Who Wrote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, When and Why?

I have recently become rather skeptical about the honesty of academic research in certain topics. I do not mean most topics. It seems to be a problem in a small number of topics which are all connected to one issue. Reputed researchers, who naturally have studied some topic very deeply, come up with an explanation, but there are rumored that somewhere there are so called conspiracy theoreticians, who have some crazy ideas, which any rational person would immediately discard. So fine, I start studying the topic, considering myself to be rather rational, and it very soon appears that the explanation cannot be true. I remember that it was supposed to be so in the Communistic world while we had it fine. After Communism crashed, it turned out that our media and politicians had done some cover-up, but OK, those were the times. Now it seems to be the same case in the Western world and that it has been so for a very long time. What has changed? Probably the Internet, one can find information that was not easily available earlier.

Could it be that I just have not studied the topic deeply enough, I admit that these researchers have dug through original documents and such while I have mostly only taken a look at what is available through the Web. Naturally Web is no replacement of formal education on any topic. But I do not think so, in many fields it could be so, but not in these topics. It depends on the character of the evidence. If it is violation of basic physics laws, like in the fall of the WTC buildings in 911, then there is little to say: the official explanation must be wrong. Though I do not know anything about strength calculations of steel frame buildings, I know that elementary physics works and can read the mathematics of the articles supporting the official theory and notice that while the math is fine, the initial values are wrong.

The same is with the holocaust. I just do not get the number 6. I get 4.5 or 3 to 3.5. If I start from agreed population figures, calculate the number of dead by elementary arithmetic and the result I obtain differs by millions from the result in the books of these researchers. I can easily point out where they have the error. I do not need to recheck the accepted population figures and be an expert on the topic, which would require much work. I can simply conclude that the calculation by these researchers is wrong and it hardly can be unintentional.

And it is not only these two topics. It is everywhere, as long as we stay in the same one issue. One of these topics is the classical anti-Semitic pamphlet called the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. An English translation of the Protocols can be found e.g. in [1]. The Protocols is said to be a plagiarism of a 1864 book by Maurice Joly and from two other sources. A new translation to English (from 2008) of this book of Joly is in [2].

It is also claimed that [1] plagiarizes from the Rabbi’s Speech by Hermann Goedsche [4] based on a chapter in his book Biarretz (1868) and from Theodor Herzl’s Der Judenstaat [5] from 1896, and that Goedsche’s Rabbi’s Speech [4] is a plagiarism of Joly’s book [2]. That is a lot of plagiarism. I will focus on [1] and [2] and comment briefly on [4] and [5] at the end of the article.

The sad reality is that historical and document researchers have not found out who wrote the Protocols, when they were written and why they were written. There have been several academic studies on these questions and each study has produced a result, which the study naturally claimed as proven. The problem is that the studies give totally different answers to these three questions and for that reason one must conclude that nothing is proven.

For a long time it was claimed that it was proven that the Protocols were written by an Ohrana agent Matvei Golovinski and that he plagiarized much of the text from the book in [2]. The introduction in [2] makes this claim quite openly as if there were a consensus about the author of the Protocols among researchers in 2008 when the translation was made. There was and is no consensus: at least three acknowledged main stream researchers on the topic claim that Golovinski was not the author. Earlier it was customary to date the Protocols close to the year 1897 take or leave a few years. All that today can be said the final version of [1] was made at some time between 1892 and 1902. This is certain since [1] has a reference to the Panama scandal of 1892 and the first verified reference to the Protocols is from 1902. Additionally it is known that the oldest parts of the text in [1] existed already in 1864. This is certain since [1] has passages that are word-to-word identical to [2] which was published in 1864. This of course does not mean that the whole text of [1] existed in 1864. So, that is the state of answering to the question When. The question Why is likewise unanswered. It cannot be answered without knowing who wrote [1]. There are more alternatives than an anti-Semite or a secret group of Jewish Elders: it could be a bad joke, made for money, written to get the Jews to move to Palestine, or written for any other possible reason.

I have read [1] and [2] a few times and looked at the arguments for and against for a decade by now. During this time there has come up many studies on the topic. I wrote this article to explain my views on this issue. I have no proof that qualifies as a proof in, say, mathematics, but I think my explanation makes lots of things understandable. I think that the Protocols are indeed a forgery, but not by Ohrana, that there indeed was the conspiracy, and that the Protocols actually were an essential part of the conspiracy. I believe that the conspiracy was the plan to move the European Jews to Palestine and that the reason for claiming that Ohrana wrote them was covering up the conspiracy since the plan had too many dark secrets, such as intentionally creating the holocaust and two world wars.

In the following I will try to justify this view, but only concerning the Protocols.

Firstly, I do not agree with arguments claiming that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are both a forgery and a plagiarism. I do not question that lots of text in [1] is directly taken from [2] without a reference to [2]. There are so similar passages that it cannot be a coincidence. A logical conclusion is that the writer of [1] copied text from [2] and I agree with this. The alternative, i.e. that Joly in [2] has taken text from an earlier secret version of [1], I discard as unlikely because [2] the passages fit into longer discussion very well: the discussion does not seem to be added later to explain the passages.

Would I call [1] a plagiarism of [2]? The text [1] is signed at the end of the document by 33 degree Zion but a signer is not necessarily the author. The content of [1] suggests that the author is a group of Jewish Elders. The text [1] appears to be a secret plan which is not to be published. If the author is a group of Jewish Elders and they wanted to appear to their audience as authors of the text, then [1] can properly be called a plagiarism of [2].

However, this is not the case. It is not claimed that the author is Jewish Elders but that the author of the Protocols is a forger. Earlier the forger was known to be Matvei Golovinski but nowadays this is not anymore known. It is claimed that the forger has plagiarized [1] from [2] but a forger does not claim that the text [1] is his, so it is not a plagiarism. If a forger has written the text [1] in the name of a group of Jewish Elders, then it is a forgery, not a plagiarism. I will, however, be more generous than normally and grant this imprecise usage of terminology because that is a very minor issue. Let us say that if Golovinski or some other forger wrote [1] by taking text from [2], then [1] is both a plagiarism and a forgery.

But is it so?

Why would anybody make a forgery which is also a plagiarism?

Think of a case where students are given a task of producing an original treatise and told to send their result to the school web-server. Student A copies a large part of his text from an old but less known book. That is a case of plagiarism, but it is not a forgery. Such things happen. Student B writes an offending text and submits it in the name of Student A. That is not plagiarism, it is a forgery. These things happen less often, but there are such cases, maybe not quite in this kind of a task. But the case of the Protocols is similar to Student B writing a text, where he plagiarizes text from an old book, and sending it in Student A’s name.

What would the teacher conclude?

I as a teacher would think it was written by Student A but let’s say the teacher is as well informed as Allen Dulles, later the head of the CIA, who noticed that the Protocols are plagiarized form Joly’s old book, which was almost nowhere available. So our well informed teacher noticed that the text submitted by Student A is a plagiarism. How does the teacher conclude from this that Student A did not send the text? How does he know that Student A was not the person who plagiarized?

Right, he cannot conclude it from this information only. There should be something in the non-plagiarized parts of the text that show to the teacher that this text is not from the pen of Student A. The plagiarized parts cannot show it, since they certainly are not from the pen of either Student A or any of his students. On some student might tell that the author was Student B.

In 1921 Philip Graves announced that the Protocols were plagiarized from a book of Joly. There are no parts in the Protocols that show that the non-plagiarized parts cannot come from some secret society using the name 33 degree Zion, therefore there was needed external evidence. Princess Radziwill and Count du Chayla gave testimonies that pointed to Matvei Golovinski of Ohrana, but we do not know that Golovinski was the author of [1]. Cesare G. De Michelis in The Non-Existent Manuscript (2004) says that Ohrana may not have had any role in writing [1]. As a conclusion, it was not proven in this way that [1] is a forgery.

Let me sill return to the student example. Why Student B plagiarizes a large part of the text and sends it in Student A’s name? It is easy to understand why Student A would plagiarize text and send it in his own name. It saves work. He cannot invent something good enough and does not manage to write a long enough text, so he copies. But Student B wants to send something offending in Student A’s name, why does such a text have to be long and good. Is it not a good or better if it is short and lousy? The same is with the Protocols. A tightly printed pdf of the Protocols is 44 pages long, too long and too dull for most people. If Ohrana (or other anti-Semites) wanted to write an anti-Semitic document, why make it 44 pages long and is it really necessary to insert ideas from Joly’s deep political treatise? And why the forger wanted to present improvements to the program in Joly? That is, there are many similar passages in [1] and [2], but [1] gives different solutions than [2]. It is like [1] is an adaptation of [2] to other needs. Why make such improvements? Would it not have been easier just to write something of Jewish ritual murders and such easy stuff, which will foment anti-Semitism? So it is very strange, and I do not like seeing Allen Dulles as the person who found the source of the forgery. It is also too strange.

My explanation is the following. The Protocols have originally been internal study material of a Masonic lodge, probably the Paris Misraim lodge l’Arc en Ciel. This study material has been taken from Joly’s book and the Protocols of [1] have been introductory lectures for discussion on to topic. There are 24 Protocols, in some versions less. If 6-8 Protocols were discussed in one session, this would mean 3-4 sessions. We do not know the outcome of the discussion and they may have never been written down. Who knows how many times this material was used. If these texts were only introduction talks to a discussion, it is not surprising that many are taken from a book directly, abbreviating and sometimes changing. The presenter had thought Joly’s Machiavelli had often said it well and sometimes not so well. The protocols are clearly not written for publication: the document is not a book or pamphlet, nor a scientific treatise or a journalistic article. Misraim lodge had a study material on Kabbalah, a manuscript made by one of the Brothers. Such materials were usually studied for obtaining different degrees, and that made them secret. Let us just mention that Misraim lodges called their teacher Rabbi and their supreme council Sanhedrin, so they used Jewish terminology though most members were Catholic. Based on this, it is even possible that in some study material these Masons would have called themselves Jews. Studying the ways Napoleon III and the bonabartists managed to get into power by coup d’etat stay in power quite long was certainly worth the effort for revolutionary Freemasonry.

There is one piece of internal evidence that [1] originally derives from a Misraim or Memphis lodge. It is in Protocol 3, where the Elders describe themselves as the people of the snake. An additional picture, described by the translator Marsden in the introduction of [1] explains that the snake makes a whole circle. It is apparently an ouroboros, a snake biting its own tail. This is an old symbol of Memphis and Misraim lodges. You can see it in the present symbol of Memphis-Misraim and you can see it in the declaration of the human rights from the time of the French Revolution, it is the circle just above the middle staff. In the sky there is the Masonic all-seeing eye confirming Masonic connections. Ouroboros is a symbol of revolutionary Freemasonry deriving from Cagliostro’s Egyptian Freemasonry. It is not a symbol of the Jewish people, cabbalistic or not. In the Jewish tradition a snake appears, but not as a symbol of the people. A snake can be the snake in Eden, the staff of Moses, the bronze snake on a stake set by Moses, and in Messianic Judaism, like early Christianity, a snake can symbolize the Messiah. However, the Jewish people see themselves the Promised People of God, not as the people of the snake.

There is an external piece of evidence connecting [1] to the Paris Misraim lodge: according to Leslie Fry (a pseudoname, but having given correct information of the role of Glinka), the text was stolen from the Paris Misraim lodge in 1884.

If [1] was originally a Masonic document, it must have been edited. The first reason is that the Misraim rite had 90 degrees, the Memphis rite had 96 degrees, neither of them would have had a supreme council of 33 degrees. This reason may not be strong: I remember having read that at some point the Misraim rite had 33 degrees, but I could not find the reference. The second reason is that the Misraim lodge members were mostly Catholic. I would expect to see references to Christian Cabbalism, not only to Jewish supremacy. The third reason is that internal evidence shows that [1] has most probably been edited in 1897-98, while the Paris Misraim lodge was dissolved 1893. The timing of [1] is given by references to the Panama scandal 1892, object lessons of Leon Bourgeois, Paris underground and possibly Russian gold standard. Theoretically the Misraim lodge could still have drafted a document in 1893, but it was hardly alive at that time.

Misraim and Memphis lodges were involved in most of the revolutionary activity of the 19^th century. Memphis lodges were established by a high Illuminati member while he visited the predecessor of Misraim. The revolutions of 1848 in Europe were created by these Freemasons. Luis Napoleon was elected President of France in 1848 after the revolution. A high Freemason Adophe Crémieux was appointed the minister of justice. He was not the only Jewish minister in the 1848 government, Michel Goudchaux become minister of finance. Crémieux supported Luis Napoleon in the beginning but become an opponent and was imprisoned in 1851. But 1848 was also almost the end of revolutionary activity of Masons. Memphis and Misraim Freemasonry had practically died out soon after Paris Commune failed 1871. There was only one lodge still meeting in early 1890ies, the Paris Misraim lodge l’Arc en Ciel. Giuseppe Garibaldi united the Misraim and Memphis rites in 1881, meaning that the degrees of the rites were unified, but this decision was enforced only in 1889. In 1893 a new Memphis-Misraim rite was established in Paris under the influence of Spiritists and the Gnostic Church. Theosophical Society (Helena Blavatsky), Ordo Templi Orientis (Theodor Reuss) and Martinism (Gerard Encausse), were all connected and involved in this. If there was a document explaining Napoleon III’s methods in Misraim lodge archives, any of these organizations might have obtained it.

Both Blavatsky and Encausse warned about a Jewish plot against Russia. There was a real threat of Communists, who carried out terrorist attacks. Several Carbonaries and revolutionary Freemasons took part in the First International, thus there is some reason to consider Communists as a direct continuation of leftist revolutionary Freemasonry. Even if one does not accept Communists as direct descendants of Memphis and Misraim, it is an undeniable fact that Trotsky studied revolutionary Freemasonry while in prison. It is fully possible that material from the Misraim or Memphis lodges found their way to Communists.

Benjamin Disraeli, who converted to Christianity from Judaism and was the prime minister of the UK, warned Christianity of a Jewish plan in Lord George Bentinck: A Political Biography (1852)[3]: “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 recognize everywhere the Jewish element.”

Let that be the confirmation that there was a Jewish element in the revolutions of 1848. The last book of Alexander Solzhenitsyn explains the Jewish element in Bolshevism.  The role of the Jewish banker Jacob Schiff in Zionism is well known. As Disraeli, and Churchill later, explained, either Jews turn to Communism and destroy Christianity by revolutions or Christians help to turn Jews to Zionism and as a result Jews are restored to Palestine. It was blackmail by some rich Jewish bankers.

I think the original version of [1] was composed in 1860ies or 1870ies and the material was edited around 1895-97. Who added the references to 1890ies to the original document and edited it? Ohrana? Theosophists or Martinists? Communists? Jews? Zionists?

There is a piece of internal evidence that makes it unlikely that the Protocols were edited by Ohrana or by any other organization, which can be suspected of anti-Semitic motives. In Protocol 9 there is the sentence: their anti-Semitism is indispensable to us for the management of our lesser brethren. A real anti-Semite is unlikely to have made a statement that all anti-Semitism comes from the leaders of Jews. A real anti-Semite thinks anti-Semitism is a natural and correct reaction by non-Jews to activities of Jews.

There is evidence that Zionists wanted anti-Semitism. We know that Zionists made the Ha’avara deal with Hitler and Nazi-Germany was training agriculture to Jews and smuggling illegally some Jews to Palestine, both showing Hitler’s pro-Zionism in the beginning. There is also a text from Theodor Herzl himself (The complete diaries of Theodor Herzl. Vol. 1, ed. Raphael Patai , p. 83-84): “It would be an excellent idea to call in respectable, accredited anti-Semites as liquidators of property. To the people they would vouch for the fact that we do not wish to bring about the impoverishment of the countries that we leave. At first they must not be given large fees for this; otherwise we shall spoil our instruments and make them despicable as stooges of the Jews. Later their fees will increase, and in the end we shall have only Gentile officials in the countries from which we have emigrated. The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.”

This passage was misinterpreted in the Internet, but what does it mean?

It is explained in The Jewish State (1896) [5]. The liquidator is the Jewish Company and it is so arranged “that everything may be carried through in equity, fairness and justice, and without imperiling the internal welfare”.  So fine, Herzl meant only good. But that’s the wrong quote. In [5] Herzl also wrote the following: “How are we to transport masses of Jews without undue compulsion from their present homes to this new country? … Great exertions will hardly be necessary to spur on the movement. Anti-Semites provide the requisite impetus. They need only do what they did before, and then they will create a desire to emigrate where it did not previously exist, and strengthen it where it existed before.”

This quote has a different meaning: Jews will move to the new homeland because of pogroms and persecution. Zionists do not want to use compulsion to get the Jews to migrate, but they expect (=want) the anti-Semites to do it. Zionists saw anti-Semites as allies in creating Israel. That is what this quote means. Zionists needed persecution of Jews.

Let us look at the diary quote a bit more carefully. The Jews need a liquidator of property because if a large number of Jews leave the country there are not enough interested buyers for their property. A liquidator, the Jewish Company, sells the property in a longer time and finally the only workers in this company in the country of departure are Christians. (In the new homeland the Jewish company runs a building program with unpaid workers, the Jews who migrate will become work slaves of the Company, well treated but under strict discipline. As a curiosity, they will not get work clothes for free but in exchange of their old clothes, so the Company collects the old clothes.) As Herzl wants to employ anti-Semites in the role of liquidators, it is natural that Zionists pay a fee to the anti-Semites for this work but why the payment increases later? As a background, an essential part of exodus is that Jews take with them loot from the country they leave. This is so in the stories of the Exodus from Egypt and the exodus from Babylonia (in the book of Esther). I cannot invent any other reason than that Herzl wanted to bribe the liquidators to get the loot that the exodus must include, and also for making these anti-Semites their most dependable friends and allies.

If it feels unfair to Herzl to think so, then what to say of the following quote from [6]:

“Should the Powers declare themselves willing to admit our sovereignty over a neutral piece of land, then the Society will enter into negotiations for the possession of this land. Here two territories come under consideration, Palestine and Argentina. In both countries important experiments in colonization have been made, though on the mistaken principle of a gradual infiltration of Jews. An infiltration is bound to end in disaster. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened, and forces the Government to stop the further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless based on an assured supremacy.”

So, you need supremacy, not negotiations.

As an additional hint to Christian Zionists fomenting anti-Semitism, there is the strange case of Henry Ford. He is also a high Freemason, but American Freemasonry was pro-Semite and involved in Zionism since Mordecai Manuel Noah. An easy explanation for this curiosity is that anti-Semitism was essential for persuading Jews to migrate and especially to Palestine, and not to the USA for instance.

Based on these few cases, I think it is correct to assume that the editor of the original version of the Protocols was not Ohrana or any real anti-Semitic organization or person, but it was a false anti-Semite. Probably the forger belonged to Masonry in a wide understanding of the term (covering Theosophy, Martinism, Rosicrucian and so on). The forgery was intended for the Russian secret police Ohrana and the goal was to foment anti-Semitism in Russia so that Russian Jews would migrate, preferably to Palestine, but as it was not possible for many, then temporarily to the USA. Jacob Schiff organized such emigration with B’nai B’rith. It was continuation of the work of Mordecai Noah. The forger inserted passages praising Russian aristocracy and Czar in order to be better received by Russians. The threat of a revolution in Russia, largely supported by Jews, was perfectly real. In order to stress how real the threat is, the forger gave a rather correct version of the Communistic intentions.

It is unlikely that a Communist, Jewish or not, would have edited the text. The Protocols is not a plan for a revolution. Such a plan should have times and details. It is also not an actual plan for conquering the world. It is a threat: Jews can and will do all this unless they are given a homeland. It is a similar threat as was said by Disraeli and later by Churchill and what is said by Herzl in [5]: if Jews get poor, they become revolutionaries while if rich they use the terrible power of the purse, so the Christians should give them a homeland.

I have now discarded as the editors of [1] Ohrana, Communists and Jewish Elders, who want to rule the world. There are left Theosophists or Martinists and Zionists.

Let us look at the text of [1] and compare it with [2].

The text of [1] has many similarities with [2], but most interesting are the differences. Joly describes the state system set up by Luis Napoleon, or Napoleon III after the coup d’etat of 1851. Joly’s Machiavelli explains how Luis Napoleon managed to stay in power for a long time: he was ousted only as ill and after losing a war to Germany. Luis Napoleon introduced censorship, imprisoned 6000 opponents, rebuilt Paris and bended existing laws in order to get absolute power for six years. Later, in 1862, he relaxed censorship. He continued rebuilding Paris, developed infrastructure and trade, started women education, improved the situation of the poor, initiated the Crimean war, assisted Italian unification while at the same time defending the Papal State, conquered new provinces abroad, and he managed to keep secret societies inactive until the Franco-Prussian war 1870-71, which encouraged the Paris Commune. Luis Napoleon used the title Prince-President from 1848, very fitting for Machiavelli’s Prince. Although historical accounts of Luis Napoleon do not discuss all issues which Machiavelli proposes in Joly’s book, what is told fits exactly.

So, Luis Napoleon was Machiavelli, but he did not do everything alone. In Joly’s book Machiavelli acts as a head of a secret society, which provides intelligence and is a part of police. Also this act of Machiavelli probably has a correspondence in reality: there was a secret society, but not that Freemasonry where Crémieux was. Luis Napoleon was supported by Saint Simonists, who had good connections to secret societies, probably to the Misraim lodge. One of the leading Saint Simonists, Michel Chevalieur, was a close advisor of Napoleon III. Saint Simonism was a religion and largely responsible for the industrialization of France during Naoplon III’s reign. Saint Simonists were pro-Semites, wanted to liberate Jews and later to restore them to Palestine.

The leader of Saint Simonists, Father Prosper Enfantin (known to the followers as Pope and Christ), was looking for a long time for a female Messiah, Mother, to have intercourse with Father (that would naturally be Enfantin) to give birth to the future Messiah. He did not find, but this shows the Messianic character of Saint Simonism and fits well to the Kind of Israel in the Protocols.

Another famous Saint Simonist, Jewish poet Heinrich Heine, was connected to Rothschild family and warned of Communism very early. This that Jews, like Disraeli, were warning of revolutions run by Jews, is understandable only by assuming that what they wanted was the homeland.

At the very end of Joly’s book, before Machiavelli is taken away by a whirlwind, there appear shadows, those who have now asked God to get their homeland back. Considering the intentions of Saint Simonists, this is a reference to restoration of Jews. Jews themselves were not as major power at that time as later, but restoration of Jews was supported by some Protestant Christians, Saint Simonists, some Jewish bankers, Jewish cabbalists and by most Freemasons, especially by Misraim lodges, which were the direct continuation of the Jacobins of the French Revolution – let us not forget that Napoleon liberated Jews in conquered countries.

We see that it is not true that Joly’s book has only one reference to Jews (the passage on p. 36 in [2] where it is said that some materialistic people have taken Jews as models). There are two references and the one in the end of the book, of returning to homeland, is in a very important place in the book. It, in a way, is the explanation of all what Machiavelli has explained. Before that place, in the same page of [2] (p. 153) it is said that this plan could have only been invented in Hell and three pages before the end (p. 150) Machiavelli admits that even he did not invent a plan as evil as this one. He had been surpassed. Saint Simonism is a way to Communism, an alternative to Bolshevism. Saint Simonism changes the system from inside and works with engineers and capitalists, but the end state is the same, totalitarian Communism. Still, that is not the end. Machiavelli is taken away by a whirlwind and then Jews return to their homeland. Or, Joly’s book is yet another warning and plea for a homeland.

What is different in the Protocols and in Joly? Firstly, Machiavelli in [2] thinks only about one country while in [1] the goal is to have all states unified under one super-government. Therefore in [2] an opponent of the ruler can try to publish his writings abroad, as Joly did, but in [1] there is no abroad. This is a result of the Communistic world revolution. In [2] Machiavelli takes loans and uses ways to manage with the loans, as Luis Napoleon did. In [1] the Elders warn the state of taking loans. Loans are a way to tie the Christian states, while their super-state does not take loans. This is possible since there is only one state, so it is not necessary to keep up with other states e.g. in military, welfare or for instance compete in conquering the space. If there are many states and bankers willing to give loans, it is easy to force a state to take a loan e.g. for building defense forces or building infrastructure in order to keep up with other countries in economic competition, which is just as important for survival. There is a biblical reference: the new Israel is borrowing to others and not taking loans. (Almost everything of the plan is in the Bible.)

Machiavelli purges opponents after the coup d’etat, but does not promote violence. The Protocols have opted for terror, which is similar to what happened in Communistic Russia. Machiavelli does not destroy clergy or religion, Napoleon III was a protector of the Catholic faith, the Church and the Pope. Indeed, Napoleon III wanted to be seen as the protector of three pillars of the society: king, church and family. The Protocols want to destroy Christianity, defame the clergy and degrade morals. They partially realize the Illuminati plan of destroying the three pillars in order to bring the society down. There is a similar difference in discussing the state as a body and different state departments as different organs of a body. Machiavelli, like Napoleon III, only modifies the system but keeps it running, the Elders want to kill the body, destroy the Christian state.

A major difference between [1] and [2] is the role of a king and non-Jews with respect to Jews. In Joly, the king selects his own advisors surrounding himself with millionaires, engineers, writers and so on. In [1] Christian kings or presidents are reduced to puppets by surrounding them with advisors from the Jews. Jewish youth are trained political secrets in special universities. The high intelligence of Jews is stressed, and the stupidity of Christians. The Protocols [1] were probably edited in 1897, i.e., before the Binet-Simons IQ test (1905). Francis Galton had made some intelligence testing already in 1882, but before the Binet-Simons test there was no way of scientifically arguing that Jews had a higher IQ than non-Jews (and probably they did not have in 1897, assuming like Lynn that the high Jewish IQ in the USA, GB and Canada is a result of selection). The Protocols claim that Jews have higher intelligence reflecting Benjamin Disraeli’s opinions in Coningsby (1844). This opinion fits better to pro-Semites than to anti-Semites, e.g., pro-Semitic Saint Simonists had the belief that Jews are a particularly industrious population, while anti-Semites believed that their success was due to lobbying, cheating, usury and nepotism, not to higher intelligence.

We can see from these differences that the Protocols is more in line with the Bolshevik version of Communism, while Joly’s Machiavelli supports the Saint Simonistic road to Communism. As Saint Simonism finally lost to other branches of Communism, these changes are very natural. They also explain why the events in Communistic Russia echo so well with the Protocols. The Protocols is indeed the Saint Simonistic plan, as told by Joly, upgraded to the Bolshevik plan, as it could be constructed from the knowledge outsiders could have.

What about the anti-Semitic character of [1]. Who black-painted Jews and why? I would say that the editor was a pro-Semite who wanted to restore Jews to Palestine, that is, a Zionist. I cannot say if it was a Jewish or non-Jewish person, as there were both types of Zionists. The editor most probably was not a true Communist, a real orthodox Jew, a real Christian, or a Zionist of Herzl’s organization. Any Theosophist or Martinist could have written the text in [1]. So could a Jewish banker, any politician, a cabbalist of Jacob Frank’s type, any secret service, or a writer with the skill of Joly, many people could have written it.

Let us see if there is any information of the origins of the Protocols.

A first mention of them is an article published in 1902 in Vremya. Apparently Julia Glinka had been interviewed by a journalist, Mikhai Menshikov, who however become skeptical of the document and did not publish the Protocols. A partial version of the Protocols appeared as a pamphlet in 1903 in Znamya. The complete Protocols were published as the last chapter in the third edition of the book The Great Within the Small by Sergius A. Nilus in 1905. There is an issue of the 1905 in the collections of the British Museum since 1906. G. Butmi published a version in pamphlet form in 1906. After the Bolshevik revolution the Protocols were given much publicity in the Western countries. First time they were published in the West in the English newspaper Morning Post (1917).

No French version of the Protocols exists, thus we only can proceed from the versions in Russian. By textual analysis most investigations state that there existed an original in French, but a later study has disputed these claims. In fact, we do not know if there was any original in French, but possibly there was.

There are several different stories how the Protocols came into existence. The problem with these stories is that none of them can be verified. The first verified written reference to the Protocols is on April 7, 1902: Russian journalist Mikhail Menshikov wrote of a “quite a thick manuscript,” describing a “conspiracy against the human race”, by “Jewish sages”. There were two different versions of the Protocols: the Krushevan and Nilius versions. Pavel Krushevan published his version in 1903 in a right-wing newspaper. Sergei Nilius published his version in 1905 in the book The Great within the Small.

The notarized testimony of Filip Petrovich Stephanov given in exile in Yugoslavia in 1927 tells that Stephanov received the Protocols from Alexis Sukhotin in 1895. Of the origins he told that a lady living in Paris had found them from a house of a Jewish friend. She had them secretly translated before leaving for Russia and had given them to Sukhotin. Stephanov had mimeographed copies but the quality was too poor. He had the text printed in 1897 and gave it to Sergei Nilius, who included it in his book (published 1905).

Sergej Sergejewitsch Nilius, a son of Sergei Nilius gave a detailed statement in March 24th 1936 adding that he can testify under oath having been present in 1901 when Sukhotin gave the manuscript to his father. The time 1901 is quite possible considering that the manuscripts of Nilius have 1902-3 as the dates. We know that the document existed in 1902 and this put is only one year earlier. It also means that Nilius cannot know anything certain of the document before 1901.

Nilius was asked for the name of the lady, but he did not remember it. Stephanov testified that Sukhotin had not told the name. Both Stephanov and Nilius only knew that the lady lived in Paris. Also Menshikov tells of a lady, who obtained the Protocols in France (in Nice), but Menshikov tells that he actually met the lady.

The identity of the lady comes from the Leslie Fry. It is a pseudoname, the real name of Fry is not known. Fry’s story has many variants with small differences: Justina (or Yuliana) Glinka, a daughter of a Russian general and an Ohrana informant, bought in 1884 a document that is valuable to Russia (the Protocols) from a Freemason and a Jew, Joseph Shapiro (or Schorst) who had stolen it from the Misraim Lodge in Paris. Glinka obtained the French version of the Protocols and a Russian translation (or had it translated). She gave the document with the translation to General Orgevskii in St. Petersburg (or Gendarmerie General Orzhevskomu) and a copy of the translation to Sukhotin when she returned to her estate in Orel. Sukhotin gave it to Stephanov.

There is an addition to this story, correctness of which I could not verify, stating that Orgevskii gave it to his superior General Cherevin to be taken to Czar, but Cherevin only filed it to an archive. Cherevin died 1896 and in his testament gave the Protocols to Czar Nikolaj II.

If this story, or some of it, is true, then the document was edited after Shapiro gave it to Glinka, since [1] has a reference to the Panama scandal of 1892. However, the identity of the lady as Yuliana Glinka seems to be generally accepted. Even Cesare G. De Michelis accepts that Glinka gave the journalist of Vremya a copy of the Protocols in 1902.

The alternative story where Ohrana’s Matvei Golovinski forged the document is based on statements by Princess Catherine Radziwill and Count Armand du Chayla. Catherine Radziwill told in 1921 that Matvei Golovinski compiled the Protocols in 1904-5 under the instructions of Ohrana’s general Piotr Rachkovski, Chief of Russian secret service in Paris. Count du Chayla told in 1921 having met Nilius in the Optina monastry in 1909. Nilius did not show him the Protocols, which he kept elsewhere, but he read to du Chayla from a book in French and showed manuscripts (apparently from Misraim) with an ink spot that he had got from Ohrana’s Rachkovski and said that they all are the same. This story suggests that Nilius forged the document based on Joly’s book and documents from Misraim.

It is possible to omit the testimonies of Radziwill and du Chayla on the basis of lack of trustworthiness. Princess Catherine Radziwill was condemned of forging the name of Cecil Rhodes in a South-African case and had trouble paying her bills in the USA. According to State Councillor Gregor Petrowitsch Girtschitsch, Count du Chayla was a Bolshevik spy.  Both might have given a false statement for money or for a political reason. Radziwill told that Golovinski forged the document in 1903-4, but Menshikov refer to the document already in 1902, so this story is false. Sergej Sergejewitsch Nilius, a son of Nilius, stated in March 24th 1936 that Count du Chayla was intentionally lying. Also his story may be false. Additionally the son of Ohrana’s general Rachkovski was found. This son, Andrej Petrowitsch Ratschkowsky, told that his father, State Councillor Ratschkowsky, was not a general, did not work with the Protocols and was not anti-Semitic having even a Jewish secretary at that time. Are these all true claims? I do not know, the two last are based on a 2007 paper by three Russians Lev Aronov, Henryk Baran and Dmitry Zubarev. Possibly, probably yes.

An Ukrainian scholar Vadim Skuratovsky has provided evidence that Charles Joly, the son of Maurice Joly, visited Saint-Petersburg 1902 and worked in Le Figaro at the same time as Matvei Golovinsky. Charles Joly could have taken his father’s book to Golovinski in 1902, but if we assume that Nilius got the manuscript from Sukhotin in 1901, the explanation does not work. It might be that Golovinski was investigating the origins of the Protocols already in 1902. As Cesare G. De Michelis argues that Ohrana may not have had any role in the writing of the Protocols, and he also questions whether there ever existed a French original, this discovery of Skuratovsky does not conclusively show Golovinski as the author.

I would discard the theory that Ohrana forged the document. It does not explain why the events after the 1917 revolution resembled what is told in the document. It also does not explain why the Empress had the Protocols in her night table after her death, as one of the three books she had, and why Nikolai II is told to have read them to the family.

There is third story according to which Ohrana has sent police to spy on the First Zionist Congress in Basel 1897. Using a fire alarm as a disguise, the policemen managed to steal the papers from the speaker’s or chairman’s desk. They are said to have been identical to the Protocols given by Glinka. The original form of this story comes from Nilius, but when questioned, he told that he got the document from Sukhotin in 1901. Notice that there were two different versions of the Protocols: the one Nilius used and the one Krushevan published in 1903. We do not know anything of the latter.

The story of the Nilius version may be more or less as told. Yuliana Glinka was a known occultist and student of theosophy in Paris. It seems that she did do something irritating to other occultists since her friend framed her as an author of scandal writings and she got into disfavor by the Czar. Theosophy in Paris was connected with occult circles through O.T.O., and in that way to the Misraim Lodge. So, there is a connection how Glinka could have obtained a secret Jewish document from the Paris Misraim Lodge l’Arc en Ciel.

Judging from these stories, I think that it is very possible that some Misraim document was found around 1884-1895 and it was edited 1895 or 1897 and given to Glinka, who was known to have contacts to Russian secret police. The editing was done by someone, who wanted to create anti-Semitism so that Russian Jews would move to Palestine. It is of course also possible that there was no Misraim document to start with and the document was largely plagiarized from Joly’s book. I find it problematic, because it assumes that the forger knew about Joly’s book and did not understand that someone else might find the book. If the forger did not know of [2] and just had a Misraim document, the story is more understandable.

I think the writer may have been a Theosophist, but it is just a conjecture. Jews were later pushed out of Europe by Nazis. There is a connection between Theosophy and Nazis. The Thule Society, which founded DAP, which later changed name to the Nazi party, has roots in Theosophy through Ariosophy, but it also has a more direct link to Theosophy and Misraim Freemasonry through Rudolf Sebottendorf. It seems to me that Sebottendorf infiltrated the Germanic Order and split it into half, one half being the Thule Society. Everything happened very fast and probably the goal was turning Germany into a power nominally against Communism and Jews, but actually for moving Jews into Palestine by force, for creating the persecution and holocaust of prophesies and establishing Israel. It is correct to link the holocaust and the Protocols. The Protocols were written to be anti-Semitic as a part of persecution, but equally well one should call them Zionistic. They were Masonic and Freemasonry (largely taken, including Rosicrucian, Martinistic and Theosophical societies) was Zionistic: they had the plan to move Jews to Palestine.

More precisely than that I cannot say. I in essence agree with the secret Russian investigation of the Protocols by Pyotr Stolypin in 1905, which concluded that the document was a forgery and appeared first in 1897-1898 in anti-Semitic circles in France, though in my opinion these circles were not anti-Semitic. They were occult and for restoration of Jews.

I promised to make some comments of [4] and [5]. Firstly, I could not find any similarities showing plagiarism between [2] and [4] and neither between [1] and [4]. Indeed, you find most arguments of [4] from The Unz Review, where they are not plagiarized from [2] or [1] or any anti-Semitic source but based on an analysis of the present USA. I also could not find plagiarism of [5] from [1] except for this comment in [5]: “The latter will see to it that the enterprise does not become a Panama, but a Suez”. There is a similar reference to the Panama scandal in [1].

At the beginning and the very end of Goedsche’s Rabbi’s Speech is a reminder of Old Testament prophets: Jews will be the masters of the world at the end of the times. The sign of the end of the times is the return of the Jews to homeland. In the beginning of Goedsche’s Rabbi’s Speech is a nocturnal meeting around the tomb of the Grand Master Caleb, the holy rabbi Simeon ben Jehuda. A nocturnal meeting can only mean cabbalists. Some cabbalists did have nightly meetings, for magic and casting curses. Some fringe rabbis still gather at night to say Pulsa diNura against Israel politicians. Cabbalists honor the tomb of Simeon ben Jochai (Shimon bar Yochai), the author of Zohar according to the legend, who said that even the best Christian should be killed. Grand Master refers to Freemasons. Caleb could be Cabel, Cabal, Cabbala. Simeon ben Jehudah could be Simeon ben Judah Ha-Nasi, the Jewish prince who compiled Mishnah, but Goedsche may also hint to Simeon ben Yochai as the text fits better to cabbalists. The secret meaning of Kabbalah is the coming of the Messiah and the return to the homeland – this is why most Messiah-candidates were cabbalists. Before that time the kings of Edom, that is the Christianity, are destroyed.

Goedsche’s Rabbi’s Speech is a short text, which touches many of those claims of Jews that are called anti-Semitic, while [5] is a text of a Jewish Zionist and not anti-Semitic.

Both Goedsche and Herzl agree that Jews had suffered much from Christians. This is actually not quite true – Jews also prospered at times, were seldom forced to convert, and had special privileges, not only restrictions.

Goedsche says that the god today is gold and the day will come when the Jews control the gold of the world, then they will have real power and the promises of the prophets are fulfilled. Herzl comments: “Many latent political forces lie in our financial power, that power which our enemies assert to be so effective. It might be so, but actually it is not.” But he also says about the terrible power of the Jewish purse and states: “The beginning of any official acts of injustice against the Jews invariably brings about economic crises.” Both seem to agree in essence.

Goedsche says that Jews consider Christians as enemies. Herzl fully agrees: he defines a nation by a group, which is united against a common enemy and this enemy cannot be anybody else than Christians. Let us just say that Edom is Christians and it is the enemy.

Both Goedsche and Herzl agree that persecutions are less severe in their times than earlier because of the progress in the Christian world.

Both Goedsche and Herzl agree that Jewish finances control much of finance. Goedsche explains that loans give Jews control and they try to increase loan taking. I guess this is fairly correct. Goedsche discusses Jewish interest in buying land. Herzl explains how the Jewish Company would earn on land prices in the new homeland. And he also write in [5] of the building of Paris: “The men who carried out the extension of Paris made a successful speculation in land which was ingenious in its simplicity; instead of erecting new buildings in the immediate vicinity of the last houses of the town, they bought up adjacent pieces of land, and began to build on the outskirts of these. This inverse order of construction raised the value of building sites with extraordinary rapidity, and, after having completed the outer ring, they built in the middle of the town on these highly valuable sites, instead of continually erecting houses at the extremity.” Of course any investor may have interest in buying land. A land tax is proposed in [1] and [2] as a way to reduce the power of land owners. It is a typical leftist policy and many Jews were leftist oriented.

Goedsche describes a war of Jews against Christianity and clergy. Herzl makes not comment on this, but Talmud is quite anti-Christian in tone.

Goedsche discusses whether Jews want to avoid inconvenient work. Herzl expresses similar worries of Jewish interest in manual work. Goedsche notices that Jewish specialties are trade, speculation, finance, law and all professions which bring esteem and honors. Herzl agrees with trade and finance and that there Jews have many mediocre intellects. Goedsche proposes that by favoring each other, Jews can succeed in science and arts and even highlights that doctors have access to the secrets of their patients. Herzl is silent of these issues, but let us remind that before dying of rat poison Stalin accused Jewish doctors, and also that Jews have got a large portion of Nobel prizes.

Both Herzl and Godsche mention that Jews at that time married to non-Jewish aristocrats. Jews provided money and gained influence. Goedsche suggests taking Christians as mistresses. Herzl actually defended prostitution. Talmud declares that adultery with a Christian woman is not a sin for a Jewish man. A civil marriage is a way for this.

Goedsche reminds of the importance of controlling the press, but it cannot be made without money. Herzl does not discuss this topic, but Jews are indeed overrepresented in ownership and influential places in media. Goedsche would use press power to destroy the family and morals. Some of the media is indeed promoting alternative family roles and relaxed morals in the Western countries. There is also interesting thing that the liberal press is pro-immigration (of non-Whites) and mixing, while Israel is anti-immigration (of non-Jews) and mixing.

Goedsche suggests that Jews help their co-religionists in the courts of law. This reflects the time: there were some famous ritual murder trials and later e.g. the Dreyfus affair.

The last point of Goedsche is the most interesting: that Jews joined Communism, often as leaders, for insincere reasons. It is true that the early utopist socialists were sincere and Christian and they did some good. It is also true that there were many Jewish Bolsheviks, who were atheists and whose actions were not necessarily so good for the workers. Alexander Solzhenitsyn claimed that Jewish Bolsheviks did not make the Russian revolution, and this may actually be true. Communism grew out of socialism, which was a further development of Enlightenment. Old aristocracy had to disappear when industrialization started. This was a movement. It could be directed by leaders and Jews had a large role as leaders of Communism, and that system failed. I do not know if Jewish Communists were less sincere, but it seems that some bankers funded revolutions and their goals were not improving the lot of the workers.

So, did Herzl plagiarize from Goedsche? Of course not. They deal with the same people and are for that reason a bit similar. The Protocols have text from Joly, other plagiarisms are doubtful.

I do not think that [4] is anti-Semitic because of what it says but because of the way it presents it. The purpose of [4] is to foment fear of Jews, which easily turns to anger towards Jews. Goedsche implies that Jews want to destroy Christians. The Jews deny having such a plan. It has been both ways in the past. For some 1250 years, from around 630 to 1880 Jews had been the loyal supporters of Christian kings. Before that time, from 60 BC to 620 AD Jews were all the time plotting for independence and return to the homeland against Pagan and later Christian Romans. Even during the 1250 loyal years Jews had all the time Messianic movements and the task of the Messiah was restoration of Jews and submission of other nations. There has always been this plan, but it has not always been put to work.

I think that the plan of restoring Jews to Palestine was the reason behind many events, among them the writing of the Protocols. In modern times this ancient plan was revived by Protestant Christians, such as Lord Shaftesbury. The idea spread to Jewish circles. Israel Zangwill, a friend of Theodor Herzl, read it from Shaftesbury. Unfortunately Shaftesbury wrote of a country without a people for a people without a country and the result is the Israel-Palestine conflict. I rather doubt that Christian Zionists would have planned the forced transfer of Jews to Palestine, nor Jewish Zionists or even Communists. I think it was non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-Atheistic occultists.

 

 

 

References:

[1] http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-references-protocols-full-text-folder.html

[2] http://robscholtemuseum.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Dialogue-in-Hell-between-Machiavelli-and-Montesquieu.pdf

[3] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Disraeli

[4] http://www.nationalists.org/library/jews/rabbis-speech-goedsche.html

[5] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Jewish_State_(1896_translation)

[6] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Jewish_State_(1917_translation)