by Henry Makow Ph.D.
December 14, 2003
Next to the Bible,
The Protocols of the Elders of
Zion is perhaps the mostly widely read book in the world.
Published in Russia in 1903, it purports to be the leaked master plan for
"Jewish world domination." It is the kind of thing that would be studied at
secret workshops of an occult society. In different ways, both Zionists and
Nazis have made it synonymous with virulent anti Semitism and genocide.
But surely Jews should not be blamed for the machinations of a tiny secret
society. The vast majority of Jews would disavow this master plan if they
believed it existed.
Surely one can condemn all racism and genocide in the strongest possible
terms and still believe the Protocols are authentic. In my opinion, the
equation with anti Semitism is really a ploy to divert attention away from
this master plan.
The plagiarism claim is part of a propaganda campaign waged by conscious and
unconscious collaborators in academia and the media.
THE FORGERY CLAIM
We are told that The Protocols of Zion is a hoax, a "proven forgery"
concocted by the Tsarist Political Police (the Okhrana) to incite anti
Semitism and discredit revolutionaries.
But the "proof" is far from convincing.
It consists of
three articles published in The London Times
(August 16-18, 1921) by Philip Graves. According to Graves, Protocols
is a crude, chapter-by-chapter plagiarism of Maurice Joly's
Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu (1864).
It was easy to make this claim while Joly's book was unavailable. Napolean
III's police confiscated it as soon as it was published.
But it is available now and I invite you to compare the two texts. In my
opinion, they are entirely different in tone, content and purpose. At 140
pages, Dialogues is twice as long as Protocols. Most of it finds no echo in
the Protocols. The crux of Graves' argument is that certain references and
passages in Protocols were lifted from Dialogues. He claims there are 50 of
these and produces about a dozen.
Their striking resemblance to Protocols leaves little doubt that the author
did refer to the Dialogues as part of his research. He had no compunction
about borrowing or reshaping a few passages that struck his fancy.
Indeed Philip Graves is,
"struck by the absence of any effort on the
part of the plagiarist to conceal his plagiarisms."
That's because he had nothing to hide. He was
not Graves' "unimportant precis - writer employed by the court or by the
Okhrana" to construct a hoax.
He was a diabolical genius crafting an original work.
It is simplistic and
disingenuous to characterize Protocols as a hoax.
Graves' article smacks of a Zionist propaganda operation.
Graves "expose" of
Protocols appeared in August 1921 when Zionists were pressing the League of
Nations to turn Palestine into a Jewish homeland under British Mandate.
Philip Grave tells the unlikely story that a "Mr. X" brought the
Dialogues to him in Constantinople where he was the Times' correspondent.
Mr. X presented it as "irrefutable proof" that the Protocols are a
plagiarism. Mr. X was a White Russian, which seems incredible given the
Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution. He claims he bought the book from,
get this, "a former member of the Okhrana" who had fled to Constantinople.
The Controversy of Zion, (Chapter 34) Douglas Reed, a
Times' staffer at the time, provides additional background.
In May 1920, Lord Northcliffe, a part owner of The Times, printed an
article about the Protocols entitled "The Jewish Peril, A Disturbing
Pamphlet, A Call for an Enquiry."
"An impartial investigation of these
would-be documents and their history is most desirable...are we to
dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of
such a book as this work unchecked?"
Then in May 1922 Northcliffe visited Palestine
and wrote that Britain had been too hasty to promise it to the Jewish people
when in fact it belonged to 700,000 Muslim Arab residents.
Mr. Wickham Steed, the editor of The Times of London in 1921 refused to
print the article and Northcliffe tried to get him fired.
Somehow Steed was able to have Northcliffe declared "insane" and committed.
Later Northcliffe complained he was being poisoned and died suddenly in
Douglas Reed was Northcliffe's secretary but didn't learn of these events
until they appeared in the Official History of the Times in the 1950's.
Clearly Northcliffe had offended some "big boys" when he opposed the British
Mandate in Palestine. Why was it so important?
Israel is intended to be the capital of the Masonic World Government. They
are already constructing the infrastructure.
Roots of Evil in Jerusalem."
THE FORGERY CLAIM IN
Philip Graves and the other apologists are incorrect to claim the Protocols
plagiarize the Dialogues chapter by chapter.
Graves writes that,
"the Seventh Dialogue... corresponds with the
fifth, sixth, seventh and part of the eighth Protocol. "
At eight pages, these Protocols are twice as
long as the Seventh Dialogue. They mostly contain material not in the
Seventh Dialogue, or anywhere else. I will list a few examples from Protocol
Protocol Five says,
"our kingdom will be distinguished by a
despotism of such magnificent proportions" that it will "wipe out any
goyim who oppose us by deed or word."
In contrast Seventh Dialogue says,
"Death, expropriation and torture should
only play a minor role in the internal politics of modern states."
Protocols Five says we "robbed [the goyim] of
their faith in God" and "insinuated into their minds the conception of their
own rights" thereby undermining the authority of Kings. There is nothing
comparable in Dialogue Seven.
Protocol Five says,
"we shall so wear down the goyim that they
will be compelled to offer us international power [allowing us]
gradually to absorb all State forces of the world and to form a
There is nothing comparable in Dialogue Seven.
Protocol Five says the "engine" of all states is,
"in our hands" and that engine is "Gold."
"We were chosen by God Himself to rule over
the whole earth."
There is nothing comparable in Dialogue Seven.
ON THE OTHER HAND
The author of Protocols does select a few passages or references from
Dialogues that appear unaltered (see Graves) or in different form.
For example, the Dialogues' say:
"Everywhere might precedes right. Political
liberty is merely a relative idea. The need to live is what dominates
states as it does individuals."
In Protocols this becomes,
"From the law of nature right lies in might.
Political freedom is an idea but not a fact, and one must know how to
use it [political freedom] as a bait whenever it appears necessary to
attract the masses ... to one's party for the purpose of crushing
another who is in authority."
Graves leaves out the last part to make the
resemblance seem greater than it is.
Dialogues (7) say,
"Revolutionary ferment which is suppressed
in one's own country should be incited throughout Europe."
In Protocols (7)
"Throughout all Europe ... we must create
ferments, discords, hostilities."
There is no reference to suppressing these in
one's own country. The author of Protocols is not a forger creating a hoax,
but a conspirator forging an original work.
SAME GENRE, DIFFERENT
Both books belong to the "immoral school" of political theory. Machiavelli
pays homage to a long list of rulers "who are progenitors of my doctrine."
Both preach might makes right, "good" comes from evil, and the end justifies
But the similarity ends there. The tone of the Dialogues is dry and
theoretical. It is a debate between fictional political theorists:
Montesquieu a champion of democracy and Machiavelli, a champion of tyranny.
Dialogues is considered a critique of the reign of Napolean III.
Montesquieu asks how to quell the spirit of anarchy in society. Machiavelli
prescribes a "monster called the state" which maintains a democratic
artifice but is actually controlled by the "Prince." He talks about how to
suppress secret societies.
On the other hand, the tone of Protocols is frankly conspiratorial and
subversive and pays homage to Lucifer. Protocols is a,
"strategic plan from
which we cannot deviate without running the risk of seeing the labour of
many centuries come to naught."
We are struck by a sense of relevance when reading Protocols. We immediately
recognize its baneful influence in today's world.
Rothschild Write The Protocols of Zion?" "Protocols
is the NWO Blueprint" and "Protocols
Dominates Our Culture" .
Since Graves' articles, there have been a few books arguing the "forgery"
thesis. The latest is
Norman Cohn, Warrant for Genocide (1970). Graves and Cohn admit that
"the Financial Program" (Protocols 20-24) which the author calls "the
crowning and decisive point of our plans" is largely original.
For serious researchers, Australian researcher Peter Myers presents
pro and con views.
Goebbels said that propaganda is effective only when the reader doesn't
realize it is propaganda. It follows that dupes write the best propaganda.
For example, see
Rick Salutin, Protocols of Zion's Critics.
One hundred million people were slaughtered in the last century but no one
considers the possibility that the human race might have been subverted.
War is hell but no one thinks Satan worshipers might be behind it.
I suspect the Second World War was a battle for racial superiority between
Jewish and Aryan wings of
the Illuminati who in fact are united at
the top. The private central bankers of England, the U.S. and Nazi Germany
made the war possible. They worked as one at the
Bank of International Settlements in
Switzerland. (See Charles Higham, Trading With the Enemy.)
The purpose of the war was to degrade, defraud and demoralize humanity. The
Holocaust provided a rationale for the establishment of Israel as
headquarters of the New World Order. Aryans, Jews and many others were
sacrificed and exploited.
In my opinion, the outlawing of Protocols on pain of death in Bolshevik
Russia and its execration in the West today proves its authenticity.
Mankind is in the grip of a diabolical conspiracy. In order to make good
people do bad things, truth must be tailored to fit the political purpose.
This is Communist and feminist teaching.
I would like to be proven wrong, but in the case of Protocols, the
"forgery" argument is propaganda.
of Zion Updated"