The "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" have been roundly denounced as an anti-Jewish Tsarist propaganda and the Elders of Zion are similarly dismissed as a myth. There is not a shred of evidence to support the authenticity of the protocols or to establish that any organisation called the Elders of Zion ever existed. However, the secularisation of France, the Bolshevik revolution, the British and French colonisation of the Middle East, the Zionist colonisation of Palestine and British entry into the Second World War were events, principally engineered by Jewish conspirators for the advancement of Zionism and Jewish hegemony.
In the former Soviet Union, one would be shot on the spot for owning a copy. Moreover, Jewish organisations have campaigned to criminalize the dissemination of the Protocols and more worryingly any tacit association with Jewry and cabal like behaviour; the Lebanese satellite television channel, al-Manar, was banned from broadcasting in France mainly because it showed the Syrian film "Al-Shatat", which Jewish campaigners claimed was based on the Protocols. Yet this film did not ever mention the Protocols.
In brief the Protocols is a document that purports to be a summary of the minutes of a secret meeting, held by a Zionist organization that details a Jewish conspiracy to manipulate political and economic events to establish Jewish hegemony throughout the World. It can be summarised as follows: destabilising the then existing World order by fermenting political discord and revolution, promoting liberalism and democracy, and undermine the social stratification of the state; eliminating religion in favour of atheistic worldviews, such as secularism, Darwinism, Communism and anarchism; promoting economic globalisation, usury and corruption; manipulating the public and influencing political policy through control of the media; encouraging and facilitating wars between nations; encouraging over indulgence, alcohol dependency, sexual licentiousness and idleness. The purpose of which is to bring down the then existing order, particularly the hegemonic European nation states, with the aim of replacing them with a de facto but covert Jewish government.
The Protocols appear to have been first published in Russia, in the newspaper “Znamia” (Banner) in 1903 and then in the book “The Great in the Small: Antichrist considered as an imminent political possibility” by Sergei Nilus in1905. Nilus suggested that the Protocols were chapter eighteen, the work of The First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland in 1897. Yet this was a public meeting attended by several non-Jews and not one reported such a manifesto. Whilst this does not disprove that such a document was issued it certainly makes it unlikely and we are again left with the complete lack of any evidence to verify their authenticity.
However, the most popular argument against the authenticity of the protocols is the assertion that they were either directly plagiarised from Maurice Joly’s "Dialogue aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu" (Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu), which was allegedly published in Brussels in 1864, or from Hermann Goedsche’s "Biarritz" (A Fantastic Novel) allegedly published in 1868. In fact, only one complete copy of Joly’s pamphlet is known to exist, the 1865 copy in The British Museum, yet this has never been independently authenticated; there are suspicions that it is itself a forgery. Again, no original 1868 copy of Goedsche’s "Biarritz" has ever been produced. Moreover, both these texts surfaced in 1921, although both were allegedly discovered by Lucien Wolf in 1920. However, it is Phillips Graves not Wolf, who is generally credited with discovering Joly’s "Dialogue", which is extraordinary, given that Graves’ account of this discovery is entirely fictitious and deliberate omits to mention his real source: Wolf.
In any event, there is still no good reason to give any credence to the Protocols or to even believe that the Elders of Zion existed, however to suggest that there is no connection between Zionism, communism and an international Jewish financial cartel is simply untrue.
If one considers that Jews were expelled from England in 1290 and France in 1306 and again in 1615 and were not officially readmitted into England until 1664 or France until the French Revolution of 1789, and that neither country had a significant Jewish population until the Nineteenth century, it is staggering that by the 1870’s, that prominent Jewish bankers, particularly the Rothschilds, were effectively bankrolling the governments of both countries. In France, Adolphe Thiers, the French Premier, remained in power due to the influence of Alphonse Rothschild, the head of the international banking syndicate, which placed the "Liberation loans" following the Franco-Prussian War. Whilst in Britain, in 1875, the Jewish Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, borrowed £4,000,000 from Lionel Rothschild, on a few hours notice, which allowed the British government to become the principal stockholder in the Suez Canal Company.
Such was the dependency of the British and French government’s on the Rothschilds that neither government could pursue its foreign policy agendas without their financial assistance. Thus, the head of the Rothschild family in Britain, Lionel Rothschild - who was regarded by the establishment as the leader of British Jewry - was able to manipulate British foreign policy to suit the Zionist agenda, and Alphonse did the same in France. The result of which was the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, the British occupation of Iran (also negotiated with the Jewish Bolsheviks); and the Balfour Declaration.
In France, the Dreyfus Affair, far from epitomising French anti-Judaism, demonstrates the sway of Jewish influence over the French government; the charges of treason against an obscure French artillery captain would have been of no international significance had he not been Jewish. Thus, it was precisely because he was Jewish that this incident attracted international prominence and was ultimately brought about the transformation of France from a Catholic Christian State into a secular state.
The secularisation of France was a seismic political event that repercussions are still felt today, the European Union is very much moulded on French secularism; it is also a significant factor in the birth of fascism and communism, as well being a contributory factor in the Russian revolution. Therefore it a measure of Jewish influence in France that secularisation (the biggest constitutional change in French history since the 1789 revolution) arose out the protestations of Jews and Jewish sympathisers.
In France, as elsewhere in Europe, secularisation of the state was strongly advocated by prominent Jews, who wished to decapitate the influence of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, organisations which diametrically opposed to Judaism and the influence and socio-political integration of Jewry. The Dreyfus Affair, rather than being the catalysis for political Judaism and secularisation was a pretext for it. Dreyfus' innocence or guilt was never significant to either side; it was a straight forward power struggle between the Catholic Church and the French army on one side and Jews and secularism on the other: Jews and secularism clearly won.
In 1893, Alfred Dreyfus, a Captain in the French artillery, assigned to the general staff in Paris, was charged with treason. He was accused of having been the author of an anonymous bordereau containing a list of secret French military documents that were scheduled for delivery to the German Embassy in Paris. In 1894 Dreyfus was found guilty by a court-martial, reduced in rank, and transported to Devil's Island, where he was to be imprisoned for the rest of his life.
At the first court hearing the evidence against Dreyfus was compelling and the verdict of the court martial was not unexpected. The event would not have drawn international notoriety had Dreyfus not have been Jewish and the allegation in 1896, by the head of French Military Intelligence, Lieutenant Colonel George Picquart, that he had uncovered evidence that implicated Major Marie Charles Esterhazy, as the true culprit. However, Picquart was dismissed from the French military having failed to substantiate the charges against Major Esterhazy.
In 1898 due to pressure from the French Jewish lobby and secularists, Esterhazy was put on trial for treason by a court martial. The disgraced Zionist politician and newspaper editor, Georges Clemenceau, who had previously been driven out of office after accusations that he was in the pay of the British Foreign Office, as well as having been denounced by his detractors as a protégé and close associate of Cornélius Herz, the Jewish financier primarily responsible for the collapse of Compagnie Universelle du Canal Interocéanique in 1892, writing in his Paris newspapers La Justice and L'Aurore, was particularly vociferous in defending Dreyfus. His newspaper L'Aurore also published in 1898 Émile Zola’s libellous letter, entitled "J'accuse", denouncing both the both the military and the French government as anti-Semites and liars.
Neither Picquart or Dreyfus’s supporters could produce evidence that would substantiate Esterhazy’s guilt, consequently the court martial acquitted Esterhazy, which led to Picquart’s arrest. Once again the French military and government came under considerable pressure from the Jewish lobby. Later that year, Lieutenant Colonel Hubert Joseph Henry, the then head of French Military Intelligence, inexplicably confessed that he had forged documents implicating Dreyfus.
His confession reamins suspicious, after all, it was likely to earn him the death sentence. Moreover there is no explantion for why he should suddenly succumb to a pang of conscience. In any event, his confession was not tested he, as he was found dead in his cell in suspicious circumstances; his death was officially attributed to suicide. Due to political pressure Esterhazy was dismissed from the army and left France altogether, deciding to settle in England. In 1898 the case was once again reignited, leading to the Dreyfus case being brought before the Cour de cassation, which ordered an immediate retrial. Although, the second court martial, like the first, once again convicted Dreyfus.
This verdict inflamed political tension; the Jewish and liberal elements within French society constantly used the Dreyfus affair, as a denouncement of the Catholic Church and the French military, consequently ten days after the trial, a new liberal Government was elected, headed by Premier Pierre Waldeck-Rousseau and President Émile Loubet, who pardoned Dreyfus. Later that year Esterhazy was to confess that he was the spy and a wave of anticlerical legislation was introduced culminating in the separation of Church and State in 1905. Clemenceau, despite his ignominious political record, was elected senator for Var in April 1902, off the back of his support for Dreyfus. Indeed, in 1906, Dreyfus was vindicated by a judgment of the Cour de cassation and restored to the army with the rank of major, and decorated with the Legion of Honour. Picquart too was reinstated and promoted to the rank of general, later serving as Minister of War in the Cabinet of Georges Clemenceau.
Yet apart from the unlikely are rather suspect confession of Etsrhazy, no credible evidence exists that he was the culprit. No evidence from the Prussians (or Germans) provides any illumination in this matter and the handwriting on the bordereau has never been positively identified. Moreover, contrary to popular assertions the Dreyfus Affair is not proof of widespread French anti-Judaism; rather the opposite if one considers the outcome. This is not to say that Dreyfus’ was not a convenient scapegoat for a crime that he did not commit and may not have been committed at all; this is likely the case. However, there is no evidence that the motive for the accusation was to ferment anti-Judaic feeling. If is more likely the motive was to detract from the incompetence and failings of the French general staff and his being Jewish made him a convenient scapegoat, given that Jewish financiers were involved with both sides during the Franco-Prussian war.
The Dreyfus Affair was not the impetus or raison d'être for Theodor Herzl’s 1896 Zionist pamphlet "The Jewish State", as is suggested in Zionist mythology, the French Emperor Napoleon had advocated the idea of Jewish homeland in Palestine in 1799; as had Benjamin Disraeli in his Zionist novel "Tancred" in 1847 before becoming British Prime Minister; Moses Hess, a friend and co-worker of Karl Marx, in "Rome and Jerusalem: A Study in Jewish Nationalism" (1862); Leo Pinsker in the 1881 pamphlet "Auto-Emanzipation". Moreover, the Dreyfus affair was never pivotal in the history of Zionism: the Rothschilds, in particular, Baron Edmond de Rothschild, had been financing Zionist settlements ten years earlier in the 1880’s. In fact, most Jewish immigrants to Palestine were of Eastern European origin, and the USA remained the preferred destination. Certainly, there was no Jewish mass exodus from France, if anything France was a more attractive nation for Jews to live in after the Dreyfus Affair: they enjoyed disproportionate political influence, with a de facto Jewish government.
In truth, the Dreyfus affair, spelt the end of Catholic religious hegemony in France and led to anti-Catholic purges in the establishment. The Dreyfus Affair, was significant in so far as it tightened Jewish control over the French government, the Jewish international financial syndicate were in a position to dictate terms to the Government from the 1870’s. Whereas, the significance of the disestablishment of the Catholic Church from the State was nothing short of revolutionary, it not only ended Catholic religious hegemony in France, it disenfranchised the Catholic Church from the mechanism of government and removed the last obstacle to the establishment of a Zionist dominated French state. Thus during the First World War under the Clemenceau regime, France pursued a Zionist imperialist agenda in the Middle East and North Africa at the cost of the near collapse of the French state.
Moreover, it is an incontrovertible fact the 1917 Bolshevik revolution in Russia was a Jewish enterprise; the majority of the Bolshevik leadership, including Lenin, were of Jewish origin, although ostensibly atheists, most like Lenin were Jewish supremacists; and the international conspirators who financed and orchestrated the Bolshevik revolution were also Jewish. It is also true to say that like the communist, socialist and anarchist revolutionary movements of the nineteenth and early twentieth century movements were principally Jewish movements. Even ardent Zionists such as Churchill were willing to concede this. Although as an apologist, Churchill tried to draw a distinction between the international Jew and national Jew – the former being the revolutionary or discontent like the Bolsheviks who he labelled "international conspirators" and "criminals" and the latter, the settled Jew loyal to the nation that he lived. However, Churchill omitted to include into this equation those international Jewish financiers and Zionists whom bankrolled his entire political career.
The Russian revolution was not only an undeniably Jewish affair, it also brought about an atheist state, predominately run by Jews, that prohibited in the strongest terms anything conceived as anti-Jewish. Christianity and Islam were outlawed throughout the former Soviet Union, whereas prior to the ascendancy of Stalin, Judaism remained unfettered. The purges that took place in the former Soviet Union, account for verifiable deaths exceeding ten million. This is the single largest verifiable account of genocide perpetrated by a state against its own citizens.
Moreover, it was clear that revolutionary movements threatened the existing hegemony throughout Europe during the 1920s and that most of the main agitators were Jewish and most revolutionary terrorist groups were predominately Jewish. Prior to the Bolshevik revolution, Jewish revolutionaries had been responsible for several significant assassinations, including that of Tsar Alexander II of Russia in 1881 by the "People’s Will" and that of US President William McKinley in 1901 by Leon Czolgosz. Czolgosz incriminated the anarchist and suspected Jewish anarchist Emma Goldman in the assassination, yet despite sufficient evidence to charge her with murder and treason, she was inexplicably released without charge. There is only speculation as to why this was allowed to occur.
It is also notable that most of the international Jewish conspirators involved in the Bolshevik revolution resided at some point in the USA, particularly New York, including Jacob Schiff, the main financier. Schiff was the head of the bank Khun, Loeb, and Company, a front company for N M Rothschild and Sons, and was amongst the most important Railroad bankers in the USA: he was the financier behind the notorious rail magnate E H Harriman, throughout the latter career, it was Schiff who financed Harriman’s abortive attempt to take control of Northern Pacific Railroad, which resulted in the 1901 stock market crash.
Schiff’s financial dominance is evident in that he was chiefly responsible for securing two-hundred Million dollars in loans for Japan in 1904 during the Russo-Japanese War. His role as principle financier for the Bolsheviks revolution, was known by both the US and British government, it was also known that most of the Bolshevik leadership, including Trotsky, had resided in New York’s Lower East Side and were members or connected to organised crime, particularly to Arnold Rothstein, who was also an associate of Schiff’s. Instead of arresting Schiff and his co-conspirators and putting them on trial, which one might have expected, particularly given the anti-Bolshevik climate during the 1919-1921 “Red Scare”, yet he was to remain invulnerable until his death in 1920.
Furthermore, Zionists manipulated the Bolshevik revolution to secure a commitment from the British for the Jewish colonisation of Palestine, a move that was contrary to the wishes of Parliament. The Bolshevik revolution occurred in October 1917 and the Balfour Declaration was made in November 1917, the two correlated. Whilst Balfour was an undoubted Zionist and Islamophobe, his promise to Lord Lionel Rothschild was only possible because of the fear generated by the Bolshevik revolution; even so, the Balfour Declaration was widely regarded as treachery, and most imprudent.
Had Schiff‘s role in the Bolshevik revolution been disclosed at the time, the ramification for British Jewry would have been enormous, Schiff’s financial connections to the Rothschilds would have certainly implicated them in the affair, and by association most of the key members of Lloyd-George’s Government, at a period of time when Britain was effectively at war with the Bolsheviks. This would have been viewed as far more compelling evidence of a Jewish conspiracy than the Protocols.
Moreover, Jewish migration from Russia to Western Europe, Palestine and the USA exponentially increased after the Bolshevik revolution, so much so that every country introduced laws to curb it; however these were only ostensible measures; anti-immigration laws did little to curb the illegal immigration that continued at even more dramatic rate. The consequence of illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine can be measured in the current Zionist occupation of that land and the genocide that has been perpetrated against its indigenous Arab population.
In no short measure, both the US and British governments conspired and actively assisted Jewish illegal immigrants to settle and colonise Palestine. Zionism, which emerged as a political phenomenon in the Nineteenth Century, was financed by the Rothschilds, without their financial support, the early Jewish settlements would not have been possible, as previously stated, it was the Rothschild financed British and French governments who agreed to the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
It is pregnant that at the end of the First World War, the French Premier, Clemenceau; the British Prime Minister, Lloyd- George; the Soviet Chairman Lenin; and the US President, Woodrow Wilson were all Zionists and all financed by the same international Jewish financial cartel.
It is also evident that the outbreak of the Second World War was in no small part attributable to Jewish agitation. In fact, the principle international and national Jewish organisations throughout the World had declared war on Germany as early as 1933. This was only an economic and propaganda war until 1939 but Jewish organisations were not coy about their intention to escalate this into a military war. The British Prime Minster, Neville Chamberlain, stated that it was Jewish and American pressure that forced Britain into declaring war on Germany in 1939. He profoundly believed that it was not in Britain’s interest to enter into a war with Germany and that doing so had been a grave mistake. In terms of political economy, loss of life and international influence, he was correct.
Furthermore, recently released British intelligence documents prove that Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, deliberately undermining the British Government’s attempts to appease Germany and instead, actively promoted the Jewish war agenda. SIS also conducted surveillance and intercepted the communications of prominent anti-Jewish figures, such as newspaper proprietor, Lord Rothermere.
Yet had Chamberlain not been forced into declaring war on Germany in 1939, against his better instincts, there simply would not have been a Second World War. This is not to say that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were not destined to clash over hegemony in Eastern Europe and ideology, their war was a Teutonic-Slavic affair; or that Japan and the USA, whose strategic and colonial interests conflicted, would not similarly be destined to fight a pacific war: rather, these two regional conflicts would not have merged into a War that engulfed much of the globe had it not been for British involvement. Arguably, the war in Western Europe may have been averted altogether had France and Britain not declared war on Germany, in any event, it would not have escalated had Britain conceded defeat after the fall of France and the ignominious defeat at Dunkirk in 1940. So it is no exaggeration to say that British and U.S. involvement in the Second World War was an international Jewish conspiracy. This is precisely how Chamberlain viewed it.
Moreover, Chamberlain’s successor as Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, inveigled his way into the position, contrary to the will of his party, Parliament and the British public. Churchill’s appointment is staggering if one considers that he had been living in political obscurity since 1929; his ignominious role in the Dardanelles fiasco during the First World War, for which he was forced to resign as First Lord of the Admiralty; and that he was pervasively despised by his peers for being an unscrupulous self-publicist, charlatan and blunderer, he was also considered by many of his critics, with justification, to be as corrupt and treacherous as his ancestor John Churchill, the first Duke of Marlborough. Yet through the treachery of the Intelligence Services and the assistance of Zionist conspirators, including Lord Balfour, Churchill was able to effect a bloodless coup d'état and replace Chamberlain as Prime Minister.
Winston Churchill was a staunch Zionist with dubious financial connections to Jewish financers. The Spencer Churchill family was financially indebted to the Rothschild family, who helped Schiff finance the Bolshevik revolution and Winston Churchill himself, was financed throughout his political career by Zionists, particularly Sir Ernest Cassel. Moreover, Churchill was known political associate of Chaim Weizmann, then president of the World Zionist Organisation, at a time when Zionist terrorists were effectively at war with Britain in Palestine. As Prime Minister, Churchill often put Zionist ambition above British national interests: he obstinately refused to sue for peace, against the wishes of his war cabinet; he was one of the principle players in the Zionist occupation of Palestine; architect of the Jewish Brigade Group; and was personally responsible for genocides against Arabs, Kurds and Iranians.
Thus, whilst the Protocols of Elders of Zion were undoubtedly a fabrication, the insidious influence of Zionism on Western foreign policy; its conspiratorial, elitist and nihilistic nature and Jewish political subversion in Europe during the Twentieth Century were not.
Read More......
