The Protocols of Satan, Part 6: The Protocols of Joly Refuted

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Saturdays
ChrSat20150926-Protocols_of_Satan_06.mp3 — Downloaded 8884 times


Christogenea Saturdays, September 26th, 2015 - The Protocols of Satan, Part 6: The Protocols of Joly Refuted

In our last segment of The Protocols of Satan, we had presented three articles from The London Times which were presumably written by Philip Graves and had been published on consecutive dates in August of 1921. In Part 3 of this series, we had quoted the Russian historians Lev Aronov, Henryk Baran and Dmitry Zubarev, who in their 2009 article entitled Princess Catherine Radziwill and 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion': the hoax as a lifestyle had written the following in reference to the Philip Graves articles:

Appendix 2 of the book Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, by Nesta Webster, which was evidently first published in 1924. When we first read of the Joly book in relation to the Protocols, we concluded that both works must have come from the same source, rather than the Protocols having been taken from Joly. Nesta Webster helped us to vindicate that position. In all honesty, the opinions put forth by the Russian historians, Aronov, Baran and Zubarev, and the assertions of Philip Graves may be accepted, if it is taken for granted that the Protocols did not come into existence until after 1864, but only upon the basis that the Dialogue of Joly and the Protocols are the only literature of the 19th century which contain such ideas.

Nesta Webster had also shown that in a June 12, 1920 article in a publication called the Spectator, a certain Mr. Lucien Wolf had declared that the Protocols were a forgery based upon a few parallels found in another political work of the period, Hermann Goedsche's Biarritz which was published in 1868, and that upon that basis Wolf made the declaration that “Nilus followed this pamphlet very closely.” Evidently this claim did not stick in relation to Biarritz, but it is the same claim that Graves made a year later for the Protocols and Joly's Dialogue, after which the Goedsche book was also claimed to have been a plagiarism of the Dialogue.

Nesta Webster accepted that the Protocols did indeed have many parallels similar to the Dialogue of Joly, and also admitted those in Goedsche's Biarritz. But Nesta Webster did not jump to the conclusion reached by Graves or, much more recently, by Aronov, Baran and Zubarev. Rather, Nesta Webster had shown that there were also many passages of the Protocols which were just as similar to the writings of members of the Illuminati and Adam Weishaupt, the Haute Vente Romaine and Picolo Tigre, the Alliance Sociale Democratique and Mikhail Bakunin, the Jewish socialist Karl Marx, and the Marxist Bolshevik Vladmir Lenin, as well as others of those same persuasions.

Therefore, opinions that the Protocols are a mere plagiarism of Joly put forth by Aronov, Baran and Zubarev, and originally asserted by Philip Graves cannot be accepted, because the Dialogue of Joly and the Protocols are not the only literature of the 19th century which contain such similar ideas. Rather, all of these works together reflect a body of political thought which was being perpetuated in the Masonic Lodges and Secret Societies of 18th and 19th century Europe. All of the men who perpetuated them have connections to these Masonic Lodges, or to the Illuminati, or to other so-called Secret Societies. In that light, it must be understood that the Protocols are real, and those who claim they are a forgery are basing their claims on only a small glimpse of the entire picture.

We have seen Nesta Webster admit that there is indeed some material in the Protocols which is practically identical to passages from Maurice Joly's Dialogue. In his Times articles, Philip Graves had asserted that “There are scores of other parallels between the books. Fully 50 paragraphs in the Protocols are simply paraphrases of passages in the Dialogues”. To this we replied: “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.”

While we cannot take the time to assess and compare the complete body of both quite lengthy works on our own, we will take it for granted that perhaps Graves is correct about the “50 paragraphs”. We will also take it for granted that the 10 paragraphs which Graves had included in his own articles showing parallels between the Protocols and Joly's Dialogue are accurate, and represent the most striking resemblances. We would expect Graves to publish the paragraphs with the strongest resemblances since he compared only 10 of the alleged 50 in his article, and sought to make a strong case for his claims.

However we did do a brief survey of the copy of the text of the Protocols and we found that the 24 chapters into which they are organized contain a total of 291 sections. Many of the sections are only a single paragraph, but some of the sections contain several paragraphs. But even if on average each section contained two paragraphs, then Graves' “50 paragraphs” would not amount to more than ten percent of the volume of the Protocols, and in reality the figure is actually less than that.

Here I am going to compare a portion of Joly's first dialogue with a portion of the first Protocol. I want to do this to show how the wrong conclusion can be reached based on a partial understanding of a document, or on a partial presentation of a document which is being made in order to support a particular agenda.

We may read in the first dialogue the words attributed to the Machiavelli character where he states “Political liberty is only a relative idea”, and then we may read similar words in the first Protocol where it says “Political freedom is an idea but not a fact”, and some of us may be convinced of a striking similarity. But here is a lengthier part of the passage in question from the Dialogue:

What restrains the devouring animals that one calls men? At the origin of society, there was brutal and unchecked force; later it was the law, that is to say, force still, ruled by forms. You have consulted all the sources of history; everywhere force appears before rights.

Political liberty is only a relative idea; the necessity to live is what dominates the States as well as individuals.

In certain European latitudes, there are people incapable of moderation in the exercise of liberty. If liberty is extended there, it becomes license; civil or social war occurs and the State is lost, either it is divided into factions and dismembered by the effect of its own convulsions, or its divisions render it prey to foreigners. In such conditions, people prefer despotism to anarchy. Are they wrong?

And now here is a lengthier portion of the passage in question from the Protocols:

In the beginnings of the structure of society, they were subjected to brutal and blind force; after words - to Law, which is the same force, only disguised. I draw the conclusion that by the law of nature right lies in force.

Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one's party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority.

This task is rendered easier if the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, SO-CALLED LIBERALISM, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power.

It is precisely here that the triumph of our theory appears; the slackened reins of government are immediately, by the law of life, caught up and gathered together by a new hand, because the blind might of the nation cannot for one single day exist without guidance, and the new authority merely fits into the place of the old already weakened by liberalism.

Here it is obvious, that the writer of the Protocols and Joly's Machiavelli character in the Dialogues are expressing the same basic political philosophy of might and power in relation to law, and share many of the same sentiments expressed in similar terms. However while the philosophies are similar, the development of the idea does not share the same direction, and both are clearly completed in a manner which is independent one of the other.

This is because in European nations these same ideas had been wrestled with by political philosophers for a hundred years, and Machiavelli represents one side of the political spectrum, while Montesquieu represents the other. The Liberalism advocated by Montesquieu was the nemesis of Machiavelli, and despised by the authors of the Protocols, who sought to use it only in order to undermine Christendom and introduce their own Machiavellian tyranny.

We see these same things belabored in the mind of Thomas Jefferson, who was an admirer and follower of Montesquieu. The following is from a web page labeled The Jeffersonian Perspective, which bills itself as a “Commentary on today's social and political issues based on the writings of Thomas Jefferson”:

In selecting excerpts from Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws from those copied by Jefferson in his Commonplace Book, there appeared an interesting difference on the question of Liberty that throws light on Jefferson's view. He had copied the following passage from Montesquieu, Bk. XI, ch. 3:

"Political liberty does not consist in an unlimited freedom. In governments, that is, in societies directed by laws, liberty can consist only in the power of doing what we ought to will, and in not being constrained to do what we ought not to will."

So far, so good. Jefferson probably would have agreed with that statement, contingent only on how one defines "what we ought to will" and "what we ought not to will," as we shall soon see. But Montesquieu goes further, and here is where he and Jefferson part company. Montesquieu:

"We must have continually present in our minds the difference between independence and liberty. Liberty is a right of doing whatever the laws permit, and if a citizen could do what they forbid he would be no longer possessed of liberty, because all his fellow citizens would have the same power."

Now, contrast that with Jefferson's statement on the limits of liberty:

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819.

Both Jefferson and Montesquieu agree that rightful political liberty is not unlimited freedom. But Montesquieu defines the limits on liberty in terms of established law, whereas Jefferson defines those limits in terms of the equal rights of others, noting that the limits of the law cannot be taken as a standard, because "law is often but the tyrant's will, and ALWAYS so when it violates the right of an individual." To Jefferson, the overriding consideration is the EQUAL RIGHTS of individuals. Montesquieu's weaker position is the danger of anarchy that comes from being able to do what the law forbids. Jefferson founds his view of the limits of liberty, not on the need for order in a society, but on the fundamental notion that individuals possess "inherent and inalienable rights," and it is the fact that all other individuals possess those same rights that places the only rightful curbs on those rights.

Now Jefferson evidently cited his work and gave Montesquieu credit where he had quoted him. But there are many writings from the same period which reflect either Machiavelli or Montesquieu which are not so well cited, but that does not make them forgeries. It only means that the various writers had the same original inspiration. That is what must be true of the Protocols and the Machiavelli character portrayed by Joly in his Dialogues, as we have asserted before and as we have seen Nesta Webster illustrate at length.

Therefore, where Graves concluded at the end of his third article that “The Protocols are largely a paraphrase of the book here provisionally called the 'Geneva Dialogues'” and that “The Protocols were paraphrased very hastily and carelessly”, he is clearly lying. That is because even if one tossed out all of Grave's “50 paragraphs”, the Protocols would still represent a body of political thought many times greater in size than the 50 paragraphs alone, which was developed independently of Joly's Dialogue.

Another of the conclusions made by Graves was that “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.” This too is discredited by the much earlier testimony of Nilus, that he himself had 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, which were virtually the same words he had also attested to hearing from Sukhotin when the Protocols were first entrusted to him. We also explained that the Protocols were first published in Russian in a newspaper series in 1903. But Russian conservatives were not specifically acting against Jews after that time. And furthermore, we explained that Nilus first attempted in 1905 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. So knowing this, the conjecture of Philip Graves in this conclusion to his articles also disintegrates.

That leaves one final conclusion in Graves' list, where he also conjectured concerning the origin of the Protocols and he said that “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.” Now we must remember that this is Graves' own conjecture, but making it he is basically admitting his own belief that whatever material in the Protocols which did not come from the Dialogue must nevertheless have come from the Jews.

One listener to our last segment had asked in relation to this “Couldn't this be interpreted as Graves inferring that the Jews employed by the Okhrana were traitors to their own and as such probably falsified their reports to the Okhrana in order to paint Jews in a bad light?” But that is immaterial since it still stands, that Graves' conjecture admits his own belief that the material in the Protocols had nevertheless come from Jews, no matter the pretense. In other words, Graves conjectures the entire scenario, but any interpretation of it still leaves it evident that Graves admitted that the materials in the Protocols did indeed originate with Jews, for whatever reasons the Jews may have made them.

The Graves article had declared through the mouth of the mysterious “Mr. X.”, in reference to Joly's Dialogue, “Read this book through, and you will find irrefutable proof that the ‘Protocols of the Learned Elders of Sion’ is a plagiarism.” However what we have found in turn is that the Protocols are true, for all the reasons which we have already explained. But there is much more in that regard which can be discussed.

Researching for this series, I found a lengthy article called The Protocols of Joly, which at first glance I thought actually upheld the notions set forth by Philip Graves. So when I finished the presentation of the Bergmeister booklet and the claims of Radziwill and Count du Chayla, I came around to address the contentions of Graves concerning the Protocols. At this point I went back to The Protocols of Joly. But rather than a support of Graves, what I found was a thorough refutation of Graves made from a perspective which was very much different than my own. And while I had come to my conclusions independently, I had nevertheless developed this refutation of Graves much more fully with help from Nesta Webster. However the refutation of Graves in The Protocols of Joly does not even mention Nesta Webster, and it only mentions secret societies where they are treated in the source materials, the Protocols or the Dialogue themselves. So it may be worth presenting a few of the ideas here which are found in the article The Protocols of Joly. Now this article copied to a word processor document in 12-point type is about 160 pages, so by no means can we even scratch the surface on all that it contains. But its initial premise is interesting, and may add to what we may esteem as an already thorough refutation of Philip Graves and the wrong-headed idea that the protocols are a mere forgery.

From The Protocols of Joly:

Anyone who starts looking into the Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion will frequently encounter the old chestnut about a "hoax" or a "forgery". When Philip Graves made the allegation in 1921, long before the days of the internet and all the pages detailing the various logical fallacies, his target audience had never heard of a circular argument or a non sequitur. Debunking Graves is as easy as falling off a log.

Proponents of the "forgery" theory have an argument that runs like this: 1) Several passages within the Protocols of Zion were plagiarised from a previous work: Maurice Joly's The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu. 2) Only evil, racist, hate-filled anti-Semites could have resorted to plagiarism, since Jews are as innocent as newborn lambs. 3) This proves that evil, racist, hate-filled anti-Semites fabricated the Protocols of Zion, and the work is a fraud, a forgery and a hoax.

The forgery theorists will frequently not even bother to include part 2). By going from their premise 1) directly to their conclusion 3), their argument becomes a non sequitur. [A non sequitur is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.] The conclusion does not follow from the premise. In order to get from 1) to 3), they must include other postulates such as 2). Although premise 1) is true, premise 2) and conclusion 3) are both false. Clearly, the hypothetical "anti-Semites", alleged by Jews to have authored the Protocols with the help of a bit of plagiarism, do not have a monopoly on copying other people's work. Jewish supremacists who were plotting world conquest had more motives for plagiarism than the alleged "anti-Semites". Both would have saved time and effort. Jewish supremacists also had a powerful motive in that if the Protocols was discovered, they would be able to blame "anti-Semites", citing the "forgery" charge as their 'proof'.

Ultimately, as we shall see, the decision to have the Protocols writers deliberately copy previous works in such a way that a number of parallel passages were strikingly obvious was taken by Alphonse de Rothschild. His inspiration for this contingency plan, of crying "forgery" in the event of discovery, can be traced to the fact that around 1889, at the time of his Protocols project, he discovered that merchants from countries such as Russia were bottling cheap wine and selling it with "Lafite Rothschild" labels on the bottles. Thus, with the pirates forging Rothschild's labels, the concept of forgery would have been playing on his mind. And whatever his views were on Russians, the experience would hardly have changed them for the better!

When the Protocols Deniers put up their non sequitur argument and don't explicitly state 2) [that “Only evil, racist, hate-filled anti-Semites could have resorted to plagiarism, since Jews are as innocent as newborn lambs”], they are aware that many of their dupes will implicitly assume 2), given how the mainstream media has conditioned many people to perceive Jews - and "anti-Semites". Alternatively, if they do include 2), they have inserted a false postulate, and thus their argument is circular. They have started out with their desired conclusion, and have set up a false proposition in order to obtain their conclusion.

Philip Graves states four "conclusions" as his 'evidence' of "forgery":

    1. The Protocols are largely a paraphrase of The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, or as Graves calls it, the Geneva Dialogues. As shown above, that is not evidence of forgery. Moreover, Graves is forced to concede that "there is no evidence as to how the Geneva Dialogues reached Russia", which is consistent with the Protocols originating somewhere other than Russia. How odd that when the Russians are supposed to be "forging" a document, instead of Russians in Russia writing it in Russian, it is supposed to be Russians in Paris writing it in French, according to the "forgery" proponents' own conspiracy theory!

    2. The Protocols "served as a weapon against the Russian Liberals". Again, this is not evidence of forgery, since the Protocols would have served as a political "weapon" irrespective of who authored them. In order for "forged" Protocols to be as useful to the Russian conservatives as the genuine article, the forger would need to do an excellent job - and forgery proponents contend that the easily spotted parallel passages occurred as a result of a "rush job", as opposed to a deliberate planting of 'evidence' that was intended to be so obvious that it could hardly be missed in the event of the Protocols' discovery.

The premise of The Protocols of Joly amounts to this: that the Rothschilds had been responsible for having had the Protocols written, and that verbatim passages from Joly's Dialogues were intentionally included so that if the Protocols were discovered, they could make the claim of forgery, which they did. In any event, the included passages reflecting the philosophy of Machiavelli also agreed with the political philosophy espoused by the Protocols. Back to our article:

    1. "The Protocols were paraphrased very hastily and carelessly." Again, if the paraphrasing was sloppy, that doesn't prove who did it. However, Jewish supremacists would be aware that the work might be discovered, and would plan accordingly. They would have a powerful motive to do a hasty job of paraphrasing, so that the plagiarism would detected within two or three decades, would be more evident upon discovery, and "anti-Semites" could be blamed for the "forgery". Any hypothetical "anti-Semites" would have more motive to do a good job, so that their "fraud" might remain undetected and the Protocols would continue to serve a political purpose.

    2. Where the Protocols are not derived from the Geneva Dialogues, they "were probably supplied by the Okhrana" (the Russian secret police). This is simply wishful thinking and baseless speculation on the part of Graves. As we shall see, the Okhrana's archives were saved, shipped to the US, and opened in 1957, and there was zero evidence of a plot to forge the Protocols. Moreover, there is ample evidence that the Okhrana did not create the Protocols.

Here the article gives long examples of Jews caught in acts of forgery, ostensibly in order to show that jews commit forgery on a regular basis. To these we would want to add the many Jewish forgeries committed at Alexandria where a plethora of so-called Christian documents were created, known today generally as the Gnostic Gospels and related writings. Back to our article:

Amusingly, the former French Chief Rabbi Gilles Bernheim, an Ashkenazi Jew, was recently exposed as a plagiarist who lied about his credentials. The Jewish Daily Forward tells of how Bernheim's 2011 book Forty Jewish Meditations was found to have "long passages [that] repeated word for word an earlier book by the eminent philosopher Jean-François Lyotard." Bernheim first attempted to invert the accusations, blaming Lyotard - who'd died in 1998 - for having plagiarised one of Bernheim's earlier works. This claim soon fell apart, and then Bernheim tried to blame a research assistant. But it gets even better - Bernheim was found to have plagiarised several other people, including Elie Wiesel! And then it turned out that Bernheim was not the intellectual that he purported to be; he claimed to have a doctorate in philosophy, but had never finished his degree.

The actor Shia LaBeouf, born to a Jewish mother, which according to Jews makes him "a Jew" whatever he might believe, has got himself into a few scrapes. In February 2005 he rammed his car into the back of his neighbor's car, rather than wait a minute for the neighbor to finish chatting to his girlfriend and move out of the way, and later appeared at the neighbor's front door waving a kitchen knife. A little later at the age of 19, LaBeouf went to a neighbor's apartment with a knife to confront him for insulting his mother, taking a friend for backup. They were seen off by the guy and six of his friends. Labeouf got into a fight and threatened to pull a knife in Vancouver in 2011, and in 2014 head-butted a man after an argument in a London pub.

But it gets better. LaBeouf proved to be quite a plagiarist. His short film, released December 2013, was found to have close similarities with a 2007 comic by Dan Clowes, including an identical opening monologue. When LaBeouf apologized to Clowes, it was noted that the apology itself was lifted from a 2010 post on Yahoo! Answers. LaBeouf's comic books were later found to have been plagiarised from Benoît Duteurtre's The Little Girl and the Cigarette and Charles Bukowski's Assault. Eventually, LaBeouf's plagiarism was so prevalent that Time Magazine ran a piece entitled A Brief History of Shia LaBeouf Copying the Work of Others, citing no less than fourteen examples.

According to Rabbi Avraham Yosef, son of the late Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, it is acceptable under Jewish law to plagiarise academic papers. If a student takes someone else's paper, copies it, and changes the wording in an attempt to conceal the plagiarism, Jewish law not only permits it, but the plagiarist would be doing "the mitzvah of charity".

Professor Lewis Wolpert, a British developmental biologist who was born into a South-African Jewish family, apologised after it was found that more than twenty passages in his 2011 book on aging, You're Looking Well, had been lifted from Wikipedia, academic websites and other online sources. He also apologised for having plagiarised other online sources for another unpublished book, and said, "after a gap of maybe weeks or sometimes months, I simply did not recall that I had not written these passages myself".

In short, anyone who continues to claim the Protocols is a "forgery" because parts of it were plagiarised might as well have a tattoo branded on their forehead. There are two choices: "CRETIN", or "LIAR".

There is no denying that parts of the Protocols were plagiarised, and the plagiarism is strikingly obvious - exactly as if the writer had intended it to be found. For example, Joly's First Dialogue says:

"...bad instincts among men are more powerful than the good ones. Man has more enthusiasm for evil than for good; fear and force have more control over him than reason. [...] All men aspire to domination and there is none who would not be an oppressor if he could; all or almost all are ready to sacrifice the rights of others for their own interests.
What restrains the devouring animals that one calls men? At the origin of society, there was brutal and unchecked force; later it was the law, that is to say, force still, ruled by forms. You have consulted all the sources of history; everywhere force appears before rights.
Political liberty is only a relative idea; the necessity to live is what dominates the States as well as individuals."

And from Protocol No. 1:

"It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorisation, and not by academic discussions. Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who would not be willing to sacrifice the welfare of all for the sake of securing their own welfare.

What has restrained the beasts of prey who are called men? What has served for their guidance hitherto?

In the beginnings of the structure of society, they were subjected to brutal and blind force; afterwards - to Law, which is the same force, only disguised. I draw the conclusion that by the law of nature, right lies in force.

Political freedom is an idea but not a fact."

And some of those little differences arise from translation. Only the most diehard coincidence theorist would claim that the similarities are merely coincidental.

And of course this is the same passage which we had used as an example earlier, but maintain that the ideas were nevertheless developed along different lines sufficiently to prove that the Protocols were not a mere forgery. Back to our article:

The Protocols writer used Joly's metaphor from the Twelfth Dialogue about the hundred arms or hands of the god Vishnu, in Protocol Nos. 12 and 17.

And in the Thirteenth Dialogue, Joly's Machiavelli is discussing how he would deal with secret societies. Those that could be infiltrated would be used as "a useful channel of information and a means to influence affairs", because the "underground world of secret societies is filled with empty-heads who [...] can take directions [and] represent a force that can be put in motion." Referring to those "empty-headed" secret society members, the fictional Machiavelli says: "These tigers have the souls of sheep. They're airheads." Protocol No. 15, referring to the "goyim" in the Masonic lodges, says: "These tigers in appearance have the souls of sheep and the wind blows freely through their heads."

However, if paragraphs where the plagiarism is strikingly obvious are taken out, that still leaves about 95% of the Protocols. Another source that's been plagiarised is a chapter of a book by Hermann Goedsche, but after allowing for that, along with copying where the paraphrasing is more creative, there is still much original material in the Protocols. Rather than a simple plagiarism job, as the Jews love to pretend it is, it's mostly a superb blueprint for world conquest, but padded with some blindingly obvious plagiarism, the purpose of which was to allow the Jews to cry "forgery" in the event of discovery. Thus, their blueprint for world domination could be documented, and could exist in plain sight, yet anyone who pointed out the reality would be denounced as an "anti-Semite" or a "conspiracy theorist" who was citing nothing more than a "proven" "forgery".

It's been suggested that Joly himself plagiarised a previous document, but no one has been able to present any evidence for that. (The claim that Joly plagiarized Jacob Venedey cannot be substantiated, and was correctly refuted by Ronald S. Green; see below.) If Joly and Goedsche were employed by Jewry and working from some still undiscovered template that was also used to write the Protocols, that would account for their books happening to be available at the right time. However, it doesn't explain why the conspirators would wait a quarter of a century to write the Protocols, after Joly's Dialogue was published in 1864. And in that case, if Joly or Goedsche departed too far from the template, one of the Protocols writers would have still needed to plagiarise Joly, in order to make the plagiarised passages quite obvious, so they could have some newspaper 'expose' the parallel passages and the "forgery". There's no evidence that Joly or Goedsche were agents of Jewry, and there really is no need to postulate a conspiracy to account for the existence of Joly's and Goedsche's books. The best account of events is simply that the conspirators were aware of both books at the time they made the decision to plagiarise, and they chose to take advantage of them.

Joly was a French lawyer and a Mason, who worked for ten years for the French government. Likewise Goedsche was allegedly only a postal worker, but was also employed by Prussian secret police as a writer, agent provocateur, and forger of letters. He wrote several books of a political nature. Both men were within the purview of the Masonic Lodges and secret societies of the time, and their writings reflect the literature of those secret societies. None of this can be merely coincidental. To continue with our article:

Protocols deniers and anti-Gentile Jewish supremacists have made several other clumsy attempts at refutation, of which the most recent features a rehash of earlier claims that Matvei (Mathieu) Vasilyevich Golovinski was the "forger". It turns out that their Golovinski conspiracy theory would require a suspension of the laws of causality, a willingness to see evidence where none exists, and a deliberate avoidance of the preponderance of evidence that refutes it, which makes it exactly the same as the official 9/11 conspiracy theory - absolute nonsense! But to see the Golovinski gambit in its proper context, we should first look into the program described in the Protocols and see how it corresponds with future events and Jewish behavior. That investigation yields some clues as to when and how the grand conspiracy was born, who is behind it, and what it involves. Then we can evaluate the Jews' conspiracy theories regarding the Protocols' creation, and compare with "anti-Semitic" accounts of how the work was apparently discovered, brought to Russia and published. Pro- and anti-Gentile alike mostly agree that the Protocols originated in Paris and was brought to Russia, but the character of witnesses who testify in defense of the Jews, and the sheer ineptness of their claims, provides evidence of deceit on the part of anti-Gentile propagandists.

Amusingly, the Jews' star witness for their assertion that the Protocols is a "forgery" turns out to be a convicted forger, fraudster, blackmailer, briber and jailbird, who had been married to a German, and had to spend two hours at Ellis Island persuading (and most likely bribing!) the authorities to let her into the US twenty-three days after the US declared war against Germany in 1917, by telling them a bizarre story about having a "dead" "double" who was the forger, and about having a husband who was a German engineer who gave up his career to become an importer, and gave up his German citizenship to become a Swede. [Of course this is in reference to Katherine Radziwill, who is rather amusingly unnamed here.] From 1921 to 1935, Jewry continued to channel their physically impossible conspiracy theory through this proven fraudster after her antics had been thoroughly exposed, e.g., in The New York Times. It is inconceivable that Jewry's leaders were incapable of seeing through her deception throughout that time, rather like supporters of the War in Iraq were supposed to be too foolish to know that documentary 'evidence' of Saddam trying to obtain uranium yellowcake from Niger was a forgery, long after it had already been pointed out by those of a more rational - and honest - persuasion. It could hardly get much better than that!...

Protocol No. 12 tells of a plan to control the Press.

"Not a single announcement will reach the public without our control. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them. [...] All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions— aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical—for so long, of course, as the constitution exists .... Like the Indian idol Vishnu they will have a hundred hands, and every one of them will have a finger on any one of the public opinions as required. When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them."

In March 1893, The New York Times wrote, "Owing to the leading position of the Jews in the money markets of Europe...". For some, that's taking honesty too far. In 1896, Adolph Ochs, of Jewish descent, acquired The New York Times. Nowadays, the Jews themselves love to remind everyone about all the "Jews In The American Media". The situation is the same in Britain, for example, where the Jews admit they were already "a major factor in British journalism" by the middle of the 19th century.

At this point The Protocols of Joly article provides a long list of Jews in control of Western media, which is well known to our listeners, and also posted at, so we will not repeat it here. Then after a conversation about certain media magnates imagined to be Jewish, we resume with the article:

It would be the easiest thing in the world to compile a load of fantastic, unreferenced claims from conspiratorially-minded websites and use them to 'prove' that some group - the "Vatican", the "Nazis", the "Islamists", the "lizards" or whatever - was secretly running the world. But that would be pointless. The internet contains some great information that cannot be found in daily newspapers or local bookstores, and thereby is irreplaceable as a superb tool for self-education. The more nonsense that is put online, the worse the signal to noise ratio on the internet, and the less valuable it becomes. The information on this page is based on mainstream sources and verifiable facts.

From here The Protocols of Joly article provides a long list of statements from the Protocols, and many of the modern circumstances which demonstrate that the objectives of the Protocols have indeed been fulfilled, if the Protocols had their origin with certain of the Jewish Rothschilds. It then asserts:

The Rothschilds are Talmudists. It's the same culprits, but this time they've got their tentacles spread around the banks, the major political parties, the mainstream media, and the educational institutions, like secondary cancer tumors threatening major organs.

After offering some evidence, and some modern parallels illustrating the compatibility of the Rothschild agenda to the protocols, it goes on to say:

The Jewish Protocols writer certainly exhibits as one of the avaricious Rothschild school who are obsessed with getting all the "gold in [their] hands", who are also racist Talmudic supremacists who view the "goyim" as the equivalent of cattle. And the Protocols writer is being rather disingenuous in boasting about "his" people being behind the French Revolution, because progressive Jews such as Moses Mendelssohn or Haym Salomon would have had no truck with the Rothschild Talmudic program.

Before investigating the timeline of how the Protocols was brought to Russia and published, and refuting specific claims about the Protocols being an Okhrana "forgery", it is useful to consider how the Rothschild program emerged out of the earlier hatred and mischief of the Talmudic bigots, and developed into contemporary events such as Israel's staging of 9/11.

The idea that there was an already pre-existing program for world conquest prior to the French Revolution, that Mayer Amschel Rothschild was in charge, and Rothschild drew up the plans for the Illuminati, perhaps as early as 1770, and then set up Weishaupt, a Crypto-Jew, as his front in 1776, might sound good, but isn't supported by the facts. And it portrays the conspirators as almost superhuman, and much cleverer than they actually were. The Talmudists certainly wanted to rule the world, but they didn't have a credible strategy in the 1700s. As mentioned above, the evidence points to the credible program for world domination crystallizing at the birth of Zionism, with its Machiavellian ideas such as control of the press plagiarized from Joly. There is no evidence that Weishaupt was a Crypto-Jew, was secretly a Rothschild front, or was the sort of person who would happily take orders from others. A more economical theory that fits the facts is that Weishaupt's Illuminati was all his own invention, Rothschild did not become aware of the Illuminati until later, and then decided to exploit it for his own ends, after he'd learned how a prince had become extremely wealthy - and decided to use the same system to create his own dynasty.

We must agree with this to the extent that of course it is evident that the Protocols authors did not invent the secret societies, but they themselves admit that they would infiltrate and use those societies for their own ends.

The Illuminati didn't survive, but the Rothschild conspiracy emerged out of it, Rothschild plagiarised Weishaupt's strategies of destroying Christianity and the nation-state, and unfortunately the conspiracy has not only survived to this day but has enjoyed unparalleled success.

One of the Illuminati members was Prince Charles of Hesse-Kassel, or Karl von Hessen-Kassel in German, (1744-1836). William I, Elector of Hesse (1743-1821), became William (or Wilhelm) IX, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel upon the death of his father on 31 October 1785. Charles was William's younger brother. Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812), as a dealer in coins, became Court (or Crown) Agent to William of Hesse-Hanau in 1769. William, described by Frederic Morton's The Rothschilds, [p. 44] as "Europe's most blue- and cold-blooded loan shark", entrusted part of his fortune to Mayer Amschel Rothschild as he fled Napoleon in 1806. (That's one version of the story. But either way, within a few years, Nathan Rothschild received at least £550,000 of William's fortune and used it to speculate on his own account, as described above.) The town of Hanau is located 25 km east of Frankfurt am Main; Kassel is 190 km north of Hanau. Thus, as early as 1769, Rothschild had a connection with the royal family of Hesse, at least one of whom went on to become an Illuminati member. Later, several acquaintances of Rothschild were Illuminati members.

However, since we are not assuming that Rothschild was behind the French Revolution, we do not need to postulate that Mayer Rothschild financed and controlled Weishaupt, or that Rothschild found out about the Illuminati when it was a secret society that did not admit Jews as members, prior to July 20, 1785 when Illuminati emissary Johann Jakob Lanz was struck by lightning and killed at Regensburg, formerly known as Ratisbon, and the Bavarian government subsequently published details of the Illuminati conspiracy after police discovered papers documenting the Illuminati's plans for international revolution hidden in Lanz's clothes, and the conspiracy was confirmed by further documents found in raids on the homes of Illuminati members. Rothschild might have learned about the Illuminati prior to 1785, but there is no need to presume that he was aware of it until people such as Robison and Barruel had published exposés.

So this is the premise of The Protocols of Joly, but it cannot be said that the Rothschilds are the sole beneficiaries of the plan of the Protocols or of the emerging world Jewish Supremacism, but the article does at great length demonstrate that Jews collectively have been the sole beneficiaries of this system to subvert Christendom which has been decried a forgery for a hundred years now, but all the while has been executed in full before our very eyes. It also shows at length that all attempts to somehow discredit the Protocols were themselves fraudulent, and in a few ways which we ourselves did not consider.

The fault of the The Protocols of Joly writers is that they are putting the Rothschilds before the Jews, rather than the Jews before the Rothschilds. The Protocols originated in the Secret Societies, and apparently the Rothschilds were their most successful adherents, however many other Jewish families have been in their league, and they could not have done it all by themselves.

The Protocols are real, and the deception on the part of world Jewry to subvert and destroy Christendom has been executed in plain sight. The Protocols are successful in that their authors have successfully done what they said they would do: use the Masonic Lodges and Secret Societies as their dupes to accomplish what they have done. We see that plainly in all of the lodges and civic organizations of today.