Reply To: FBI Releases Protocols of Learned Elders of Zion Under FOIA

Best Gore Forums Societally Relevant Politics FBI Releases Protocols of Learned Elders of Zion Under FOIA Reply To: FBI Releases Protocols of Learned Elders of Zion Under FOIA

#371021

Here are some excerpts from “The PROTOCOLS of ZION In Context” By Dr. K. R. Bolton. Full document can be accessed here: http://mailstar.net/Bolton-Prot-Context-Ed.pdf

According to Philip Stepanov, formerly Procurator of the Moscow Synod, Chamberlain, and Privy Councillor, a copy of The Protocols was given to him in 1895 by his neighbour Maj. Alexis Sukhotin, Marshall of the town of Orel, who had been given his copy by Mlle Justine Glinka. (Sworn statement of Philip Stepanov, dated 17 April 1927).

Glinka, the daughter of a Russian general, had been in France since 1884, working for Gen. Orgevskii, secretary to the Minister of the Interior. Joseph Schorst, a Jewish member of the Mizraim Masonic Lodge in Paris, was in her employ, and offered to obtain a document which became known as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Schorst later fled to Egypt where he was murdered. Returning to Russia, she gave a copy of the Protocols to Alexis Sukhotin, who showed it to Stepanov and Professor Sergius A. Nilus.

In wishing to refute the later allegation that The Protocols were formulated at the 1897 First Zionist Congress in Basle, Herman Bernstein, an early debunker of The Protocols, cites Stepanov’s sworn statement, the handwritten original being reproduced in Mrs Leslie Fry’s book Waters Flowing Eastward. Bernstein states:

“…This account of the history of the Protocols in Russia is accompanied by a facsimile affidavit made in 1927 by Philip Stepanov, one of the two friends to whom Sukhotin first showed the Protocols in Russia. Stepanov’s telltale affidavit, translated from the Russian, reads as follows:

“In 1895 my neighboring estate owner in the province of Tula, retired Major Alexey Nikolayevitch Sukhotin, gave me a handwritten copy of the ‘Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion.’ He told me that a lady of his acquaintance (he did not mention her name), residing in Paris, had found them at the home of a friend of hers (probably of Jewish origin), and before leaving Paris, had translated them secretly, without his knowledge, and had brought one copy of that translation to Russia, and had given that copy to him, Sukhotin.

“At first I mimeographed one hundred copies of the Protocols, but that edition was difficult to read, and I resolved to have it printed somewhere, without mentioning the time, the city and the printer; I was helped in this by Arcady Ippolitovitch Kelepkovsky, who at that time was Privy Councillor with Grand Duke Sergey Alexandrovitch; he had these documents printed at the Provincial Printing Press; that was in 1897. S. A. Nilus reprinted these Protocols in full in his book, with his own commentaries.

“Philip Petrovitch Stepanov, former Procurator of the Moscow Synod Office; Chamberlain, Privy Councillor, and at the time of the publication of that edition, Chief of the district railway service of the Moscow-Kursk railway (in Orel).

“This is the signature of a member of the colony of Russian refugees at Stary and Novy Futog. “Witnessed by me, Stary Futog, April 17, 1927. “Chairman of the Administration of the Colony, “Prince Vladimir Galitzin.” (Seal)

–(Herman Bernstein, The Truth About “The Protocols Of Zion”: A Complete Exposure, 1971, pp. 37-40. Bernstein quotes from L. Fry’s book Waters Flowing Eastward).

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

It is particularly interesting that Cohn [historian Norman Cohn, quoted extensively in the wikipdeia entry] bases his refutation of The Protocols on the assertion that they are plagiarised from Maurice Joly’s Dialogues in Hell, and refutes the notion that The Protocols could emanate from the Alliance Israelite Universelle, yet fails to make any mention of the close association that existed between the Alliance’s Adolphe Cremieux and Joly. After all, most of the publicists for The Protocols seem to have considered the association, but Cohn, eager to nick-pick on various details, neglects refuting these most damning connections. Both Cohn and Bernstein were fully aware of Joly’s associations with Cremieux and with Masonry as stated in Mrs Fry’s book Waters Flowing Eastward (both mention the book) yet they say nothing of these associations. We must therefore assume that Mrs Fry’s assertions regarding Joly, Masonry and Cremieux are correct.

Whilst we shall shortly deal with the alleged parallels between passages of The Protocols and Joly’s work, we shall first deal with background of Joly that Cohn, Bernstein et al conspicuously avoid. Joly (1831-1878) had a family background in Masonry from his maternal grandfather. Studying law, he secured a post in he Ministry of the Interior. In 1860 he founded a newspaper, Le Palais, for lawyers and attorneys. The principal stockholders were: Jules Favre (Mason who served in the Gambetta Government, the so-called Government of National Defence, which arose after the fall of Napoleon III in 1870), Desmaret (Mason), Leblond (Mason), Adolphe Cremieux, Mason and head of the Alliance Israelite Universelle, a member of the Gambetta Government, of whom more later), Emmanuel Arago, Mason, serving with Gambetta), and Antoine Berryer (apparently the only non-Mason around Joly).

Joly’s politics were self-described as “socialist”, with the need to accept “extreme means”. With Cremieux he shared a hatred of Napoleon III. However what The Times, as well as subsequent critics of The Protocols do not mention is that Joly’s polemic against Napoleon III was itself predated by a similar work entitled Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Rousseau, which was written by Jacob Venedey and published in Berlin in 1850. Therefore, Joly was continuing a certain polemical line of thought rather than inventing it. If there are similarities between Joly and The Protocols, then there are also similarities with Venedey. All three for instance refer to the Hindu God Vishnu in parallel passages.

According to the expert testimony of Col. Fleischhauer at the 1935 Berne Trial, Joly was himself Jewish, his name having been originally Joseph Levy, Joly being concocted out of four letters of his true name. This testimony was said to have caused a sensation in the courtroom. When the plaintiffs produced a “baptismal certificate” to prove that Joly was not Jewish, it was dated December 1829, i.e. several years prior to Joly’s real date of birth according to his own account.

Since Venedey, a communist, takes a position antithetical to Joly, his champion being Machiavelli, we can see here a dialectical process in operation, that was brought to revolutionary perfection by Marx and the communists, and has arguably been used by the ‘Elders of Zion’. The dialectical strategy consists of promoting tension in society to achieve change. This includes the promotion of ideas and movements seemingly antithetical to ones own aims in the short term to advance long-range aims. Hence, the seemingly contradictory and self-destructive phenomenon of international bankers financing supposedly anti-capitalist revolutions to bring down traditional societies, as we shall see in due course. That the dialectical process is operative here can be inferred from the fact that Cremieux was the mentor of both Venedey and Joly. Hence the seemingly contradictory, antithetical positions of Venedey and Joly represent two sides of the programme of the ‘Learned Elder’.

Venedey (1805-1871) was a Jew who sought refuge in France, due to his revolutionary activities in Germany. He was removed from Paris by the police, but was able to return due to the intercession of Arago (whom we have seen was to become a stockholder in Joly’s newspaper) and Francois Mignet, both friends of Cremieux. Venedey was closely associated with Karl Marx and helped establish the Communist International, and was also active in the Masonic order Bauhutte.

Masonry, Illuminati & The Rite of Mizraim

Mrs Fry and other authorities on The Protocols have claimed that the documents were taken from a Lodge of the Masonic Rite of Mizraim, by one of its Jewish members, Joseph Schorst. Whilst this suggestion is of course rubbished out of hand by Cohn et al, once again the Protocols deniers remain strangely mute as to the role of both Cremieux and Joly in Mizraim.

Cremieux was a prominent member of Mizraim as well as Scottish Rite Masonry and the Grand Orient. Cremieux was a member of the Supreme Council of the Order of Mizraim. He also became Grand Master of the unified Grand Orient and Scottish Rite Masonry.

The Aegpytian Rite of Mizraim or Misraim was founded in Milan, Italy in 1805 and transferred to France in 1814. Mizraim is Hebrew for Egypt. Its origins reach back to the cabalistic magician Cagliostro, who was an initiate of the Illuminati. But the Misraim-Rite was (and still is) not accepted by Regular Freemasonry.

In 1862, another irregular rite, the Memphis Rite was introduced to the USA. On 4th June 1872, John Yarker introduced the Memphis-Rite to England. Under his jurisdiction, Memphis and Misraim came together. This unification was called The Antient and Primitive Rite of Memphis and Misraim, or Memphis-Misraim.

In 1902 Theodor Reuss, a German espionage agent, gained sanction from Yarker to install the Scottish Rite (33 degrees) and the “irregular” MM-Rites (90 and 97 degrees) in Germany. In 1917, Reuss introduced some of the Scottish Rite and MM degrees into the Ordo Templi Orientis, an occult society founded in 1906. This OTO was to be taken over by the infamous “Black Magician” and self-declared “Great Beast 666”, Aleister Crowley. Crowley, a cabalist, was to write his own manifesto for a “New World Order”, which he called The Book of the Law, expounding a Nietzschean doctrine of “Force and Fire” on the ruins of Christianity. Crowley saw his movement as being a continuation of the Illuminati and counted its founder Adam Weishaupt among a long list of “saints”. A major difference of course is that Crowley did not have the resources and influence of Organised Jewry.

In 1870 the Rite of Mizraim was established in England under the authority of Cremieux. Bro. Little, one of those at the founding conference of Mizraim in London, on 28 December, stated:

“…Brother Cremieux, however, as a proof of his willingness to assist, sent to the meeting his diploma as a member of the French Grand College of Rites, and this diploma was placed upon the table during the proceedings, and was examined by several out of the hundred Masons present. It was also understood that Brother C.’s diploma invested him with the power to found rites or orders recognized by the Grand Orient of France (the Rite of Misraim being one)…”

The Freemason reported that a

“Supreme Council General of the 90°, had been regularly formed here ‘under the authority conveyed in a diploma granted to the Illustrious Brother Cremieux, 33° of the Rite Ecossais, and a member of the Grand College of Rites in France.'”

Bernstein and Cohn rubbish any such notion of Masonic involvement in any conspiracy, including involvement in the French Revolution. This repudiation is necessary on their part, since Masonry plays a major factor in the conspiracy expounded in The Protocols. We shall consider the role of Masonry and the Illuminati in due course. Suffice it here to cite several eminent sources that can hardly be said to be anti-Semitic. Benjamin Disraeli, the Jewish Victorian era Prime Minister of Britain and intimate of the Rothschild banking dynasty, one of the mainstays of Jewish world influence, states in terms themselves reminiscent of The Protocols:

“When the secret societies, in February 1848, surprised Europe, they were themselves surprised by the unexpected opportunity, and so little capable were they of seizing the occasion, that had it not been for the Jews, who of late years unfortunately have been connecting themselves with these unhallowed associations, imbecile as were the governments the uncalled-for outbreak would not have ravaged Europe. But the fiery energy and the teeming resources of the children of Israel maintained for a long time the unnecessary and useless struggle. If the reader throws over the provisional governments of Germany, and Italy, and even of France, formed at that period, he will recognise everywhere the Jewish element. Even the insurrection, and defence, and administration of Venice, which, from the resource of statesmanlike moderation displayed, commanded almost the respect and sympathy of Europe, were accomplished by a Jew – Manini, who by the bye is a Jew who professes the whole of the Jewish religion, and believes in Calvary as well as Sinai, ‘a converted Jew’, as the Lombards styled him, quite forgetting, in the confusion of their ideas, that it is the Lombards who are the converts – not Manini.”

Secondly we have a remarkable statement from Leon Trotsky, the Jewish revolutionary who became commander of the Red Army and with Lenin the most powerful man in the USSR:

“It was during that period that I became interested in freemasonry. … In the eighteenth century freemasonry became expressive of a militant policy of enlightenment, as in the case of the Illuminati, who were the forerunners of the revolution; on its left it culminated in the Carbonari. Freemasons counted among their members both Louis XVI and the Dr. Guillotin who invented the guillotine. In southern Germany freemasonry assumed an openly revolutionary character, whereas at the court of Catherine the Great it was a masquerade reflecting the aristocratic and bureaucratic hierarchy. A freemason Novikov was exiled to Siberia by a freemason Empress. . I discontinued my work on freemasonry to take up the study of Marxian economics. … The work on freemasonry acted as a sort of test for these hypotheses. … I think this influenced the whole course of my intellectual development.”.

Note that Trotsky not only refers to Masonry as a major factor in revolutionary ferment, but how it had also infiltrated the hierarchy of the old order it was about to overthrow, and that both the Illuminati and the Italian Carbonari were involved. Yet Bernstein and Cohn dismiss such sentiments when expressed by Robison et al as “fantasy”. Bernstein also opines that the Illuminati were a “rival” of Masonry and did not survive its banning by the Elector of Bavaria. As we shall see, this opinion is naïve at best.

Thirdly, Bernard Lazare traces the Jewish influence on Masonry and the Illuminati, as follows:

“…It is true of course that there were Jews connected with Freemasonry from its birth, students of the Kabbala, as shown by certain rites which survive. It is very probable too that in the years preceding the French Revolution, they entered in greater numbers than ever, into the councils of the secret societies, becoming, indeed, themselves the founders of secret associations. There were Jews in the circle around Weishaupt, and a Jew of Portuguese origin, Martinez de Pasquales, established numerous groups of Illuminati in France and gathered a large number of disciples, who he instructed in the doctrines of reintegration. The lodges which Martinez founded were mystic in character, whereas the other orders of Freemasonry were, on the whole, rationalistic in their teachings. This might almost lead one to say that the secret societies gave expression in a way to the two fold nature of the Jew, on the one hand a rigid rationalism, on the other that pantheism which… often ended in a sort of Cabalistic theurgy. There would be little difficulty in showing how these two tendencies worked in harmony; how Cazotte, Cagliostro, Martinez [de Pasquales]… were practically in alliance with the Encyclopaedists and the Jacobins, succeeded in arriving at the same end, the undermining, namely, of Christianity.”

The Protocols (if obtained in 1884) refer to the Panama Canal scandal years before the scandal had become public knowledge (in 1892). Therefore whoever wrote The Protocols must have had inside knowledge of high powered financial manipulation.

We have already noted that The Protocols did not originate with the Zionist movement. This was the original opinion of Nilus and others, although subsequently modified after Zionism became an influential movement among the Jews. In fact, the majority of the most prominent figures of World Jewry were opposed to Zionism, and some Orthodox Jews are still antagonistic on the basis that Israel was not to be recreated until after the advent of the King-Messiah.

The principal allegation levelled at the supposed forgers of The Protocols is that the purpose is to foment “anti-Semitism”. However, the following is a remarkable passage from The Protocols in which it is said that “anti-Semitism” serves the purposes of the “Elders of Zion” in keeping the Jewish masses herded under their leadership.

As one might say today, this seems to be something of a “protection racket”. The Jewish masses are being milked of millions of dollars every year to fill the coffers not only of Israel but of numerous “Jewish defence” organisations such as the Anti-Defamation League, which continually feed the Jews the line that a pogrom or a new “Holocaust” is just around the corner if Jews don’t keep donating. Here is what The Protocols say about “anti-Semitism”. It is surely a strange passage if the authors are anti-Semites wishing to incite pogroms:

“Nowadays if any States raise a protest against us it is only pro forma at our discretion, and by our direction, for their antiSemitism is indispensable to us for the management of our lesser brethren. I will not enter into further explanations, for this matter has formed the subject of repeated discussions amongst us.” (Prot. IX)