Document talk:The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thanks for those additions/edits TB - good stuff. --Peter P 16:17, 10 August 2010 (IST)

I would have hacked out a lot of what's in there under "comment" but I didn't know which bits you cared for. I'm not really convinced that this business is "Deep State", however some of it could be serious propaganda. For instance, we really only have the word of the Zionists that the protocols come entirely from a fictional work by Joly. Would they tell us if there were still earlier roots? It's reasonably straightforward that it was someone in the Okrana that produced the final version - but I'd sort of have expected us to know the name of someone this literate. Toolbox 18:00, 10 August 2010 (IST)
I've unearthed more that's suspicious about the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" document - here's the "standard version" from the Encyclopedia Brittanica (or a pale version of this once great reference work now on the web):
The spurious character of the Protocols was first revealed in 1921 by Philip Graves of The Times (London), who demonstrated their obvious resemblance to a satire by the French lawyer Maurice Joly on Napoleon III published in 1864 and entitled Dialogue aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu ("Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu"). Subsequent investigation, particularly by the Russian historian Vladimir Burtsev, revealed that the Protocols were forgeries compounded by officials of the Russian secret police out of the satire of Joly, a fantastic novel (Biarritz) by Hermann Goedsche (1868), and other sources.
That passage is quite reasonable "proof" that the Protocols as presented by the Russian secret police are fraudulent - since we know that Maurice Joly ascribed the Protocols to the Freemasons (as an attack on Napoleon III which got him put in prison).
However, that was in 1864 - then we have another source, a "fantastic novel" of 1868. Does the 1868 version attack the Freemasons or some other group entirely?
Or is the EB trying to mislead us - it tells us "and other sources". So neither of the two works in the 1860s is really the orginal.
Same at the Wikipedia - it too says there are other sources:
"... most of which derive from older antisemitic canards."[22. Chanes, Jerome A (2004), Antisemitism: a reference handbook, ABC-CLIO.][23. Shibuya, Eric (2007), "The Struggle with Right-Wing Extremist Groups in the United States", in Forest, James, Countering terrorism and insurgency in the 21st century 3, Greenwood.]
There is enough in those two sources to exonerate Joly as the source - in which case, the "Freemason" connection is a red-herring.
But there is more, and it has the makings of a smoking gun:
The conceptual inspiration for the Protocols can be traced back to the time of the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century. At that time, a French Jesuit named Abbe Barruel, representing reactionary elements opposed to the revolution, published in 1797 a treatise blaming the Revolution on a secret conspiracy operating through the Order of Freemasons. Barruel's idea was nonsense, since the French nobility at the time was heavily Masonic, but he was influenced by a Scottish mathematician named Robison who was opposed to the Masons. In his treatise, Barruel did not himself blame the Jews, who were emancipated as a result of the Revolution. However, in 1806, Barruel circulated a forged letter, probably sent to him by members of the state police opposed to Napoleon Bonaparte's liberal policy toward the Jews, calling attention to the alleged part of the Jews in the conspiracy he had earlier attributed to the Masons. This myth of an international Jewish conspiracy reappeared later on in 19th century Europe in places such as Germany and Poland. ::::
Nizkor is, needless to say, a highly "reputable" source, firmly in league with the Holocaust Industry. (Or not yet denounced, anyway). Nizkor tells us we're being lied to over the origins of the Protocols.
The Protocols are quite a bit older than what we've been told. The "Freemason link" is tenuous. Why would people lie to us over something so relatively trivial?
Is it that some people are covering up a much darker secret? Toolbox (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2016 (IST)