- Christogenea Saturdays
Christogenea Saturdays, September 19th, 2015 - The Protocols of Satan, Part 5
Click here to read the Protocols themselves at the Mein Kampf Project at Christogenea.
In our last segment of The Protocols of Satan, we had presented those parts of Chapter 10 of Nesta Webster's book World Revolution which demonstrated that much of the underlying political philosophy found in the so-called Protocols of the “Learned Elders of Zion” was actually expressed before the Protocols were ever published, by many of the key figures in the European secret societies of the 18th and 19th centuries. To do this, Webster had compared some of the writings of Adam Weishaupt, Piccolo Tigre, Mikhail Bakunin, Vladimir Lenin and other revolutionaries to statements that had been made in the Protocols. Finding the same sentiments expressed in the Protocols in the works of so many of the secret societies and writings of the revolutionaries, one can only come to the conclusion that a conspiracy which is greater than any particular secret society or revolutionary was lurking in the background which gave fuel to them all. Webster acknowledged that such a conspiracy must have existed, but she did not readily accept the exclusively Jewish nature of that conspiracy. However she did admit later Jewish involvement in both the conspiracy and in the revolutionary movements which the underlying philosophies had generated.
We have already discussed at length the earliest attempts on the part of the Jews to discredit the Protocols as so-called “forgeries”. Nesta Webster had also aptly pointed out the obvious posturing and glaring deficiencies in these attempts which were centered around the testimonies of frauds and traitors such as Katherine Radziwill and du Chayla. Further investigation into the backgrounds and antics of both of these characters reveals that they are even far worse than what we have already presented here, although we are not so certain that we should continue to elaborate on them. As Webster had stated, there is no reason that the Jews should have continued to put them forth as witnesses against the Protocols, except to purposely distract attention from the real evidence of their most plausible source, which was buried in the secret societies themselves. So to Nesta Webster, the Jewish posturing in their attempts to discredit the protocols was the first indication that the Protocols must have been legitimate even if their original author may never be determined precisely.
As we had previously explained, perhaps 6 or 8 months after statements by Radziwill and du Chayla in reference to the supposed origins of the Protocols were first made public, there had appeared yet another avenue by which to discredit them, in the form of a series of three articles by a British journalist named Philip Graves. Fortuitously for the Jews, in Constantinople Graves had been presented with a copy of a book, supposedly quite rare, by Maurice Joly, a 19th century French lawyer and bureaucrat, which in English is called The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu. Joly had written the Dialogue as a treatise against the administration of Napoleon III of France. Just as fortuitously, Graves is supposed to have been familiar with the Protocols only months after they were first published in English, and was therefore able to set the Joly book forward as the source for the Protocols in a three-part series which he had written for the London Times in August of 1921. It must be said though, that while Graves seems to project himself as having this familiarity in his articles, he credits the mysterious “Mr. X.” with the discovery of the similarities.
In earlier segments of this series on the Protocols, we had promised to present the Graves articles, and we shall do that this evening, along with some of our own comments.
The following is excerpted from The London Times for Tuesday, August 16th, 1921, pp. 9, 10:
“JEWISH WORLD PLOT.” AN EXPOSURE. THE SOURCE OF THE PROTOCOLS. TRUTH AT LAST.
The so-called “Protocols of the Elders of Sion” were published in London last year under the title of “The Jewish Peril.”
This book is a translation of a book published in Russia in 1905, by Sergei Nilus, a government official, who professed to have received from a friend a copy of a summary of the minutes of a secret meeting, held in Paris, by a Jewish organization that was plotting to overthrow civilization in order to establish a Jewish world state.
These “Protocols” attracted little attention until after the Russian Revolution of 1917, when the appearance of the Bolshevists, among whom were many Jews, professing and practicing political doctrines that in some points resembled those advocated in the “Protocols,” led many to believe that Nilus’ alleged discovery was genuine. The “Protocols” were widely discussed and translated into several European languages. Their authenticity has been frequently attacked and many arguments have been adduced for the theory that they are a forgery.
In the following articles our Constantinople Correspondent for the first time presents conclusive proof that the document is in the main a clumsy plagiarism. He has forwarded us a copy of the French book from which the plagiarism is made. The British Museum has a complete copy of the book, which is entitled, “Dialogue aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu, ou la Politique de Machiavel au XIX. Siècle. Par un Contemporain,” and was published at Brussels in 1865. Shortly after its publication the author, Maurice Joly, a Paris lawyer and publicist, was arrested by the police of Napoleon III. and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.
[Now of course we do not agree with any of the conclusions given in this introduction to the Philip Graves articles. As we have seen Nesta Webster also profess, there is indeed some material in the Protocols which is practically identical to passages from Maurice Joly's Dialogue. However that material is only a small part of the total material of the Protocols, and most of the material in the Protocols is not found in the Joly book in any form. In turn, most of the material in the Joly book is not found in the Protocols in any form. Webster described some of the remaining material in the Protocols as prophetic, which indeed it seems to have been, and she explained that it could not be accounted for if the Protocols were a mere forgery on the part of Sergei Nilus or anyone else.]
The first of three parts was titled: A LITERARY FORGERY.
(From Our Constantinople Correspondent.)
“There is one thing about Constantinople that is worth your while to remember,” said a diplomatist to the writer in 1908. “If you only stay here long enough you will meet many men who matter, and you may find the key to many strange secrets.” Yet I must confess that when the discovery which is the theme of these articles was communicated to me I was at first incredulous. Mr. X who brought me the evidence was convinced.
“Read this book through,” he said, “and you will find irrefutable proof that the ‘Protocols of the Learned Elders of Sion’ is a plagiarism.”
Mr. X., who does not wish his real name to be known, is a Russian landowner with English connexions. Orthodox by religion, he is in Political opinion a Constitutional Monarchist. He came here as a refugee after the final failure of the White cause in South Russia. He had long been interested in the Jewish question as far as it concerned Russia, had studied the “Protocols,” and during the period of Denikin’s ascendancy had made investigations with the object of discovering whether any occult “Masonic” organization, such as the “Protocols” speak of, existed in Southern Russia. The only such organization was a Monarchist one. The discovery of the key to the problem of the “Protocols” came to him by chance.
[In her book Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, Nesta Webster says this of this “Mr. X”: “Why these allusions to Constantinople as the place 'to find the key to dark secrets,' to the mysterious Mr. X. who does not wish his real name to be known, and to the anonymous ex-officer of the Okhrana from whom by mere chance he bought the very copy of the Dialogues used for the fabrication of the Protocols by the Okhrana itself, although this fact was unknown to the officer in question? Why, further, should Mr. X., if he were a Russian landowner, Orthodox by religion and a Constitutional Monarchist, be so anxious to discredit his fellow Monarchists by making the outrageous assertion that 'the only occult Masonic organization such as the Protocols speak of' - that is to say, a Machiavellian system of an abominable kind - which he had been able to discover in Southern Russia 'was a Monarchist one'?]
THE SWISS ORIGINAL.
A few months ago he bought a number of old books from a former officer of the “Okhrana” (Political Police) who had fled to Constantinople. Among these books was a small volume in French, lacking the title page, with dimensions of 5 ½ in. by 3 ¾ in. It had been cheaply rebound. On the leather back is printed in Latin capitals the word Joli. The preface, entitled “Simple avertissement,” is dated Geneva, October 15, 1864. The book contains 324 pages, of which numbers 315-322 inclusive follow page 24 in the only copy known to Mr. X, perhaps owing to a mistake when the book was rebound. Both the paper and the type are characteristic of the “sixties and seventies” of the last century. These details are given in the hope that they may lead to the discovery of the title of the book (See introduction above). Mr. X believes it must be rare, since, had it not been so, the “Protocols” would have speedily been recognized as a plagiarism by anyone who had read the original.
[Here Graves feigns ignorance of the title of the Joly book, which the editor of his articles had included in the introduction to the article. Evidently this article was made to appear as if Graves treated it like a news story, urgently published, without having done any background research into what he had come to possess. ]
That the latter is a “fake” could not be maintained for an instant by anyone who had seen it. Its original possessor, the old Okhrana Officer, did not remember where he obtained it, and attached no importance to it. Mr. X, glancing at it one day, was struck by a resemblance between a passage which had caught his eye and a phrase in the French edition of the “Protocols” (Edition de la Vieille France, 1920, 5, Rue du Préaux-Cleres, 5, Paris 7th Arrondissement). He followed up the clue, and soon realized that the “Protocols” were to a very large extent as much a paraphrase of the Geneva original as the published version of a War Office or Foreign Office telegram is a paraphrase of the ciphered original.
[This is simply not true. Only a very small portion of the material in the Protocols can be found in the Joly book. It is striking that Graves' “Mr. X.” supposedly did so much research into the contents of this book, and Graves was able to reproduce the title of the French printing of the Protocols for this article, yet neither man knew the title of the Joly book, or cared to discover it?]
Before receiving the book from Mr. X. I was, as I have said, incredulous. I did not believe that Sergei Nilus’s “Protocols” were authentic; they explained too much by the theory of a vast Jewish conspiracy. Professor Nilus’s account of how they were obtained was too melodramatic to be credible, and it was hard to believe that real “Learned Elders of Sion” would not have produced a more intelligent political scheme than the crude and theatrical subtilties of the Protocols. But I could not have believed, had I not seen, that the writer who supplied Nilus with his originals was a careless and shameless plagiarist.
[We will discuss this charge at much greater length here in the near future.]
The Geneva book is a very thinly-veiled attack on the despotism of Napoleon III in the form of a series of 25 dialogues divided into four parts. The speakers are Montesquieu and Machiavelli. In the brief preface to his book the anonymous author points out that it contains passages which are applicable to all Governments, “but it particularly personifies a political system which has not varied in its application, for a single day since the fatal and alas! too distant date when it was enthroned.” Its references to the “Haussmannisation” of Paris, to the repressive measures and policy of the French Emperor, to his wasteful financial system, to his foreign wars, to his use of secret societies in his foreign policy (cf., his notorious relations with the Carbonari) and his suppression of them in France, to his relations with the Vatican, and to his control of the Press are unmistakable.
[It is odd that Graves, referring to the Dialogues as “the Geneva book” because that is where it was published, did not stop to consider researching what the reference to “Joli” was which he described as being inscribed on the back cover, and did not have time to research sufficiently to find the book's title. Yet he is supposed to have nevertheless understood that the book was a “thinly-veiled attack on the despotism of Napoleon III”? There is only one mention of a Napoleon in the Joly book, and while I do not read French, it certainly seems to be a reference to the first Napoleon.]
The Geneva Book, or as it will henceforth be called the Geneva Dialogues, opens with the meeting of the spirits of Montesquieu and Machiavelli on a desolate beach in the world of shades [meaning spirits]. After a lengthy exchange of civilities Montesquieu asks Machiavelli why from an ardent Republican he had become the author of “The Prince” and “the founder of that sombre school of thought which has made all crowned heads your disciples, but which is well fitted to justify the worst crimes of tyranny.” Machiavelli replies that he is a realist and proceeds to justify the teaching of “The Prince,” and to explain its applicability to the Western European States of 1864.
In the first six “Geneva Dialogues” Montesquieu is given a chance of argument of which he avails himself. In the seventh dialogue, which corresponds to the fifth, sixth, seventh, and part of the eighth “Protocols,“ he gives Machiavelli permission to describe at length how he would solve the problem of stabilizing political societies “incessantly disturbed by the spirit of anarchy and revolution.” Henceforth Machiavelli or in reality Napoleon III., speaking through Machiavelli, has the lion’s share of the dialogue. Montesquieu’s contributions thereto become more and more exclamatory; he is profoundly shocked by Machiavelli-Napoleon’s defence of an able and ruthless dictatorship, but his counter-arguments grow briefer and weaker. At times, indeed, the author of “L’Espirit des Lois” is made to cut as poor a figure as - parvum componere magno [a small settlement] - does Dr. Watson when he attempts to talk criminology to Sherlock Holmes.
DIALOGUE AND “PROTOCOL.”
The “Protocols” follow almost the same order as the Dialogues. Dialogues 1-17 generally correspond with “Protocols” 1-19. There are a few exceptions to this. One is in the 18th “Protocol,” where, together with paraphrases of passages from the 17th Dialogue (“Geneva Dialogues,” pp. 216, 217) there, is an echo of a passage in the 25th “Geneva Dialogue,” viz. :–“Quand le malheureux est opprimé il dit ‘si le Roi le savait’; Quand on veut se venger, qu on espère un secours, on dit ‘le Roi le saura.’” This appears on page 68 of the English edition of the “Protocols” (4th Edition, published by “The Britons,” 62, Oxford-street, London, W.) as “In order to exist, the prestige of power must occupy such a position that the people can say among themselves, ‘If only the King knew about it,’ or ‘When the King knows about it.’”
The last five “Protocols” (Nos. 20-24 inclusive) do not contain so many paraphrases of the “Geneva Dialogues” as the first 19. Some of their resemblances and paraphrases are, however, very striking, e.g., the following:-
A loan is an issue of Government paper which entails an obligation to pay interest amounting to a percentage of the total sum of the borrowed money. If a loan is at 5 per cent., then in 20 years the Government would have unnecessarily paid out a sum equal to that of the loan in order to cover the percentage. In 40 years it will have paid twice; and in 60 thrice that amount, but the loan will still remain as an unpaid debt. - “Protocols,” p. 77.
MONTESQUIEU. - “How are loans made? By the issue of bonds entailing on the Government the obligation to pay interest proportionate to the capital it has been paid. Thus, if a loan is at 5 per cent., the State, after 20 years, has paid out a sum equal to the borrowed capital. When 40 years have expired it has paid double, after 60 years triple: yet it remains debtor for the entire capital sum.” - “Geneva Dialogues,” p. 250.
But generally speaking “Protocols” 20 and 21, which deal (somewhat unconvincingly) with the financial programme of the Learned Elders, owe less to the “Geneva Dialogues,” Nos. 18-21, than to the imagination of the plagiarist author who had for once in a way to show a little originality. This is natural enough since the “Dialogues” in question describe the actual financial policy of the French Imperial Government, while the “Protocols” deal with the future. Again in the last four “Geneva Dialogues” Machiavelli’s apotheosis of the Second Empire, being based upon historical facts which took place between 1852 and 1864, obviously furnished scanty material for the plagiarist who wished to prove or, very possibly, had been ordered to prove in the “Protocols” that the ultimate aim of the leaders of Jewry was to give the world a ruler sprung from the House of David.
[But of course no Jew is an Israelite, and no Jew can be of the House of David.]
The scores of parallels between the two books and a theory concerning the methods of the plagiarist and the reasons for the publication of the “Protocols” in 1905 will be the subject of further articles. Meanwhile it is amusing to find that the only subject with which the “Protocols” deal on lines quite contrary to those followed by Machiavelli in the “Dialogues,” is the private life of the Sovereign. The last words of the “Protocols” are “Our Sovereign must be irreproachable.” The Elders evidently propose to keep the King of Israel in great order. The historical Machiavelli was, we know, rather a scandalous old gentleman, and his shade insists that amorous adventures, so far from injuring a Sovereign’s reputation, make him an object of interest and sympathy to “the fairest half of his subjects.”
(To be continued.)
The following is excerpted from The London Times for Wednesday, August 17, 1921, pp. 9, 10
“JEWISH PERIL” EXPOSED. HISTORIC “FAKE.” DETAILS OF THE FORGERY. MORE PARALLELS.
We published yesterday an article from our Constantinople Correspondent, which showed that the notorious “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” - one of the mysteries of politics since 1905 - were a clumsy forgery, the text being based on a book published in French in 1865.
The book, without title page, was obtained by our Correspondent from a Russian source, and we were able to identify it with a complete copy in the British Museum.
The disclosure, which naturally aroused the greatest interest among those familiar with Jewish questions, finally disposes of the “Protocols” as credible evidence of a Jewish plot against civilization.
We publish below a second article, which gives further close parallels between the language of the Protocols and that attributed to Machiavelli and Montesquieu in the volume dated from Geneva.
[Of course, the book was named in the introduction to the first Philip Graves article published the day before. It is odd that Graves himself did not have time to find the title of the book, but his editors readily found it in the British Museum. The first article hardly proved that the Protocols were a forgery, yet the editors are already trumpeting the claim.]
The second of three parts was titled: PLAGIARISM AT WORK
(From our Constantinople Correspondent.)
While the Geneva Dialogues open with an exchange of compliments between Montesquieu and Machiavelli, which covers seven pages, the author of the Protocols plunges at once in medias res [into the middle of things].
One can imagine him hastily turning over those first seven pages of the book which he has been ordered to paraphrase against time, and angrily ejaculating, “Nothing here.” But on page 8 of the Dialogues he finds what he wants; the greater part of this page and the next are promptly paraphrased, thus:—
[Later in this series we shall present evidence that the Protocols certainly are not a mere summary of the Dialogues of Joly, as Philip Graves so dishonestly claims them to be. We do not have time to add the evidence to our presentation here and now.]
Geneva Dialogues, p. 8.
Among mankind the evil instinct is mightier than the good. Man is more drawn to evil than to good. Fear and Force have more empire over him than reason…. Every man aims at domination: not one but would be an oppressor if he could: all or almost all are ready to sacrifice the rights of others to their own interests….
What restrains those beasts of prey which they call men from attacking one another? Brute unrestrained Force in the first stages of social life, then the Law, that is still force regulated by forms. You have consulted all historical sources: everywhere might precedes right. Political Liberty is merely a relative idea….
Protocols, p.1 (“The Britons” edition).
It must be noted that people with corrupt instincts are more numerous than those of noble instinct. Therefore in governing the world the best results are obtained by means of violence and intimidation, and not by academic discussions. Every man aims at power; every one would like to become a dictator if he only could do so, and rare indeed are the men who would not be disposed to sacrifice the welfare of others in order to attain their own personal aims.
What restrained the wild beasts of prey which we call men? What has ruled them up to now? In the first stages of social life they submitted to brute and blind force, then to law, which in reality is the same force, only masked. From this I am led to deduct that by the law of nature right lies in might. Political freedom is not a fact but an idea.
The gift of liberty according to the Machiavelli of the Geneva Dialogues, of self-government according to the Protocols (page 2), leads speedily to civil and social strife, and the State is soon ruined by internal convulsions or by foreign intervention following on the heels of civil war. Then follows a singular parallel between the two books which deserves quotation:-
Geneva Dialogues. p. 9.
What arms will they (States) employ in war against foreign enemies? Will the opposing generals communicate their plans of campaign to one another and thus be mutually in a position to defend themselves? Will they mutually ban night attacks, traps, ambushes, battles with inequality of force? Of course not: such combatants would court derision. Are you against the employment of these traps and tricks, of all the strategy indispensable to war against the enemy within, the revolutionary?
Protocols, p. 2.
… I would ask the question why is it not immoral for a State which has two enemies, one external and one internal, to use different means of defence against the former to that which it would use against the latter, to make secret plans of defence, to attack him by night or with superior forces?...
RIGHT AND WRONG.
Both “Machiavelli” and the author of the Protocols agree (Prot. p. 3, Geneva Dialogues, p. 11) almost in the same words that politics have nothing in common with morality. Right is described in the Protocols as “an abstract idea established by nothing,” in the Dialogues as an “infinitely vague” expression. The end, say both, justifies the means. [Which is all a thorough reflection of Talmudic Jewish thinking.] “I pay less attention,” says Machiavelli, “to what is good and moral than to what is useful and necessary.” The Protocols (p. 4) use the same formula, substituting “profitable” for “useful.” According to the Protocols he who would rule “must have recourse to cunningness (sic) and hypocrisy.” In the second Dialogue (p. 15) Montesquieu reproaches Machiavelli for having “only two words to repeat - ‘Force’ and ‘guile.’” Both Machiavelli and the “Elders” of the Protocols preach despotism as the sole safeguard against anarchy. In the Protocols the despotism has to be Jewish and hereditary. Machiavelli’s despotism is obviously Napoleonic.
There are scores of other parallels between the books. Fully 50 paragraphs in the Protocols are simply paraphrases of passages in the Dialogues. The quotation per me reges regnant [by me kings reign], rightly given in the Vieille France edition of the Protocols (p. 29), while regunt is substituted for regnant in the English version (p. 20) [by me kings rule], appears on p. 63 of the Geneva Dialogues. Sulla, whom the English version of the Protocols insists on calling “Silla,” appears in both books.
“After covering Italy with blood, Sulla reappeared as a simple citizen in Rome: no one durst touch a hair of his head.” - Geneva Dialogues, p. 159.
“Remember at the time when Italy was streaming with blood, she did not touch a hair of Silla’s head, and he was the man who made her blood pour out.” - Protocols, p. 51.
[In our version of the Protocols, # 15 has Sulla twice. Graves seems to be nit-picking a misprint.]
Sulla, who after the proscriptions stalked “in savage grandeur home,” is one of the tyrants whom every schoolboy knows and those who believe that Elders of the 33rd Degree are responsible for the Protocols, may say that this is a mere coincidence. But what about the exotic Vishnu, the hundred-armed Hindu deity who appears twice in each book? The following passages never were examples of “unconscious plagiarism.”
Geneva Dialogues, p. 141:-
Machiavelli. - “Like the God Vishnu, my press will have a hundred arms, and these arms will give their hands to all the different shades of opinion throughout the country.”
Protocols, p. 43:-
“These newspapers, like the Indian god Vishnu, will be possessed of hundreds of hands, each of which will be feeling the pulse of varying public opinion.”
Geneva Dialogues, p. 207:-
Montesquieu. - “Now I understand the figure of the god Vishnu; you have a hundred arms like the Indian idol, and each of your fingers touches a spring.”
Protocols, p 65:-
“Our Government will resemble the Hindu god Vishnu. Each of our hundred hands will hold one spring of the social machinery of State.”
TAXATION OF THE PRESS.
The Dialogues and the Protocols alike devote special attention to the Press, and their schemes for muzzling and control thereof are almost identical, absolutely identical, indeed, in many details. Thus Machiavelli on pp. 135 and 136 of the Dialogues expounds the following ingenious scheme:-
“I shall extend the tax on newspapers to books, or rather I shall introduce a stamp duty on books having less than a certain number of pages. A book, for example, with less than 200 or 300 pages will not rank as a book, but as a brochure. I am sure you see the advantage of this scheme. On the one hand I thin (je rarifie) by taxation that cloud of short books which are the mere appendages of journalism; on the other hand I force those who wish to escape stamp duty to throw themselves into long and costly compositions, which will hardly ever be sold and scarcely read in such a form.”
The Protocols, p. 41, has:-
“We will tax it (the book press) in the same manner as the newspaper Press - that is to say, by means of Excise stamps and deposits. But on books of less than 300 pages we will place a tax twice as heavy. These short books we will classify as pamphlets, which constitute the most virulent form of printed poison. These measures will also compel writers to publish such long works that they will be little read by the public and chiefly so on account of their high price.”
Both have the same profound contempt for journalists.
Geneva Dialogues, pp. 145, 146:-
Machiavelli. - “You must know that journalism is a sort of Freemasonry; those who live by it are bound… to one another by the ties of professional discretion; like the augurs of old, they do not lightly divulge the secret of their oracles. They would gain nothing by betraying themselves, for they have mostly won more or less discreditable scars…”
Protocols, p. 44:-
“Already there exists in French journalism a system of Masonic understanding for giving countersigns. All organs of the Press are tied by mutual professional secrets in the manner of the ancient oracles. Not one of its members will betray his knowledge of the secret, if the secret has not been ordered to be made public. No single publisher will have the courage to betray the secret entrusted to him, the reason being that not one of them is admitted into the literary world without bearing the marks of some shady act in his past life.”
CONTEMPT FOR THE PEOPLE.
But this contempt is nothing compared to that which both Machiavelli and the Elders evince towards the masses whom tyranny is to reduce to a more than Oriental servitude.
Geneva Dialogues, p. 43:-
Machiavelli. - “You do not know the unbounded meanness of the peoples… groveling before force, pitiless towards the weak, implacable to faults, indulgent to crimes, incapable of supporting the contradictions of a free régime, and patient to the point of martyrdom under the violence of an audacious despotism… giving themselves masters whom they pardon for deeds for the least of which they would have beheaded twenty constitutional kings.”
Protocols, p. 15:-
“In their intense meanness the Christian peoples help our independence - when kneeling they crouch before power; when they are pitiless towards the weak; merciless in dealing with faults, and lenient to crimes; when they refuse to recognize the contradictions of freedom; when they are patient to the degree of martyrdom in bearing with the violence of an audacious despotism. At the hands of their present dictators, Premiers, and Ministers, they endure abuses for the smallest of which they would have murdered twenty kings.”
ATTITUDE TO THE CHURCHES.
Both the Elders and Machiavelli propose to make political crime thoroughly unpopular by assimilating the treatment of the political criminal to that of the felon. Both devote not a little attention to police organization and espionage; the creator of Machiavelli had evidently studied Napoleon III.’s police methods, and suffered at the hands of his agents. Each proposes to exercise a severe control over the Bar and the Bench. As regards the Vatican, Machiavelli-Napoleon, with recent Italian history in mind, aims at the complete control of the Papacy. After inflaming popular hatred against the Church of Rome and its clergy, he will intervene to protect the Holy See, as Napoleon III. did intervene, when “the chassepots worked wonders.” [Chassepots were the military rifles in use at the time in France.] The Learned Elders propose to follow a similar plan: “when the people in their rage throw themselves on to the Vatican we shall appear as its protectors in order to stop bloodshed.” Ultimately, of course, they mean to destroy the Church. The terrible chiefs of a Pan-Judaic conspiracy could hardly have any other plan of campaign. Machiavelli, naturally, does not go so far. Enough for him if the Pope is safely lodged in the Napoleonic pocket.
Is it necessary to produce further proofs that the majority of the Protocols are simply paraphrases of the Geneva Dialogues, with wicked Hebrew Elders, and finally an Israelite world ruler in the place of Machiavelli-Napoleon III., and the brutish goyim (Gentiles) substituted for the fickle masses, “gripped in a vice by poverty, ridden by sensuality, devoured by ambition,” whom Machiavelli intends to win?
The questions now arise, how did the originals become known in Russia, and why were the Protocols invented?
(To be continued.)
[In any event, it is absolutely certain that the political control of all of the West today is indeed patterned after the model put forth in the Protocols, and by history alone Graves' false contentions are refuted.]
The following is excerpted from The London Times for Thursday, August 18, 1921, pp. 9, 10
THE PROTOCOL FORGERY. USE IN RUSSIAN POLITICS. METHODS OF SECRET POLICE. SOME CONCLUSIONS.
In articles from our Constantinople Correspondent, published yesterday and on Tuesday, we proved that the so-called “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which have been believed by some since their publication in 1905 to indicate a Jewish plot against civilization, were a clumsy forgery.
To-day our Correspondent reviews the use to which the Protocols were put in recent Russian politics, and summarizes his conclusions.
[We will get right to the Graves' article, and comment later:]
The third of three parts was titled: THE PROTOCOLS IN RUSSIA.
(From Our Constantinople Correspondent.)
There is no evidence as to how the Geneva Dialogues reached Russia. The following theory may be suggested.
The Third Napoleon’s secret police, many of whom were Corsicans, must have known the existence of the Dialogues and almost certainly obtained them from some of the many persons arrested on the charge of political conspiracy during the reign of Napoleon III. In the last two decades of the 19th century and in the early years of the 20th there were always a few Corsicans in the Palace Police of the Tsar, and in the Russian secret service. Combining courage with secretiveness, a high average of intelligence with fidelity to his chief, the Corsican makes a first-class secret agent or bodyguard. It is not improbable that Corsicans who had been in the service of Napoleon III., or who had kinsmen in his secret service, brought the Geneva Dialogues to Russia, where some members of the Okhrana or some Court official obtained possession of them. But this is only a theory.
[While the theory is far-fetched, it is apparently true that Corsicans were employed in the police forces and as body-guards not only by the French courts of the Napoleons and the Romish Popes, but also by the Tsars.]
As to the Protocols, they were first published in 1905 at Tsarskoye Selo in the second edition of a book entitled “The Great Within the Small,” the author of which was Professor Sergei Nilus. Professor Nilus has been described to the writer as a learned, pious, credulous Conservative, who combined much theological and some historical erudition with a singular lack of knowledge of the world. In January, 1917, Nilus, according to the introduction to the French version of the Protocols, published a book, entitled “It is here, at Our Doors!!” in which he republished the Protocols. In this latter work, according to the French version, Professor Nilus states that the manuscript of the Protocols was given him by Nicolaievich Sukhotin, a noble who afterwards became Vice-Governor of Stavropol.
According to the 1905 edition of the Protocols they were obtained by a woman who stole them from “one of the most influential and most highly initiated leaders of Freemasonry. The theft was accomplished at the close of the secret meeting of the ‘initiated’ in France, that nest of Jewish conspiracy.” But in the epilogue to the English version of the Protocols Professor Nilus says, “My friend found them in the safes at the headquarters of the Society of Zion which are at present situated in France.” According to the French version of the Protocols, Nilus in his book of 1917 states that the Protocols were notes of a plan submitted to the “Council of Elders” by Theodor Hertzl at the first Zionist Congress which was held at Basle, in August, 1897, and that Hertzl afterwards complained to the Zionist Committee of Action of the indiscreet publication of confidential information. The Protocols were signed by “Zionist representatives of the 33rd Degree” in Orient Freemasonry and were secretly removed from the complete file of the proceedings of the aforesaid Zionist Congress, which was hidden in the “Chief Zionist office, which is situated in French territory.”
Such are Professor Nilus’ rather contradictory accounts of the origin of the Protocols. Not a very convincing story! Theodor Hertzl is dead; Sukhotin is dead, and where are the signatures of the Zionist representatives of the 33rd Degree!
[In fact, Graves seems to have purposely created these seeming contradictions on his own, by citing disparate portions of Nilus' accounts, and as Webster and Bergmeister have shown, the accounts by both Nilus and his son as to how he attained the Protocols were very consistent.]
Turning to the text of the Protocols, and comparing it with that of the Geneva Dialogues, one is struck by the absence of any effort on the part of the plagiarist to conceal his plagiarisms. [This can simply be attributed to the fact that the original author was not concerned about being accused in that manner, for which several alternative scenarios have been proposed which are just as valid.] The paraphrasing has been very careless; parts of sentences, whole phrases at times, are identical: the development of the thought is the same; there has been no attempt worth mentioning to alter the order of the Geneva Dialogues. The plagiarist has introduced Darwin, Marx, and Nietzsche in one passage in order to be “up to date”; he has given a Jewish colour to “Machiavelli’s” schemes for dictatorship, but he has utterly failed to conceal his indebtedness to the Geneva Dialogues. This gives the impression that the real writer of the Protocols, who does not seem to have had anything to do with Nilus and may have been some quite unimportant précis writer employed by the Court or by the Okhrana, was obliged to paraphrase the original at short notice. A proof of Jewish conspiracy was required at once as a weapon for the Conservatives against the Liberal elements in Russia.
[The Protocols are certainly not a mere summary, or précis, of the Dialogues, since the material they share in common only represents a small portion of the body of the Protocols. Furthermore, the documented troubles which Nilus had getting the Protocols past Russian press censors is by itself enough proof that they were not produced by Russian police. We will address the error of Graves' assertions here more fully in our next portion of this series.]
Mr. X, the discoverer of the plagiarism, informs me that the Protocols, shortly after their discovery in 1901, four years before their publication by Professor Nilus, served a subsidiary purpose, namely, the first defeat of Monsieur Phillippe, a French hypnotist and thought-reader, who acquired considerable influence over the Tsar and the Tsaritsa at the beginning of the present century. The Court favourite was disliked by certain great personages, and incurred the natural jealousy of the monks, thaumaturgists, and similar adventurers who hoped to capture the Tsar through the Empress in their own interest, or in that of various cliques. Phillippe was not a Jew, but it was easy to represent a Frenchman from “that nest of Jewish conspiracy” as a Zionist agent. Phillippe fell from favour, to return to Russia and find himself once more in the Court’s good graces at a later date.
[This “Monsieur Phillippe” was evidently a charlatan who claimed to be a seer and served as an advisor to the Tsar. One of the intelligence officers supposedly involved in the plot which created the Protocols, Pyotr Rachkovsky, is said to have been dismissed in 1902 for a report exposing this Phillippe, but was brought back after the 1905 revolution.]
THE FIRST REVOLUTION
But the principal importance of the Protocols was their use during the first Russian Revolution. This revolution was supported by the Jewish element in Russia, notably by the Jewish Bund. The Okhrana organization knew this perfectly well; it had its Jewish and crypto-Jewish agents, one of whom afterwards assassinated M. Stolypin; it was in league with the powerful Conservative faction; with its allies it sought to gain the Tsar’s ear. For many years before the Russian revolution of 1905-1906 there had been a tale of a secret council of Rabbis who plotted ceaselessly against the Orthodox. The publication of the Protocols in 1905 certainly came at an opportune moment for the Conservatives. It is said by some Russians that the manuscript of the Protocols was communicated to the Tsar early in 1905, and that its communication contributed to the fall of the Liberal Prince Sviatopolk-Mirski in that year and the subsequent strong reactionary movement. However that may be, the date and place of publication of Nilus’s first edition of the Protocols are most significant now that we know that the originals which were given him were simply paraphrases.
[We have already discussed the attestation of Nilus, that he had indeed brought the Protocols to the attention of the Grand Duke Serge Alexandrovitch, but was only told that it was too late to act on them, virtually the same words he had also attested to hearing from Sukhotin when the Protocols were first entrusted to him. Furthermore, Nilus first attempted to have the Protocols published as a smaller stand-alone book, and the Russian censors would not permit him for fear of undue reprisals against supposedly innocent Jews. This is in spite of the fact that they had also already been published as a series in a Russian newspaper in 1903. Therefore Graves' assertions here are rendered meaningless. ….]
The following conclusions are, therefore, forced upon any reader of the two books who has studied Nilus’s account of the origin of the Protocols and has some acquaintance with Russian history in the years preceding the revolution of 1905-1906:-
1. The Protocols are largely a paraphrase of the book here provisionally called the “Geneva Dialogues.”
[Actually, only about 5% of the material in the Protocols is also found in the Dialogues, even if several passages are nearly identical.]
2. They were designed to foster the belief among Russian Conservatives, and especially in Court circles, that the prime cause of discontent among the politically minded elements in Russia was not the repressive policy of the bureaucracy, but a world-wide Jewish conspiracy. They thus served as a weapon against the Russian Liberals, who urged the Tsar to make certain concessions to the intelligentsia.
3. The Protocols were paraphrased very hastily and carelessly.
4. Such portions of the Protocols as were not derived from the Geneva Dialogues were probably supplied by the Okhrana, which organization very possibly obtained them from the many Jews it employed to spy on their co-religionists.
[The Okhrana did indeed employ many Jews. This is an odd statement by Graves, since it proves the Protocols to be exactly what they claim to be! This is striking. Why would Graves say this? Why did Webster not notice this, and if she did, why did she not take advantage of it, so far as we have seen?]
So much for the Protocols. They have done harm not so much, in the writer’s opinion, by arousing anti-Jewish feeling, which is older than the Protocols and will persist in all countries where there is a Jewish problem until that problem is solved; rather, they have done harm by persuading all sorts of mostly well-to-do people that every recent manifestation of discontent on the part of the poor is an unnatural phenomenon, a factitious agitation caused by a secret society of Jews.
[Here Graves also admits an ages-old Jewish problem which needs to be solved. We can pick the rest of Graves' conclusions in these article apart, and we will. But in these last two, he actually helps our cause more than he hurts, and we can only wonder why he wrote these things while attempting to assist the Jews.
But here is the most glaring problem with Philip Graves' assessment of the Protocols: he admits not knowing who it was that wrote the Dialogues, all he has is a date, and therefore he could not have understood their actual origins or the entire motive behind their having been written. But he immediately jumps to conclusions that the Protocols are forged from them, when he can really only make assumptions about the true origin of the Protocols as well! So Graves claims to have the proof far before the pudding is mixed and set, and jumps to conclusions he would never be able to support as fact. So whether in the long run he is proven right or not is immaterial. This betrays the fact that his motives must have been predetermined: to use the Dialogues in order to discredit the Protocols in spite of any facts concerning the authorship of either.]