Jimmy Carter's book against Israeli Apartheid likened to Mein Kampf, Protocols of Zion. We must debate the Protocols

- by Peter Myers, February 25, 2018; update March 6, 2018.

My comments are shown {thus}; write to me at contact.html.

You are at http://mailstar.net/protocols-debate.html.

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

In July 2008, I ran a debate about the Protocols of Zion in my mailing list.

At the time, I did not put it online, but Israel Shamir did upload it, somewhat edited, at http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/rd1.htm.

Most of the links there are broken because they link to my original wensite http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers; the new site is http://mailstar.net.

Now, ten years later, I am putting the debate online, fixing the links, and adding more, in particular Kerry Bolton's study of Parallels Between the Protocols of Zion & Illuminati Documents.

He provides evidence that the Protocols came from certain Masonic groups, and is dated no later than 1895; that is, prior to Herzl's First Zionist Congress. in 1897. Bolton says that, had the Protocols been written after that Congress, it would have made use of it. Also, Bolton says that the Protocols must predate the Dreyfus Affair; that, too, would have got a mention, otherwise.

Bolton wrote:

Fourthly, there are internal indications that The Protocols date well prior to 1900-01. For e.g. a reference to "the Panama scandal" of 1888 which caused a furore in France during the 1890s. Also had The Protocols been contrived by Golovinsky ca. 1900 or at least sometime after 1896, it seems reasonable that anti-Semites would draw widely on references to Zionism, the First Zionist Congress taking place in 1897. However, there are no references to Zionism at all in The Protocols. The initial opinion of Nilus et al that The Protocols were not derived from the Zionist movement, but from a Jewish faction of Masonry, were correct.

Bolton's study is at Bolton-Parallels-Prot-Illum.pdf. It's best to read it before proceeding. It is a background to Bolton's comments later in this debate.

PART A: Jimmy Carter's book against Israeli Apartheid likened to Mein Kampf, Protocols of Zion

(1) The Protocols is a Forgery, therefore Mearsheimer and Walt are wrong on the Jewish Lobby, and Jimmy Carter is wrong about Apartheid in Israel's occupied territories
(2) Mearsheimer/Walt book is "The New Protocols" - Abraham H. Miller, Front Page Magazine
(3) Alan Dershowitz likens Mearsheimer/Walt book to Protocols, David Duke
(4) Jimmy Carter's book against Israeli Apartheid likened to Mein Kampf
(5 The Protocols of the Elder Carter, by Philip Klein - American Spectator
(6) Mearsheimer/Walt, Carter recall accusations of the Protocols - John Judis, New Republic

(1) The Protocols is a Forgery, therefore Mearsheimer and Walt are wrong about the Jewish Lobby, and Jimmy Carter is wrong about Apartheid in Israel's occupied territories

Peter Myers, February 25, 2018

In their book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Mearsheimer and Walt repudiate the Protocols of Zion. They write:

"the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that well-known anti-semitic forgery ..." (p. 12)

"The infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a tsarist forgery that was exposed and discredited long ago ..." (p. 146).

Yet the Israel Lobby have likened their writings about the Jewish Lobby to the Protocols. Now, Jimmy Carter is copping the same treatment for saying the Israel has instituted Apartheid in the occupied territories (West Bank, Jerusalem, Gaza).

The propagandists in the US media insist that if there is ANY Jewish conspiracy, then it is the same Jewish conspiracy the Protocols describes. That is, they insist that one not only repudiate the Protocols, but any other book alleging Jewish conspiratorial action.

Benjamin Ginsberg, an American Jewish professor of Political Science at John Hopkins University, wrote in his book The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State:

"The chief executive officers of the three major television networks, and the four largest film studios are Jews, as are the owners of the nation's largest newspaper chain and most influential single newspaper, the New York Times." (ginsberg.html)

This in itself is evidence of conspiracy. But this scholarly book never reaches the public.

(2) Mearsheimer/Walt book is "The New Protocols" - Abraham H. Miller, Front Page Magazine

The New Protocols

By Abraham H. Miller


April 3, 2006


Professors Stephen Walt and John I Mearsheimer's recently disseminated anti-Semitic screed <https://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/john-mearsheimer/the-israel-lobby> has been ripped apart by both prominent scholars and literary figures showing it to be an intellectual fraud being passed off as serious scholarship. ... Hate websites from Mecca to Damascus and those of various racial supremacy groups from Sweden to New Orleans will now make them relevant far beyond the mere fifteen minutes of fame they craved. Anti-Semites have now found the new Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Abraham H. Miller is emeritus professor, University of Cincinnati. He has written extensively on the Middle East for both academic and popular venues.

The Israel Lobby John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

(3) Alan Dershowitz likens Mearsheimer/Walt book to Protocols, David Duke

David Duke Claims to Be Vindicated By a Harvard Dean

By ELI LAKE, Staff Reporter of the Sun

New York Sun

March 20, 2006


A paper recently co-authored by the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government about the allegedly far-reaching influence of an "Israel lobby" is winning praise from white supremacist David Duke.

The Palestine Liberation Organization mission to Washington is distributing the paper, which also is being hailed by a senior member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization.

But the paper, "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," by the Kennedy School's Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, is meeting with a more critical reception from many of those it names as part of the lobby. The 83-page "working paper" claims a network of journalists, think tanks, lobbyists, and largely Jewish officials have seized the foreign policy debate and manipulated America to invade Iraq. Included in this network, the authors say, are the editors of the New York Times, the scholars at the Brookings Institution, students at Columbia, "pro-Israel" senior officials in the executive branch, and "neoconservative gentiles" including columnist George Will.

Duke, a former Louisiana state legislator and one-time Ku Klux Klan leader, called the paper "a great step forward," but he said he was "surprised" that the Kennedy School would publish the report. ...

A professor at Harvard Law School, Alan Dershowitz, whom the authors call an "apologist" for Israel, said he found much of the paper to be "trash." He said, "It could have been written by Pat Buchanan, by David Duke, Noam Chomsky, and some of the less intelligent members of Hamas. An intelligent member of Hamas would not have made these mistakes." ...

"What he is saying is, 'some of my best lobbyists are Jews. Don't confuse what we are saying with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion,'" Mr. Dershowitz said. "Sorry, but it sounds very similar to me. The only difference is the Protocols are a forgery, but this is actually written by two bigots."

The authors attempt to distinguish their argument from that of classical anti-Semites, writing at one point, "there is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway U.S policy towards Israel. The Lobby's activities are not the sort of conspiracy depicted in anti-Semitic tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion." ...

(4) Jimmy Carter's book against Israeli Apartheid likened to Mein Kampf

Jimmy Carter's Kampf

by Jack Engelhard

Israel National News

Published: 12/08/06, 10:27 AM


That was Borat, not Jimmy Carter, who urged a crowd of lounge lizards in Tucson to join him in singing, "Throw the Jew Down the Well." Carter has the same message, but without the spoof.

That was Borat, not Jimmy Carter, who urged a crowd of lounge lizards in Tucson to join him in singing, "Throw the Jew Down the Well."

Carter has the same message, but (without the spoof) his narrative comes in a book that's just being released and is titled Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

Apparently the written word is not enough, so Carter has taken his grudge against Israel on tour. There he is with his brotherhood on National Public Radio, NPR, where Israel-bashing is always welcome; and here he is on C-Span; and he keeps on going and won't stop until he's got us all signing up for Holocaust Part 2.

Historians tell us that Pharaoh was the first to stir up the multitudes against the Jews, and we have it from Scripture that a new Pharaoh will arise to torment us from generation to generation. Carter knows his Bible and the part where Pharaoh says: "Come, let us deal craftily with this people."...

Carter's Protocols have already, and quickly, found enough readers to make it a best-seller. ...

The man is an anti-Semite. ...

(5) The Protocols of the Elder Carter, by Philip Klein - American Spectator

The Protocols of the Elder Carter

By Philip Klein

American Spectator

Published 3/9/2007 12:08:23 AM


Jimmy Carter likes Jews. Or at least that's what he wants you to believe. ...

Of course, more recently, he has been in the news for writing a book describing Israeli policy toward Palestinians as "apartheid."

"I realize that this has caused some concern in the Jewish community," Carter said. But there's no need to overreact, because he wasn't referring to policies within Israel, only policies in the Palestinian territories. "Let me make clear that the forced segregation and domination of Arabs by Israelis is not based on race and should give no aid or comfort to those who attempted to equate racism with Zionism." ...

(6) Mearsheimer/Walt, Carter recall accusations of the Protocols - John Judis, New Republic

Split Personality

By John Judis

The New Republic Online, February 8, 2007


Is there a growing trend among American intellectuals (and former presidents) toward anti-Semitism? That is what a number of recent articles, essays, and speeches... would suggest. Some of these statements stop short of saying that Tony Judt, Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, Tony Kushner, and Jimmy Carter (to name some of the best-known targets) are anti-Semites. ...

What of these charges? Walt and Mearsheimer do suggest significant influence by some Jewish leaders over American foreign policy. That certainly recalls the accusations of the Protocols. But the Protocols were a pure fabrication, while Walt and Mearsheimer's case is based upon a reality that most people who study Washington concede: The "pro-Israel" lobby, led by AIPAC, exerts enormous influence over U.S. policy toward Israel. Walt and Mearsheimer extend that influence to policy toward the entire Middle East and to the decision to invade and occupy Iraq. That's a mistake, in my opinion, but it's an arguable case. What would make their argument similar to the older anti-Semitism would be a claim that the Israel lobby controls, rather than influences, foreign policy and that its reach extends to all regions and not merely the Middle East.

Walt and Mearsheimer's critics also draw an analogy between their views and older charges of "dual loyalty." But what distinguished these older charges was the large element of pure fantasy. Jewish bankers getting together secretly to plot the future of the world? International socialism as a Jewish plot? Walt and Mearsheimer take the argument beyond where I would do so by tossing Jewish neoconservative intellectuals and policy-makers into the same "lobby" as AIPAC, but there is no question that there is a powerful lobby, run and funded by American Jews, that looks out for the interests of Israel. ...

PART B: Debate of Peter Myers with John Birdman Bryant on the Protocols of Zion

Here's Shamir's introduction:

Our friend the Australian editor Peter Myers had carried out a recent debate on the origins of the Protocols of Zion. In my view, the Protocols is a multifaceted and multilayered composition being re-written a few times by various persons, sympathetic and hostile. Its contents provide a valuable key to understanding the modern paradigm, but its origin is untraceable. That is why I refrained from dealing with the origins.

However, Peter Myers writes:

In major US and Israeli media, propagandists for Israel have likened Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to the Protocols of Zion. The argument that the Protocols is a forgery is thus used as a shield to fend off all scholarly argument that the Israel lobby dominates United States foreign policy on the Middle East. Thus, an investigation of whether the Protocols has been proved a forgery is pivotal to the defence of Carter, Finkelstein, and Mearsheimer/Walt.

Read his analysis:

(1) From: John Bryant

Dear Mr Myers:

A friend recommended that I look at your Protocols writing. My personal prejudice -- or, rather, POST-judice -- is that the Protocols is largely the same as the Dialogue, and hence a 'forgery' -- I say 'post-judice' because I had my wife, who majored in French in college, compare the Protocols with the Dialogue, and it was her conclusion that they were very similar.

As to your own work, located at http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/toolkit.html , while I am not going to say that you don't have an argument, I will aver that the work is so disorganized that very few would bother to read it. (Maybe that is why nobody links to it, and not because they lack the courage, as you suggest.) I was looking for a clear concise statement of why you think you are right, as against the very clear fact that the Protocols are based on the Dialogue, but all I could see was some mealy-mouthed musing about seeing things in the historical context of the revolutions of 1830, 1848 and 1870. When I see talk like that, I have a strong impulse to believe that the arguer has nothing convincing to say. To this I would add that I am a well-known Jewish critic, so I have not the least inhibition about sticking it to the Foreskinners, as I call them. But I can certainly not do it with your composition. I therefore urge you to do a major rewrite, and then maybe it will be worth something -- either that, or maybe you will discover that you don't really have an argument after all.

-Birdman (www.thebirdman.org)

(2) Reply to John Birdman Bryant - Peter Myers, July 6, 2008

Dear Birdman,

Thanks for your correspondence.

It is not true that no-one links to my site. On the contrary, my site is doing very well, by the measures that count. But for the last 3 years I have had little time to add to it.

My style is the opposite of yours. I use understatement (to you, "mealy-mouthed musing"), whereas you use overstatement to dramatically make a point.

The claim that the Protocols is a forgery is mainly based on parallel passages with Maurice Joly's book Dialogue aux Enfers entre Montesquieu at Machiavel ("Dialogues in Hell"), published in 1864.

When I first read Joly five years ago, my first impression was, like your wife's, that the Protocols was plagiarised from it.

Herman Bernstein, whose edition of Joly I was reading, has a chapter displaying all the parallel passages side by side. I put the whole text of Joly's "Dialogues in Hell" (from Bernstein) at Joly.doc (opens in Word).

Bernstein's analysis is at bernstein.doc.

All the parallel passages listed by Bernstein, and a few more I discovered as well, are set side by side at Joly-Prot-parallels.doc (opens in Word).

Can you give the URL of any other website which presents all the parallel passages?

Parallel passages are also found in the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament), and in the New Testament.

The best-known case of parallel passages is the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, where there are many passages which show a common origin.

In some cases, the words are virtually the same, in the same order and with the same meaning. In other cases, the meaning is different (sometimes even reversed) even though there is a similarity between two stories.

Scholars who have studied them do not believe that the Gospel authors copied directly from one another's Gospels; but rather, that there was another document, now lost to us, which the Gospel authors had and copied from; they call it "Q". In Google, do a search on Gospels Q.

If there is a conspiracy for One World Government, then for co-ordination purposes it would have to be written down at times, and then some persons would have written accounts of it.

The other explanation, from the forgery one, is that Joly himself may have copied from its text for his book; and that the author of the Protocols also used it, but varying the meaning.

The Protocols, on its own, cannot be used to establish that there is a world conspiracy. But if such a conspiracy be verified FROM OTHER SOURCES - such as H. G. Wells' book The Open Conspiracy (opensoc.html) and Benjamin Ginsberg's admissions (ginsberg.html) and the 1946 Baruch Plan for World Government (baruch-plan.html): then the Protocols can be re-examined in that light, and compared against the historical record.

That is the only way to evaluate it.

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

This happened at the Treaty of Versailles (wills-lenin-league).

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

For all the Czar's toughness, his regime was more lenient than Lenin's; when the Bolsheviks came to power they were much more inclined to execute serious opponents.

When Lenin died, power passed to a triumvirate - Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Stalin - of which Stalin was the only non-Jew.

Zinoviev and Kamenev feared Trotsky, and allied against him; Stalin was the third and least important member of the triumvirate.

But later, Stalin got sole power, and overthrew the Jewish leadership. Zinoviev and Kamenev joined Trotsky's Opposition grouping, but too late. All three were executed (Trotsky when in Mexico).

Solzhenitsyn also depicted Jewish control at first, but their overthrow under Stalin (stalin.html).

The techniques of thought control espoused in the Protocols are as sinister as those depicted by George Orwell in 1984. Many people feel that we are approaching this condition today. It is reasonable to consider whether there might be any connection.

The Protocols could also be relevant in understanding the crisis in the Middle East and exploring possible solutions to it which might avert world war; wars in that area drag the great powers in.

Consider these four Indicators:

i. A major political event occurs in world history, inaugurating a regime (the USSR) aiming to engulf the world, carried out by organised Jews as documented by Bertrand Russell, and by Robert Wilton and others. Even though some Jews opposed the new regime, that does not undo the fact that it was created by Jews.

ii. The Jewish role is hidden, denied, kept invisible. Many of the Jewish participants came from the West - therefore, some Western Jewish groups knew of the Jewish role, yet kept it hidden from non-Jews (e.g. in the public media, partly owned by Jews). There have also been dissident Jewish groups which tried to warn of what was happening.

iii. Non-Jewish supporters of the Socialist movement are led to believe that the new regime is benevolent, and the inauguration of a utopia.

iv. In fact it is a despotic dystopia for the very people among whom it is carried out. Non-Jewish Socialists are deceived and manipulated.

Now this pattern of events was predicted in The Protocols of Zion; yet no other type of literature, e.g. the Socialist literature preceding the event, correctly predicted this conjunction of events.

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

If you know of other literature that correctly predicted this conjunction of events, please let me know.

(3) From Birdman:

this essay was triggered by the reactions to my posting of the late Dr Gordon Stein's essay on the Protocols, found here (http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-ProtocolsHoax-GordonStein.html)

Some Common Sense About the Protocols

In 1903 a book was published in Russia which is now known as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, or just The Protocols. It purports to be the Jewish master plan for takeover of the world, and a great many people in the present day believe that is exactly what it is. The Protocols achieved serious attention the Western world in 1921, when reviews of it supposedly proving that it was a 'forgery' appeared in the British press. In spite of these and many subsequent denunciations, this book has become one of the most widely-read books in the world. Henry Ford, the legendary auto manufacturer who became convinced of a Jewish world conspiracy by talking with influential Jews who were passengers on the 'peace ship' which he had chartered in order to help end WW1, remarked that he knew not whether the Protocols was a forgery; he knew only that it had described the world situation accurately since the time it had been published.

Critics of The Protocols in the present day usually claim that it is a 'forgery', or more precisely, a book which has been plagiarized from a much earlier book by Maurice Joly entitled Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu ('The Dialogue'). My own view is that, while I believe that the Jewish establishment is indeed following a master plan to take over the world, and while that master plan may have many points in common with The Protocols, I believe that The Protocols did not originate as such a plan, and that it constitutes what I call an 'MLK plagiarism' of Joly's book, ie, compilation of plagiarized parts, sometimes modified, combined with some original material, much like MLK's doctoral thesis and many other things MLK supposedly authored. I offer this public expression of my views for the simple reason that I believe it is a serious mistake, both moral and tactical, to accuse the Jews falsely, inasmuch as there are many high crimes and low misdemeanors which may be laid at the Jewish doorstep, but to make a false allegation is to throw the true and valid charges into question, since a false charge among the true will invite rejection of both true and false charges because the true charges are tainted by the false one according to the ancient criterion, "False in one thing; false in all. In this sense, then, the promotion of The Protocols -- along with an equally strong demonstration of their falsity -- in fact gives aid and comfort to the Jewish conspirators, because it effectively paints the stupid goy believers as idiots and ignorants.

So why, then, do I think the Protocols are a 'forgery'? To explain, I begin by noting that The Dialogue, published in 1864, was in fact a critique of the regime of Napoleon III. Next, I assert that the Protocols was a plagiarism of the Dialogue, a book published almost 40 years earlier. I say this, not merely on the basis that other critics of the Protocols have asserted the same, but also -- and most importantly -- on the basis that my wife, a 4-year full-academic-scholarship French major and Phi Beta Kappa graduate, compared the Joly text with that of the Protocols and concluded that the Protocols was a plagiarism of Joly. With these points in mind, then, we see that if the Protocols were lifted from a book which was intended as a criticism of Emperor Napoleon III in the 1860s, as in fact it was, then it is absurd to think it is a 'Jewish master plan'. That is, if the Protocols was really a pre-existing Jewish master plan, then why was it turned into a critique of Napoleon III? This is something akin to taking a physics book and plagiarizing it to create an exercise manual -- it just makes no sense. To the contrary, the simplest explanation of the correspondence between the Dialogue and the Protocols is plagiarism, and under the criterion of Occam's Razor, or the Law of Parsimony, this explanation must be accepted unless there is additional data which does not fit this explanation.

The logic of the above argument must evidently stand or fall on whether one reckons that the Protocols was in fact plagiarized from the Dialogue. To some extent this is a matter of judgment, and the argument will probably go on for some time -- mostly, of course, among those who do not speak both French and English -- until the Jews decide that the controversy has served their purpose sufficiently, and that therefore any remaining copies of Dialogue and the Protocols shall be burned in the public square by the hangman.

APPENDIX: Statements of Protocols supporters and Birdman responses

HENRY MAKOW, in his article PROTOCOLS FORGERY ARGUMENT IS FLAWED (on the Net) says the following:

In my opinion, the outlawing of Protocols on pain of death in Bolshevik Russia and its execration in the West today proves its authenticity.

Birdman response: It proves no such thing. It merely shows that the mostly-Jewish Bolsheviks and the Western Jewsmedia didn't want criticism of Jews popping up anywhere.

VOLTAIRE/Bill the Hermit describes the above article as a 'point by point' refutation by Henry Makow that Joly and the Protocols substantially differ in tone and content.

Birdman comment: They do differ -- the Protocols is a scaled-down version of the Dialogue, reduced in size by about 50%. And we will grant that there are differences in tone and content. But that doesn't change any arguments we have made in this essay.

PETER MYERS thinks the Protocols are genuine, as I understand it, and has posted several items on this subject.

(4) REPLY by Peter Myers

Dear Birdman,

In major US and Israeli media, propagandists for Israel have likened Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to Mein Kampf and the Protocols of Zion.

Jimmy Carter's Kampf: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/6757

The Protocols of the Elder Carter: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11126

These propagandists insist that if there is ANY Jewish conspiracy, then it is the same Jewish conspiracy the Protocols describes.

But the Protocols is a forgery. Therefore, all these other books are also wrong.

The argument that the Protocols is a forgery is thus used as a shield to fend off all scholarly argument that the Israel lobby dominates United States foreign policy on the Middle East.

Thus, an investigation of whether the Protocols has been proved a forgery is pivotal to the defence of Carter, Finkelstein, and Mearsheimer/Walt.

Israel Zangwill, Herman Bernstein, and Norman Cohn (Jewish authors regarded as the authorities on the Protocols) argue that the Protocols was copied in the main from Maurice Joly's book Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, published in 1864.

To counter the propagandists, it is not necessary to prove the Protocols genuine. It is only necessary to show that the above authorities have not considered certain important issues in their proof of forgery.

The propagandists insist that the case is closed; all we need to do is show that the issue is still open.

I put the whole text of Joly's "Dialogues in Hell" on my website here (joly.doc).

I put the Protocols here (protocol.html).

All the parallel passages are set side by side at Joly-Prot-parallels.doc.

Bernstein's analysis is at bernstein.doc.

Zangwill's material is at zangwill.html.

And Cohn's material is at cohn.html.

Presenting the arguments of Zangwill, Bernstein & Cohn in their own words, I am the only author of a study of the Protocols who presents both sides.

I was the first person to show that the parallel passages listed by Bernstein comprise 16.45% of the Protocols, by word-count. This is substantial, but still less than one sixth of the total. I have since found a few more parallels, but also disjunctions.

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

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

My argument is that Joly did not create these parallel passages ex nihilo, but modified an existing revolutionary text (precursor of the Protocols), reworking parts of it to suit his attack on Napoleon III.

Differences between the Dialogues & the Protocols

1 Who are the Machiavellians?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compare this with Trotsky on World Federation:

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

6 Joly's despotism is achieved without violence:

"violence plays no role" (p. 174);

"I who have taken as final policy, not violence, but self-effacement" (p. 226);

at p. 236 the despot says "sometimes of duplicity, sometimes of violence", but Napoleon III had no concentration camps or gulag, no death squads, no mass graves of victims executed by a bullet to the back of the head, no glorifying of violence.

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

This is much closer to Trotsky's violence of the Kronstadt massacre, and his orders to use relatives as hostages, with the threat of executing them: worst.html.

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

8 Timing & Future-orientation (Teleology)

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

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

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

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

More at cohn.html

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

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

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

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

9 Finance

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

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

He speaks of the benefits of government debt (p. 214): joly.doc.

The Protocols acknowledges that government debt is a trap; that governments need not borrow the funds for their expenditure, but can create the money by fiat, as the banks do (but for which the banks charge interest, in effect a private tax). This was the way the finance system of the USSR operated.

Protocol 20 says: "with any form of taxation per head the State is bailing out the last coppers of the poor taxpayers in order to settle accounts with wealthy foreigners, from whom it has borrowed money instead of collecting these coppers for its own needs without the additional interest".

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

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

Protocol 20 also says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

10. Cohn broadens the topic beyond the Protocols, to any material on Jews behaving in a conspiratorial way

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

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

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

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

Cohn wrote,

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

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

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

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

Cohn's book, and books arguing a similar viewpoint, can be sold in bookshops. Can one get a book arguing that the Protocols is genuine into the bookshops? Why?

11. What Cohn implicitly rules out of the debate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More at toolkit.html

and at hiding.html.


(5) Birdman: "You seem to think ... the Protocols is necessary to proving a Jewish world conspiracy"

I am amazed at your logic. You seem to think that proving the validity or truth of the Protocols is necessary to proving a Jewish world conspiracy. But the truth is that the Protocols are not necessary, and in fact are completely irrelevant. As proof, I offer my (inductive) argument of JWC without the Protocols:


As to the argument 'The Protocols is false, therefore there is no Jewish world conspiracy', I find this rather silly, tho, as PT Barnum said, 'There's a sucker born every minute', and I suppose a few of those would believe it.

(6) Reply (Peter M.):

But I don't claim to prove the Protocols genuine; I present evidence for its authenticity, but I don't go the next step and make a dogmatic statement that it IS genuine. However I do assert that the proofs of forgery are not really proofs.

I offer plenty of other evidence of a Jewish conspiracy, or rather two Jewish conspiratorial movements, Zionist and Communist, sometimes at odds but often aligned, in conjunction with a British one: british-conspiracy.html

It's the Zionists who make dogmatic statements about the Protocols; they insist it'a forgery. And from that they go on to ridicule other authors alleging Jewish domination of the US - Carter, Mearsheimer/Walt, Finkelstein.

(7) Why didn't the Czar use Protocols after failed Jewish dominated revolution of 1905?

From: Bill <billhermit@hotmail.com> Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 12:13:57 -0400

Two points in particular impress me.

(1) The Jewish authors who deny the authenticity of the "Protocols" simultaneously deny that Jews exercise any provable international influence at all. That is provably not true, e.g. the bolshevik revolution, the "minorities treaties" in Central Europe, the League of Nations, the mandate over Palestine and the Balfour Declaration, etc.

(2) If the "Protocols were "forged" to target the Jews, then the effort failed from 1901-1917. The Protocols were first published by Nilus in book form in 1901. Why did the Czarist government not resort to them as a propaganda weapon after the failed Jewish dominated revolution of 1905? That would have been the ideal time.

(8) From: Kerry Bolton

The debate on the authenticity of The Protocols has so far neglected to mention some salient facts.

1. Cohn et al do NOT mention that Joly was a protégé of Cremieux, head not only of the Universal Israelite Alliance, but also of Mizraim and Grand Orient Masonry, and a leading figure in the Gambetta regime. The Gambetta regime was heavily influenced by Masons. Joly himself was a highly regarded propagandist for the regime. Cremieux moreover was bitterly opposed to Napoleon III, therefore the Dialogue of Joly would reflect that milieu.

2. Very close parallels exist between passages in The Protocols and documents from the Illuminati. There is a direct relationship between the Illuminati and Mizraim Masonry via Pasquales, who was a leading Illuminatist (according to Bernard Lazare) and founder of Mizraim.

3. Internal evidence would seem to argue for a far earlier existence of the Protocols than ca. 1900, or for the time period that Czarist agents were allegedly in France 'forging' The Protocols. 'Anti-Semitic forgers' would surely have made much of Herzl's Zionism had the Protocols been contrived in the last part of the 19th or beginning of the 20th Centuries. Yet the doctrine of the Protocols does NOT seem to be based on Herzl's Zionism or any notion of a "return to the promised land" but rather refers to the dispersion of Jewry as being its strength, the attitude of a certain non-Zionist section of Jewry, including sections of Jewish banking (e.g. Schiff). Secondly, there is NO mention of the Dreyfus Affair, which surely indicates again an earlier existence. I find it inconceivable that anti-Semites in France contriving the Protocols would not at least make some reference to Dreyfus given that it was the cause celebre of both pro- and anti-Semites and convulsed France.

4. There is no evidence for the forging of the Protocols found among the archives of the Okhrana or of those principals supposedly involved.

5. The Protocols refer to Catholicism and the Jesuits being major foes of the Learned Elders' plans, along with the Czar. Orthodox, traditionalists Czarists, whether Okhrana agents or Nilus, are not likely to have made such comments. The passages on the Jesuits run parallel to those from the Illuminati.

The Protocols are more likely to be a compilation of material from the documents of Mizraim Masonry, the same source that influenced Joly via Cremieux and others. At any rate, the explanations offered by those who dismiss the Protocols as fake have turned out to be less than reliable, such as the testimony of Princess Radziwill or the farcical trial of the Swiss publishers during the 30s. The question as to origins at the least remains open, rather than offhandedly dismissed.

K R Bolton

{Bolton's study of the Parallels with Illuminati documents is at: Bolton-Parallels-Prot-Illum.doc}

(9) May be counterproductive to bring in the "Protocols"

>From: Bill

I agree that the existence of a Jewish world conspiracy can be proved without any reference to the "Protocols". It can even be argued that it is counterproductive to bring in the "Protocols" as it allows the Jews to confuse the issue by bringing up the essentially irrelevant "forgery" charge. However, I insist that, so far as they go, the "Protocols" are not inconsistent with the thesis. They do, indeed, very closely parallel what has actually been going on in the world for the last century. As to whether it is tactically wise to use them as the basis of an argument, that is a different matter.

The "Protocols" have always scared the tribe. It could be that they are merely scared about investigations of Jewish power generally, but there is something specific about the "Protocols" which scares them even more. When one considers the asonishing predictive validity of the document in so many particulars, it is easy to see exactly why it scares them.

(10) Reply (Peter M.):

Jimmy Carter, Mearsheimer/Walt, and Norman Finkelstein did not use the Protocols, but Lobby writers brought in the Protocols - comparing their books to the Protocols - as a way of refuting these authors.

Therefore, there is no way to avoid the Protocols. One must deal with it as I have done.

(11) Why the Czar didn't use the Protocols to discredit the 1905 Revolution

From: Kerry Bolton

In reply to the question as to why the Czar didn't use the Protocols to discredit the 1905 Revolution; this can be answered on two counts:

1. Stolypin commissioned an enquiry to repudiate the Protocols for the purpose of discrediting the Black Hundreds organisation.

2. Nilus was the target of Court intrigues centered around Papus and Philippe de Lyon, heads of Mizraim Masonry from France; i.e. the same form of Masonry of which Cremieux, Joly's mentor, had been head. Therefore, the very repudiation once again involves Mizraim Masonry in association with the Protocols. This suggests a convergence of evidence. That the Protocols were among the final possessions of the Czarina would indicate that the Stolypin enquiry of years earlier and other effors to discredit the Protocols did not continue to hold weight.

(12) Protocols - "That Very Real Subterranean Force"

From: Bill

In musing over the infamous Protocols of Zion, that alleged Czarist forgery, it strikes this writer that the real cause of concern is not so much the content, although that largely describes the history of the twentieth century, but rather the implication that Jews are capable of long term planning over the centuries to achieve group objectives. That is the charge which the Jews wish to avoid at all costs. To anyone who has read the historical record it is obvious that the long conjectured 'Jewish international' is a provable reality. There are many examples of it in the history of the last two hundred years but one of the best examples is the revolutions of 1848 in Europe. In that year virtually every European monarchy experienced simultaneous revolutionary upheavals. Coincidence? Not a chance. In all countries Jews played a highly visible and in many cases decisive role in the upheavals. After the revolutions failed the Jews who had instigated these revolutions fled to England and America. There they became prominent in establishing the newly founded Republican Party in 1855. These European Jewish revolutionaries then became active in promoting abolitionist sentiment before joining Abraham Lincoln's Union Army as generals. After the war, these butchers in military uniform became U.S. ambassadors and diplomats to many foreign countries.

Now, how does all this happen? Are we really to believe that it is just coincidence that Jews stage a simultaneous series of revolutions in all western European countries, that they flee across the sea and become the founding fathers of a new political party in America, that they happen to become generals in the Union army despite their total lack of military expertise, that they just happen to become high diplomats and ambassadors of their adopted country, the United States, after the war? This sort of thing does not 'just happen'. It happens because of a very real, subterranean force emerging into the open as its interests dictate and require.

None of this directly 'proves' the Protocols of Zion. But the fact that this coordinated Jewish activity was taking place scant twenty or so years before the publication of Maurice Joly's book and related predecessors is certainly very indicative of a real Jewish power at work. The fact that the alleged plans of this power also surfaced not too many years afterward is also very indicative. Coincidence in politics is, more frequently than not, no mere 'coincidence'. The revolutionary outbreaks of 1848, the movement of the Jewish felons to the New World and their coordinated activities there, and the emergence of Joly's book and Jacob Venedy's book around 1860 and 1850 respectively, about the same time that the communist Jacoby brothers were founding the first Communist Party in New York simultaneous with the founding of the1848'r dominated Republican Party in the same year of 1855, adds up to something very ominous. Those who wish for more details should consult the book 'Red Republicans', available as a 'print to order' volume, in either hardcover or softcover.

(13) Reply (Peter M.):

The revolutionary movement spans centuries, from the French Revolution to Karl Marx, to the Bolsheviks, to our own time. And thus our investigation must delve into the historical continuity.

The Anarchist leader Bakunin wrote in his paper Federalism, Socialism, Anti-Theologism:

"Babeuf's conspiracy failed; he was guillotined, together with some of his old friends. But his idea of a socialist republic did not die with him. It was picked up by his friend Buonarroti, the arch-conspirator of the century, who transmitted it as a sacred trust to future generations".

According to James Billington, in his book Fire In the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith, Buonarroti was a member of the Illuminati. Billington's big book is an account of the secret societies behind revolutions.

The back of the dust jacket of this book reads:

{quote} JAMES H. BILLINGTON has been, since 1973, director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars ... he received his doctorate as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford ...{endquote}

Billington later became Librarian of Congress.

There's no mention in the book of the secret society of Cecil Rhodes for furthering the British Empire, which endows the Rhodes Scholarships to this day: rhodes-scholars.html.

And despite its size (677 pages, weighing 1.1 kgs), Billington's book manages to omit any Jewish connection to Revolutions.

That Jewish connection is, however, supplied by two impeccable Jewish sources, Benjamin Disraeli and J. L. Talmon.

Benjamin Disraeli wrote in his "novel" Coningsby, in 1844 (5th edition, published by Peter Davies, London, 1927):

'that mighty revolution which is at this moment preparing in Germany, and which will be, in fact, a second and greater Reformation, and of which so little is as yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews, who almost monopolise the professorial chairs of Germany. ... ' (p. 264).

Disraeli, writing in 1844, is referring (four years in advance) to the revolution of 1848, launched shortly after the appearance of The Communist Manifesto.

In 1852 Disraeli wrote in Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography (Archibald, Constable & Co. Ltd., London 1905):

{p. 324} An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property. Destruction of the Semitic principle, extirpation of the Jewish religion, whether in the mosaic or in the christian form, the natural equality of man and the abrogation of property, are proclaimed by the secret societies who form provisional governments, and men of Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them. The people of God co-operate with atheists; the most skilful accumulators of property ally themselves with communists; the peculiar and chosen race touch the hand of all the scum and low castes of Europe! And all this because they wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom which owes to them even its name, and whose tyranny they can no longer endure.

When the secret societies, in February 1848, surprised Europe, they were themselves surprised by the unexpected opportunity, and so little capable were they of seizing the occasion, that had it not been for the Jews, who of late years unfortunately have been connecting themselves with these unhallowed associations, imbecile as were the governments the uncalled-for outbreak would not have ravaged Europe. But the fiery energy and the teeming resources of the children of Israel maintained for a long time the unnecessary and useless struggle. If the reader throws over the provisional governments of Germany, and Italy, and even of France, formed at that period, he will recognise everywhere the Jewish element. {endquote}

Disraeli's message is: if you don't want Communism, support Zionism. The West used this strategy in the Cold War.

More from Disraeli at disraeli.html .

J. L. Talmon wrote two studies of the revolutionary tradition. The first, The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, "writes out" any mention of Jewish involvement.

The second, Israel Among the Nations, "writes it back in":

{p. 1} It has for a long time been almost an axiom that The Revolution was the ally, some were even wont to say saviour of the Jews, and that the Jews were the natural standard-bearers of the revolution. ... Those who should be most interested, revolutionaries of Jewish extraction, or revolutionaries in general, tend to deny the very legitimacy of the juxtaposition, 'Jews and revolution'. It is, they argue, men, classes, peoples who rise in revolt against oppression, that many revolutionaries have {p. 2} been of Jewish ancestry is quite irrelevant and the very desire to see it as relevant arises out of a sinister intention to discredit the cause of revolution itself ... Then there are those Jews who are unable to ignore the intimate relation between Jews and revolution, but wish they had never heard of it. ... {p. 69} Three years later the Tsar and all his family were helpless prisoners guarded by a Jew and a few Latvian assistants. ... - 'in the fact that the chief executioner of Tsar Nicholas II and his family in the Ekaterinburg cellar was a Jew', Jacob Yurovsky.

{p. 21} The great wave of revolutions in 1848, spreading with lightning speed from capital to capital, almost from town to town across Europe, was greeted by very many Jews as proof that all nations were about to enter into a revolutionary world association. {i.e. World Government, i.e. the messianic age}

Not only the democratic and Socialist aspirations, but even the national liberation movements bore at least in the early phase a distinctly universalist character. So great was the enthusiasm of the Jews that they were prepared to overlook the anti-Jewish excesses ... and even to proclaim that the victory of universal brotherhood had put 'an end to any distinct Jewish history', 'for liberty, like love, is cosmopolitan, wandering from people to people'.

There was hardly a revolution - that year of revolutions - in which Jews were not prominent or at least very active.

{endquote} More of Talmon at talmon.html.

Engels, in describing the history of the Communist movement, candidly admits the role of secret societies, unlike some later historians who pretend that all those uprisings happened purely spontaneously. Engels, History of the Communist League, in Lewis D. Feuer (ed), Marx & Engels: Basic Writings on Politics & Philosophy, 1959, pp. 459-470.

In the same article he states that the revolutionary movement had been underground (conspiratorial) until 1847, when the first Congress of the League of the Just was held. At this Congress the league was reorganised and renamed the "Communist League", and, coming out of its underground mode, "barred all hankering after conspiracy, which requires dictatorship".

Acknowledgement of the connection to Weishaupt is implied: "Whatever remained of the old mystical names dating back to the conspiratorial period was now abolished".

Such names (Spartacus, Philo, Gracchus etc.) had been a feature of Weishaupt's underground organisation, the Illuminati; although Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin etc. were "new names" in the same style.

The granting of such new names upon conversion to a new faith is reminiscent of the way Catholic monks and nuns, on admission to the order, gave up their old name and used a new, religious, one, that of a saint. Weishaupt, of course, would have been familiar with this.

In 1848 the Communist League commissioned Marx and Engels to write the Manifesto.

The above is from The Protocols of Zion Toolkit, Part 2: toolkit2.html

However, Karl Marx also wrote about a Jewish conspiracy in the Finance system. This must be seen, in part, as an attack on those Jews who refused to join or back the Communist movement; in today's terms, the Zionists.

The following is from The Karl Marx Library, Volume 5, On Religion (arranged and edited, with an introd. and new translations, by Saul K. Padover McGraw-Hill Book Company New York 1972):

{p. 219} The Jewish Bankers of Europe*

TAKE Austria, for instance - a country which suffers from chronic scarcity of cash. What is she doing at this moment? She proposes to raise money by negotiating the mortgage bonds of the landowners of the Austrian dominions. But how is such an operation possible?

Through the Jewish houses, who, shut out from all more honorable branches of business, have acquired in this an inevitable degree of aptitude. There are in Vienna the Rothschilds, and Arnsteins, and Eskeles, and the Jew-Greek house of Seria, for whom the management of a loan of $100,000,000 is a matter of most easy accomplishment. The way they start at the loan is to get all their correspondents to canvass their business constituencies, and with the allurements of a particular commission, their correspondents of course do their best to ensnare their customers.

The broad facts we have pointed out have naturally produced all over Europe, especially in its northern, western, and central portions where the indolence which prevails in the southern part (as Italy, Spain, and Portugal) is modified by dimate, all manner and kinds of capitalists, speculators, and jobbers, who have no other business beyond that of dealing in money. Now there are posted in every point of Europe Jewish agents who represent this business and who are the correspondents of other leading Jews. It must here be borne in mind that for one big fish, like Rothschild, there are thousands of minnows. ...

* From "The Loanmongers of Europe," published in the New York Daily Tribune, November 22, 1855.

{endquote} More at marx-jewish-finance.html.

The lesson is that there are TWO Jewish conspiratorial movements - Communism and Zionism - sometimes at odds, sometimes aligned. Each appeals to Jews - and non-Jews - to join it against the other. And there are Jews who join neither.

This mailing list includes people from both the Far Left and the Far Right. You might ask, how is this possible? But, to me, it is the only way I can operate. Truth does not reside in only one camp. Each camp shines a torch on its opponents' sins, but hides the skeletons in its own closet. By carefully balancing the two extremes, I remain independent of both.

(14) Protocols & C.H. Douglas's Social Credit theory of money

From: Iskandar

Do you think that the financial techniques expounded in the protocols could have been an inspiration to C.H. Douglas in developing his Social Credit philosophy?

So then, was state creation of fiat money practiced in the USSR during either Lenin's time or Stalin's time or post-Stalin?

Is 'social credit' or creation of fiat money by the state still a real solution, a kind of alternative to either third-way high taxation or neo-classical liberal 'new rightism'?

The problem of course is whose agenda will control 'the state'?

Sincere, Iskandar. Wellington, NZ.

(15) Reply (Peter M.):

I expect that Douglas knew the Protocols. It could have influenced his theory of money.

Yes, the USSR created it own fiat money, unbacked by gold: toolkit.html .

(16) A more subtle response from Birdman, to my more subtle argument

You have been making a subtle argument for the validity of the Protocols which I had not picked up on till now. That argument may be stated as follows:

>>Because the Protocols have predicted important world events that no one else has predicted, it cannot be a 'forgery' or 'plagiarism'. Instead, no matter what earlier documents it seems related to, the knowledge implicit in its predictions means that it was written by someone who possessed intimate knowledge of the evil acts and plans of very powerful men which were designed to do the things that were correctly predicted.<<

Now that is an interesting argument. And if indeed the Protocols had been a good predictor of world events, then it might carry some weight in my mind. Obviously, Henry Ford thought that it was a good predictor. BUT.....what has it predicted that no one else has foreseen? I have not read much of the Protocols, but I want to see the predictions. My scepticism of the predictions, indeed, is enhanced by a passage from one of your letters. You said the following:

[Begin] i. A major political event occurs in world history, inaugurating a regime (the USSR) aiming to engulf the world, carried out by organised Jews as documented by Bertrand Russell, and by Robert Wilton and others. Even though some Jews opposed the new regime, that does not undo the fact that it was created by Jews.

ii. The Jewish role is hidden, denied, kept invisible. Many of the Jewish participants came from the West - therefore, some Western Jewish groups knew of the Jewish role, yet kept it hidden from non-Jews (e.g. in the public media, partly owned by Jews). There have also been dissident Jewish groups which tried to warn of what was happening.

iii. Non-Jewish supporters of the Socialist movement are led to believe that the new regime is benevolent, and the inauguration of a utopia.

iv. In fact it is a despotic dystopia for the very people among whom it is carried out. Non-Jewish Socialists are deceived and manipulated.

Now this pattern of events was predicted in The Protocols of Zion; yet no other type of literature, e.g. the Socialist literature preceding the event, correctly predicted this conjunction of events. [End]

My scepticism here is due to two things, one small and one large. The small thing is your allegation of 'hiddenness': In fact, the edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia put out in the 1920s BRAGGED ABOUT THE ROLE OF JEWS IN THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION. This is not exactly 'hidden', tho one could argue that it would be read only by Jews, hence was hidden from the stupid goys. HOWEVER, later editions eliminated the bragging, so this makes it look like the coverup is, after all, in consideration of the goys.

Now the large thing which makes me skeptical is that the predictions you cite don't really predict anything much. Specifically, (i) All regimes want to dominate the world; (ii) the Jews have always kept their role hidden for fear of causing resentment; (iii) all regimes paint themselves as benevolent; (iv) regimes often are despotic from day 1.

Or in short, if your paragraphs (i) thru i(v) is a 'prediction' that you wish the Protocols to be judged by, then clearly the Protocols is worthless.

In the same letter you cite two other predictions:

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

This happened at the Treaty of Versailles:: http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/wells-lenin-league.html.

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

And while the matter can be debated, I do not regard these predictions to be of much worth, either. I mean, socialism had been around since before the time of Marx, who wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848, and communist and socialist ideas were ensconced in the public consciousness with not only Marx's activities, but the attempts to form socialist communities such as Brook Farm, which was involved with many American intellectuals such as Nathaniel Hawthorne, Henry Thoreau, Margaret Fuller and Bronson Alcott; Nashoba (Frances Wright); the workers' commune of Robert Owen; and the Phalanx communities based on the ideas of Charles Fourier. Thus 'predicting' a socialist dictatorship has about the same ring as predicting dinner. As to 'predicting' attempts at world government, that can be dated back to Alexander, who was supposed to have broken down in tears on the shores of Alexandria because he had no more worlds to conquer; or perhaps to Rome, which governed the known world for 1000 years (the first 'thousand-year Reich'). So with such ancient ideas as 'predictions', which had no doubt been predicted a thousand times before, I really don't think there is any need to be much impressed.

But like I say, 'Show me the predictions/No predictions, no Protocols', echoing Robert Faurisson, 'Show me the holes/No holes, no Holocaust'. And since the argument from predictions is an inductive rather than a deductive argument, your argument is strengthened the more predictions you can demonstrate that turned out to be true.

Just make sure they predict something a little more substantial than that the sun rises in the morning.


(17) Reply (Peter M.):

It is not that I have made a new argument; rather, you have finally begun to read some of what I wrote, just when I thought this discussion was over.

You say I argue that

> Because the Protocols have predicted important world events that no one else has predicted, it cannot be a 'forgery' or 'plagiarism'.

That's not quite what I say. I admit that it COULD be a 'forgery' or 'plagiarism'; I do not assert categorically that it's not. But I believe, probabilistically, that it's not.

And I'm quite happy to leave the issue open. You can't deny that I've given you free rein to express your scepticism; for my part, I have no more to add to what I've already said.

I read a comment by another writer, "Disagreements generate more than heat - they generate light too". That's why I welcome debate. Your challenge prompted me to reformulate my response, and I think my composition this time is the best summary I have done.

Write to me at contact.html.