about the origin of the
Jewry's allegation of the Protocols being a "forgery" by the Russian
secret police is contradicted by the unbiased historians Charles A. Ruud and
Sergei A. Stepanov who, after evaluating the historical evidence, conclude
that the Protocols is not a product of the Russian secret police. At the
end of chapter 10, p. 224, Fontanka 16, 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." And p. 203: "...solid data on the
actual publication of the Protocols before the revolution
the thesis of Okhranka involvement."
According to Professor Yuri K. 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. This supports the Sukhotin
/ Stepanov 1895/1897 early history of the Protocols, and is inconsistent
with Jewry's claims of a "forgery" in 1900/1901 or 1905.
According to Professor Begunov, Alfred Nossig, who attended the First
Zionist Congress, revealed how the Protocols was being discussed there in
French, which also corroborates the existence of the Protocols in 1897, and
refutes Jewry's allegations of a forgery in 1900 or later. Nossig was eventually murdered by Jews,
after being accused of working for the Gestapo - at the age of 76 - and of being a
which is consistent with him revealing information that organized Jewry
wanted to keep under wraps.
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, as pointed out by Dr. Revilo P. Oliver. The original Protocols manuscript was
in French, which contradicts the claim of a forgery by the secret police.
As conceded by Norman Cohn, a Jew and forgery conspiracy theorist, in
addition to the fact that the Okhrana archives at the
Hoover Institution, Stanford University, reveal no evidence of a plot to forge
the Protocols, Rachkovsky's
private archives in Paris (now lost) also revealed nothing when Boris
Nicolaevsky inspected them in the 1930s.
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, is evidence of non-involvement by the Okhranka
or any other government agency.
The documented September 28, 1905
by Moscow censor S.I. Sokolov
to reject Nilus's plans to publish the Protocols as a "short" book on
grounds that it could "lead to the annihilation" of Jews is evidence of
non-involvement by the Okhranka or any other government agency.
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, is not consistent with the Protocols being a forgery.
The fact that "anti-Semitic" extremists had vowed to kill Rachkovsky's
"political master and patron" Sergey Witte, for being too soft on the Jews,
is not consistent with Rachkovsky having a hand in crafting an "anti-Semitic" tract
designed to foment hatred against Jews.
When the Protocols was written in the late 19th century, most of the
Rothschild fortune was in France (e.g., in 1874,
Paris branch had £20,087,652 out of the total of £34,358,562), and the Protocols' many
references to French affairs, along with the first manuscript being in
French, indicate a French writer.
Both the Protocols writer and Alphonse Rothschild, the top Rothschild
at the time the Protocols was written, were opponents of the gold standard.
Protocol No. 10 describes a plan to "arrange elections in favor of such
presidents as have in their past some dark, undiscovered stain, some
'Panama' or other"; the Jews Baron Jacques de Reinach (a banker), Cornelius Herz,
[Émile] Arton were all heavily implicated in the Panama Canal Scandal as bribers
("bribe dispensers"). And Ferdinand de Lesseps' banker Marcel Lévy-Crémieux,
who was initially the scheme's first financial agent before de Reinach took
over upon his death, was also Jewish. Alphonse Rothschild was a business
associate and financial backer of Herz (e.g., they co-founded the American
Syndicate of Electricity).
Léon Bourgeois, one of the Elders' "best agents" according to Protocol
No. 16, was accused of involvement in the Panama scandal, and went on to
have a glittering career in politics spanning five decades. He introduced
"teaching by object lessons", was a "long-standing
member of the most influential of France's Freemason lodges, the Grand
Orient", which explains how he could have been recruited as an agent for
Jewry. In 1920 he was President of the Council of the League of Nations, and
in 1923 responded to critics of the League by declaring it was "materially impossible"
for it to be or become a "Super-State", thereby helping with Protocol No.
5's plan to set up a "Super-Government Administration" that would help to
destroy the nation-state and prepare the way for world government, following
insane policies from the European Union such as banning vacuum cleaners over
1,600 watts, supposedly to "save energy" and counter "global warming".
Alphonse Rothschild founded the Caspian-Black Sea Oil Industry and Trade
Society in 1883, going on to become a leading player in the Baku oil boom.
After his death in 1905, ownership passed to his younger brother Edmond. The
Protocols predicted a Jewish "communist" revolution. In 1912, the
sold their Baku oil interests to Shell, clearing a profit of
around ten million roubles (then worth $5 million), in advance of ensuing geopolitical events
- WWI and the Bolshevik Jewish communist Revolution -
that, as "innocent" Jews, they were not supposed to be aware of.
In Protocol No. 2, the writer boasts about "the successes we arranged
for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism", following a remark in the previous
paragraph of how "we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind
confidence in these theories." In 1887 and 1888 Friedrich Nietzsche
corresponded with Georg Brandes (1842–1927), a
whose real name was
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." In Danish literary
history in the 1870s, Brandes spearheaded a movement known as 'The Modern
Breakthrough', advocating naturalism in literature; they
Darwin as providing the chief ideological material for their literary revolution. Jens
Peter Jacobsen wasn't Jewish, but was "greatly influenced" by Georg Brandes,
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...".
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.
Evidence points to two Jewish writers of the Protocols: (i) a
politically-minded, possibly secular member of the Jewish "intellectual
class", whose job was to plagiarise Joly and insert his own material, to
draw up the plans for bringing about revolution and a sinister Machiavellian
despotism. (ii) a Talmud-thumping religious bigot, who thought "Darwinism"
was a false theory in which the "goyim" had a "blind confidence"
rather than a theory that was successful because it was right,
subscribed to the Biblical view in the second half of Isaiah that the Jews
would inherit the earth's riches whilst the Gentiles would come flocking to
worship the Jews and bring them tribute (e.g. 60:12 "For the nation and
kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be
utterly wasted", or 61:5 "And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks,
and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers"), and
whose job was to plagiarise Goedsche and insert his own material.
Golovinski didn't even get to Paris until 1896, so even if Jewry's
latest conspiracy theory of Golovinski writing the Protocols in 1900/1901
is wrong and Golovinski had improbably managed to finish the Protocols in the same
year he arrived in Paris, he is still writing the Protocols a year after Stepanov and Sukhotin already have the Protocols.
Jewry's story is that Golovinski 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 potentially use
him to back up their own web of lies. That is, if he hadn't died in 1920,
just before Jewry were to launch their Radziwill and Hurlbut double act.
According to Jewry, Soviet Jews' failure to reveal that Golovinski
forged the Protocols was not because he didn't forge the Protocols, and not
because it was better for Jewry to avoid giving the Protocols publicity from
1917-1920 before publication in Europe and the US, but because they were
embarrassed by Golovinski, the "forger", having become a "fellow traveler"
of the Bolsheviks in 1917. However, Golovinski was an aide to "Trotsky" /
Bronshtein, and 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.
Historians Charles A. Ruud and Sergei A. Stepanov inform us (in Fontanka 16) that in an
unpublished manuscript from 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", and "what inspired Rachkovsky to take up the [Protocols] for the first
time was the Protocols text that Nilus published in 1905 (censor Sokolov
recommended in September that authorities examine it)". This sharply
contradicts the idea that Rachkovsky was involved in compiling the
By the time the Svatikov / Bint / Rachkovsky story was recycled by Lépekhine and Conan in 1999, the timeline
had changed, so that instead of
late 1905, after Nilus published the Protocols and Rachkovsky rejoined the
Police Department in St. Petersburg, Jewry has Golovinski forging the
Protocols in 1900 or 1901. This is consistent with Jewry clutching at straws
in 1921 - seizing upon the possibility that Rachkovsky might have studied the
Protocols following Nilus's publication and the Russian censor's
recommendation that the authorities examine the Protocols - and Jewry
changing their story around the time of the Berne trial, when they realized
that Radziwill's 1905 claim wouldn't fly because the Protocols was already
published in 1903.
By revising their claim of the Protocols being compiled in 1905 to
1900/1901, Jewry must correspondingly revise their cherry-picking of
evidence in their attempt to make their conspiracy theory fit. This time, in
addition to the fact that Philip Stepanov and Alex Sukhotin were in
possession of the Protocols in 1895, and Stepanov arranged a private
printing through Arcadii Kelepovskii in
1897, with the Stepanov deposition corroborated by testimony from Madame
Antonia Porphyrjewna Manjkowsky née Suchoton, Jewry must also ignore the
1921 Svatikov manuscript about a possible
embellishment of the Protocols in 1905, and pretend Bint said 1900/1901 when
in fact he said 1905. In any case, any "anti-Semitic" tract produced in
France after 1894 couldn't have failed to mention the Dreyfus Affair, which
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.
Thus, either Lépekhine and Conan know
their own claim of 1900/1901 to be a lie, or someone tampered with Bint's "personal
papers" before Lépekhine got to them, so that Lépekhine was duped.
As a Jew, Eric 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.
Svatikov's testimony that Bint believed Rachkovsky intended to publish a
revived version of the Protocols in 1905 to incite Russians against the
revolutionaries, not against the Jews, is not consistent with Rachkovsky
publishing an "anti-Semitic" forgery to incite Russians against the Jews.
Svatikov's testimony that in 1921 Bint 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 the aim of inciting Russians
against the revolutionaries, is not consistent with Rachkovsky publishing an
"anti-Semitic" forgery to incite Russians against the Jews. It does
corroborate all the other evidence that Rachkovsky was not "anti-Semitic"
and had friends and collaborators who were Jews.
The historian Michael
Hagemeister revealed that Russian historian Boris Nicolaevsky, a coordinator of the Bern trial and an expert on the
secret police, admitted in a confidential letter that his own research had
convinced him that Rachkovsky "under no circumstances could have had anything
to do with the preparation of the Protocols." Nikolaevsky chose not to present
his findings at the trial, and instead testified in favor of Jewry's
conspiracy theory. He later explained his actions by writing that to do
otherwise would have been "a stab in the back" of the Russian experts, and
would have objectively "disorganized the campaign against Hitler". This is
what's known as not telling the truth - i.e., lying - in order to support a
politically motivated conclusion.
According to Michael Hagemeister, Burtsev and Svatikov were "financially
distressed". This hardly puts them in the position of being able to
comfortably speak the truth, or likely to speak the truth, if that truth
happened to be at odds with what World Jewry and the judge wanted to hear.
According to Conan, Nilus said to du Chayla, "Let us admit that the
Protocols are false". Given that 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, would lie for the
benefit of World Jewry when it paid him, had just been paid four thousand
Swiss francs to testify at the Berne trial, and Conan is taking Count
"Chameleon" du Chayla's word as gospel, 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.
In February/March 1921, Jewry attempted to peddle a vague claim via their
mouthpiece Radziwill 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. In this conspiracy theory offered by Jewry, the
Tsarist police 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. At the same time, 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 in
1896, after Cherevin leaves it to him in his will, two years after the death
of Alexander III. Strangely, the Tsar and Tsarina both possess copies of the
Protocols "forgery" when they are murdered by Jews, twenty-two years later
February 25, 1921
New York 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".
Radziwill claimed Cherevin gave her a copy of the first draft of the
Protocols because she was "one of his closest and dearest friends". 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.
Jewry's claim of the Okhrana forging a first draft of the Protocols in
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, who was so impressed with the Protocols that when Jews slaughtered him and
his family in cold blood 22 years later in 1918, Nicholas II had a copy of the
Protocols in his private library, and a copy of the Protocols was found in the
murdered Tsarina's room too. In the meantime, Sukhotin received a copy of the
Protocols from Glinka by 1895, and gave Stepanov a copy that year.
Regardless of whether the Protocols was a genuine Jewish composition that
had been obtained from a Jew by agent Glinka, or a forgery fabricated by the
Okhrana themselves, the fact that the Russian secret police were in
possession of the Protocols would have become known to Jewry, 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
Princess Radziwill, as "Paul Vasili", Behind the Veil at the Russian Court
(1914), unwittingly revealed how Jewry benefited after the 1881 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
imposed by the Jewish banking world of Paris and Berlin."
Émile Durkheim (1858-1917), the sociologist, social psychologist and
from a long line of devout French
Askenazi Jews. His father Moïse (Moses)
the Chief Rabbi of the Vosges and Haute-Marne, and his
great-grandfather Simon Simon Durkheim was appointed a rabbi in Mutzig,
Alsace, in 1784. Durkheim 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, and decided to
pursue a more secular career. 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". He
"remained active in the Jewish community,
collaborating with Jewish scholars and involving himself in French-Jewish
Durkheim wrote his
Latin dissertation on Montesquieu - Quid Secundatus politicae scientiae
- 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.
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
retained in the title of Durkheim's review: "Lutoslawski, W., Erhaltung
und Untergang der Staatsverfassungen nach Plato, Aristoteles, und Machiavelli."
In 1887, Durkheim acquired a teaching position at the University of
Bordeaux. The years 1887 to 1902 were known as his "Bordeaux period".
Around 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. Thus, if Rothschild visited Pauillac to
deal with the problems, it was probably shortly before 1890; say, 1889. He
normally made only
occasional visits to Pauillac to attend to
his vineyard, but 1889 is a relatively likely time for such a visit. The route
from Paris to Pauillac necessitated travelling
via Bordeaux; short of finding some other
crossing the river. Thus, in 1889, Rothschild had a pretext for travelling to
Bordeaux to meet with Durkheim, the Jewish author of a short publication
that dealt with the subjects of Machiavelli and revolution.
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."
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
Léon Gambetta was of Jewish stock through his Crypto-Jewish "Italian"
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." 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
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
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.
There is no evidence that Durkheim was a bloodthirsty monster who relished
war, torture, murder, executions, etc., and would have approved of "the
diminution, the killing out of the goyim". Had he
lived for another year or two, he would surely have been horrified by reports of
what was happening in Russia. His death has been blamed on how he was
heartbroken over the loss of his son André, killed in 1916 in WWI, on the
Bulgarian front. This could be seen as evidence against Durkheim's
involvement in writing the Protocols, but 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. And if Durkheim was wracked with guilt after his son
died, that could have contributed to Durkheim's death from a heart attack the next
year in 1917.
Durkheim's death has been variously attributed to a "heart
attack", or a "stroke",
but it certainly came at an opportune time for Jewry's leaders who knew that
terrible events were imminent in Soviet Russia - the sort of events that
might have led to Durkheim speaking out about his involvement in documenting
the Rothschilds' plans for a Jewish world despotism.
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."
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
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." And 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."
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".
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."
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 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, not
the "goyim", 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". It is this
Protocols writer who wrote the part in Protocol No. 2 about having
"arranged" for the success of "Darwinism", which is indicative of an
epistemological weakness and a misguided belief that centuries-old,
anti-Gentile, hate-filled rants in the Talmud, the Tanakh and the
Mishna are the fount of all knowledge and wisdom.
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. [...] he created the library of the Alliance,
which is one of the most valuable Jewish libraries in existence. [...] 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."
Now that's not quite what Loeb said. Loeb made the statements in French
La Littérature des Pauvres dans la Bible [pp. 219-20] (1892).
Le Problème Juif [p. 135], quoted Loeb, but he took out Loeb's
footnotes, and also some of Loeb's less "interesting" remarks, retaining the
more controversial points. But Batault did preface the quote by saying it
was a description of messianic times as portrayed in the 2nd Isaiah. Then Vicomte Leon de Poncins, in his
Judaism and the Vatican, quoted from Batault's quoting of Loeb, and there
is also an English translation of de Poncins' book. However, de Poncins and Batault
make a fair point that Jewish messianism is merely imperialism in disguise.
Loeb serves as evidence of that.
La Littérature des Pauvres dans la Bible is selling for about 100
euros and it's not available online in its entirety, but fortunately the
passages of interest here are available online in the digitized newsletter
of the Rothschild/Kahn/Loeb/Reinach library La Société des Études Juives.
The newsletter is Revue des Études Juives;
available in all formats; 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, in French, 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
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.
Loeb's references are included, we see that his Biblical sources include 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: "...in 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.
Since those aren't actually Loeb's words, but Loeb writing about
prophecies in the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh),
this raises the question of whether or not Loeb and certain Jews believe in
the material. If Loeb had in fact written a disclaimer that prophecies of the
Jews inheriting the earth, of the Gentiles giving up their treasures to
serve the Jews, of any Gentiles who resisted being destroyed, and so on,
were all total nonsense, only an idiot could believe it, it was fiction, and
he was actually debunking it, then that would put him in the clear. But
there's no evidence that he ever said anything like that; if he had, he
would be persona non grata at a library that was set up by James Edouard de
Zadoc Kahn who was the chief rabbi of France
by 1891/1892, when Loeb was publishing that material in the library's
All indications are that Loeb believed in those prophecies, and his readership
believed in them.
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,
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,
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,
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)."
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. If the Protocols was written in 1892, that would be consistent
with internal evidence, but the part that doesn't fit is the story about Radziwill retaliating against Glinka by publishing
her book La Sainté Russie; la cour,
l'armée, le clerge, la bourgeoisie et le peuple
in1890 under the pseudonym "[Count] Paul Vassili", so that it
attributed to Glinka, anger the Tsar, and cause her to be banished to her estate in Orel. 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. If the Protocols was written in 1889, the 1890 Radziwill retaliation
story can fit, the Jew Georg Brandes has already promoted Nietzsche - or
"Nietzsche-ism" - in 1888 in addition to "Darwinism" in the 1870s, Jewish
intriguers are well aware of dozens of politicians with "some dark,
undiscovered stain, some 'Panama' or other" - a bribe - given that Jewish
speculators such as Jacques de Reinach did the bribing, agent Léon Bourgeois
was already under-secretary for home affairs in 1888 and Jewish intriguers
are aware of their plan for him to introduce "object lessons", which were
already part of the English school curriculum as early as 1873, and so on.
Thus, 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. As a Talmud
/ Tanakh hugger, Loeb is the very model of a person who would have viewed
Darwinism as a false theory.
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. He wrote Le juif de l'histoire et le juif de la légende,
of which the
full text is
available online in French. Loeb claimed it was undeniable that the Jews,
collectively, were "poor, miserable and starving". He said it was generally
assumed (as of 1890) that there were 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
concluded that at least five million were in deepest destitution.
Seven years after Loeb wrote that propaganda piece, 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. And 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.
Also in Le juif de l'histoire et le juif de la légende, 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 attempt to refute the Protocols in 1921 by
claiming it was a false document, a "forgery". And amusingly, as
mentioned above, 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.
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
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
So, apart from making "almost identical" reproductions of previously
published work, Loeb is clearly pro-mysticism and anti-science - confirming
him as the very
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 evidence points to the Jews Émile Durkheim and Isidore Loeb as the hired
writers of the Protocols - and plagiarisers of Joly and Goedsche respectively. 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. The new chief rabbi of France, Zadoc Kahn,
may have recruited Loeb, his fellow Alsatian and Talmud / Tanakh scholar.
Both Kahn and Loeb were born in 1839. Being heavily involved in the
Rothschild-founded library in Paris, Loeb was an obvious choice to take up
the Protocols after Durkheim had finished his part. Kahn had all the
connections; he was sometimes seen with Alphonse Rothschild, and could have
provided Loeb with information from people whom Loeb didn't have access to.
Loeb was the more prolific writer, whereas Kahn was more of an orator. Kahn could have been supervising operations and
reporting back to Rothschild.
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
$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, he 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. Should his other anonymous manuscripts, on
which he was working at just about the same time, fall into Gentile
hands, they play the forgery card, as already allowed for in their contingency
planning, which was inspired by the fact that Rothschild had just
fallen prey to wine pirates forging
his "Lafite Rothschild" labels at the same time the Protocols was
Théodore Reinach wrote the Preface to Loeb's La Littérature des Pauvres dans la Bible.
Reinach was one of three brothers who were (first) cousins of the banker
Baron Jacques de Reinach, the chief "bribe dispenser" in the Panama Canal
Scandal, who apparently killed himself in November 1892 as the scandal
broke. Thus, the (Jewish) Reinach family provide a strong link between La Société des Études Juives
(S.E.J.), the Panama Canal Scandal, and political figures. 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. As bribers in the Panama Canal scam, both Herz and Jacques de Reinach 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
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.
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.
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".
Evidence for forgery
- Parts of the Protocols was plagiarised from Joly.
- The Jews say so.
Ironically, both of those are evidence for authenticity, not for forgery. Of
the hypothetical "anti-Semite" and the hypothetical Jewish supremacist
conspirator, it is the Jew who had the stronger motives for plagiarism, which
would allow Jewry to cite it as 'evidence' of "forgery". As to Jewish assurances
that nefarious "anti-Semites" fabricated the Protocols, apart from the
fact that the allegation is refuted by reams of evidence, Jewish claims of
"forgery" should be judged in
the context of previous statements by Jewry. Here's the sort of thing:
When we killed thirty-three Syrian and Lebanese farm workers who were
loading plums and peaches in Al-Qaa in 2006, we didn't really mean to do it,
you know; there was a
building nearby that we thought was being used to store weapons.
Our attack on
the USS Liberty (in international waters), in which thirty-four American sailors
died and 174 were wounded, was an accident.
Okay, we carried
on attacking for well over an hour; I believe the technical term for it is a
sustained atta... sorry, a sustained accident, yeah, that's what it was. It just
lasted longer than most accidents do.
promise that the UN observer post
will not be targeted in this 2006 war on Lebanon.
Red Cross ambulances are never deliberately targeted by Israeli forces; we must have hit the
very center of each cross on each ambulance by accident, and it was a coincidence.
Look, we hit a UN base in Qana in 1996 and killed 100 people who were sheltering, and
you have to believe us, it was an accident then, so now that we've gone and
done the same thing again in 2006, with our massive bomb causing a building in the town
to collapse on top of dozens of sheltering people,
killing more than 60 including 37 children, it must have been another accident,
right? Or, shall we say, a mistake?
When the Palestinian Ghalia family were blown to smithereens as they were picnicking on a Gaza beach, we
stopped shelling the beach nine minutes before they died,
and we were targeting an area of the beach about 250 meters from where they were, so
it proves they must have done it
themselves with one of
their own bombs; we were not responsible.
Although we, the Mossad, did have foreknowledge of the London
7/7 bombings, the information only reached us six minutes before the first
When a bomb exploded in a false ceiling at the Radisson Hotel in Amman on
11/9/05, we Israelis didn't put it there and never knew it was there; it was
actually a suicide bomber who was responsible for the killing of the wedding
party, and when the suicide bomber's bomb went off - don't look skeptical, of course there
was a suicide bomber there, someone else must have already placed the other bomb
without being spotted, and it was just coincidental that the suicide bomber set off the other
Israelis were evacuated in advance of the blasts, the only Israeli casualty
was an Israeli Arab, blundering Arabs targeted Arabs rather than Jews or
Americans, and Israel didn't want to have King Abdullah II mediating between the
US and Syria.
More than 1,000 Palestinians in Gaza, mostly civilians, have been
killed by Israeli forces, whilst at the
same time a mere three Israeli citizens have been killed
by Palestinian rockets or mortar, but that's not evidence that we Israelis engage in
deliberate slaughter of Arab civilians; it's all just a long series of one
accident after another, and the fact that we keep having such accidents
is purely coincidental.
When our Israeli commandos boarded a Turkish ship in a humanitarian aid
flotilla in international waters and killed nine of those on board
- with a tenth going on to die in 2014 after being in a coma for four years, our
peace-loving commandos were merely defending themselves against attacks by the
who were pretending to be humanitarians whilst spoiling for a fight.
A truthful statement by organized Jewry is a rarity indeed.
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.
The Protocols of Zion is an authentic document detailing Jewry's plans for
establishing a world despotism.
See the long version of this page here: