Counterfeit Protocol Claims are Disabled " The Protocols of Zion "

Imagesource: screenshot
( Table of equations between dialog and Protocol )

After the Bible, the Protocols of the wise men of Zion is probably the most read book in the world. Published in Russia in 1903, it contained the main content "Jewish domination of the world". It is something that will be learned at a secret meeting of mystical society.

In different ways, both Zionist and Nazi with anti-semitism and Genocide. But of course not all Jews can be blamed for actions carried out by a small group of secret societies they have never heard of. The majority of Jews will not approve this master plan if they find out that they exist.

Of course one can criticize all racism and genocide as hard as possible while believing that the Protocol is authentic. In my opinion, the criticism that the spread of the original Protocol's news is that those who want to ignite antisemitism are really a plan to divert attention from this master plan.

This Pagiarism claim is a propaganda campaign that is spread by conscious and unconscious collaborators at the academic and media levels.

False Claim
We are told that the Protocols of Zion is a lie, a "proven lie" made by the Tsaris political police (Okhara) to ignite anti-Semitism and discredit revolutionaries.

But the evidence is far from convincing, He (evidence that the Protocol was the result of plagiarism) consists of three articles published by The London Times (16-18 Agistus 1921) by Philips Graves. According to Graves, the Protocol is rough, chapter by chapter is a plagiarism of the work of Maurice Joly, Dialogue in Hell Between Machivelli and Montesquieu (1864).

It is easy to make this claim when the book does not exist. Napoleon III police immediately banned him when the book was published.

But the book is now available and I invite you to compare the two texts. In my opinion they are completely different in tone, content and purpose. With pages reaching 140 pages, Dialogues is two times longer than Protocols. Most of them do not get echoes in Protocols.

The essence of Graves' argument is that certain contents and sentences in the protocol are taken from the dialogue. He claimed that there were 50 parts taken from him and made about 12 verses.
The similarity seen with the protocol raises doubts and the possibility that the plagiarism of the Protocol to Dialogues will be very unlikely. Indeed Philip Graves "Surprised by the lack of efforts made by the Plagiator to hide his plagiarism." I am sure that because Joly copied from the Protocol and not vice versa.
The plot in Protocols illustrates that he has been "centuries old". It is very likely to exist earlier than Dialogue 1864. What Joly put forward is very well contained in Protocols and he borrows from it (from Protocols) to reveal the unpopular position of authoritarian Machievelli, which he juxtaposed with Napoleon III.
Joly, a Jew whose real name is Jeseph Levy, is a member of "Lodge of Mirzaim" where the Protocols document originates. He was educated by Adolph Cremieux (Isac Moise Cremieux 1796-1880) the head of the Lodge and a minister in the administration of Leon Gambetta who was supported by Jews. (See Kerry Bolton, The Protocols in Context, Renaisance Press, 2003)
Joly, who committed suicide in 1879, had a habit of "borrowing". He was accused of plagiarism against a popular novel by Eugene Sue entitled Les Mysteres du Paris (1845). In addition, his work was also preceded by the work of Cremieux's protégé, Jacob Venedy, entitled Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Rousseau (1850).
In 1884 Meme. Justina Glinka, daughter of a Russian General who lives in Paris, hired Joseph Schortest, a member of Lodge Mirzaim where Joly was also a member there, to get sensitive information. For a fee of 2500 francs, Schorst also gave Glinka the Protocols of Zion. He was later found out and killed in Egypt.

The Tsarist government, according to Schort's documents, has also been mastered. Glinka then gave the document to a friend who then forwarded it to Sergei A. Nilus who published it for the first time in 1901.

After the Bolshevik Revolution, Nilus was detained in Kiev in 1924, imprisoned and tortured. The court leader said that he had "done enormous damage by publishing the Protocols (Waters flowing Eastward by Pequita de Schishmereff, pp. 74-76).
However, there is an internal reference which implies that the year of publication of the document was in 1894 not 1884. In Protocol 10, there was a reference to the Panama scandal in 1892. The author said that political puppets must have an undisclosed stain, some Panamanians " .
At the end of Protocol 16, there is a reference to "one of our best agents, Bourgeois" who has infiltrated the teaching of the young group. Leon Victor August Bourgeois (1851-1925) became minister of education in 1890. This convinced me that Glinka had gotten around 1894 instead of 1884.
I am convinced that based on the contents in it, the Protocol is a "centuries old plan" and Joly has accessed the earlier version.
Political Context
The Pheilip Gaves article hit the Zionist propaganda operation. "Expose" carried out by Grave in Protocols emerged in August 1921 when Zionists pressed the League of Nations to return Palestine to return Palestine to Jewish homeland under the British mandate.
Philip Grave tells a story that cannot be trusted that Mr. X "brought Dialogues to him in Constantinople, where he was a Times correspondent. Mr. X shows it as "irrefutable evidence" that protocols are the result of plagiarism.

Mr. X is a white Russian. Looking at the role of the Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution, it seems surprising that a Russian white man will help discredit the Protocols. Grave stated that Mr. X bought the book from, Note this, "a former member of Okhana" who had moved to Constantinople. Do we believe that only with the only evidence that this former member of Okhana brought, he will prove that Protocols are the result of plagiarism?

In The Controversy of Zion chapter 34, Douglas Reed, a Times staff member when it provides additional background. In May 1920, Lord Northcliffe, part owner of The Times, issued an article on the Protocols entitled The Jewish Peril, A Distrubing Pamphlet, A Call for an Equiry. The article contains:

"A biased stigmatization of this document and the history of it that is eager to know ... are we going to dump the entire contents without investigation and allow the influence of such a book without examining this work?

This was a short-lived public awareness, after the Bolshevik Revolution, that communism was a Jewish nature and provided a real danger to Western civilization. Even Winston Churchill attacked with his famous article, Zionism VS. Bolshevism: A Struggle for the soul of Jewish people.

Then in May 1922 Northcliffe visited Palestine and wrote that Britain had been too hasty to promise the country to Jews when it actually belonged to 700,000 Arab Muslim residents.

Mr. Wickman Steed, editor of The Times, refused to publish the article in 1921 because by submitting such an article it meant that Northcliffe tried to get him fired. However, when Northcliffe vacationed in Europe, Steed was able to make Clifffe declare a statement that was "crazy" and half-forced. Later Northcliffe objected that he had been poisoned and died suddenly in 1922.

Douglas Reed was Northcliffe's secretary, but was unaware of this event until they appeared in the Official History of the Times in the 1950s. Obviously Nortcliffe had angered the "big boy" when he raised the protocols and opposed the British mandate in Palestine.

Counterfeiting Claims Are Excessive

Philip Graves and other defenders made exaggerated claims. Their claim that Protocols is the result of plagiarism chapter by chapter from dialogues is wrong.

Graves writes that "The seventh dialogue ... corresponds to the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth protocols."

With an eight-page length, this Protocol is twice as long as the seventh Dialogue. It contains mostly material which is not contained in the seventh Dialogue, or in any other place. I will register from the Lima protocol.
The Five Protocols say "our kingdom will be characterized by very great despotism" so that it will "get rid of every Goyim that opposes us both with actions and words."
Instead the Seventh Dialogue says, "Death, expropriation and torture must occur as little as possible in the internal politics of the modern state."

The Five Protocols say that we "rob their faith (Goyim) of God [1]" and instill in their minds their rights, "thereby undermining the power of the King. There is nothing like Dialog Seven.

Protikol Lima said, "We will weaken the GOYIM so that they will forcefully offer us international power (thus allowing us) to slowly absorb all the forces and form a Super Government." There is nothing like this in Dialogue Seven.

On the other side

The Author Dialogues selects a number of verses or references from the Protocol that appear unchanged or only slightly different in shape.

For example, Dialogues says: "There are rights everywhere. Freedom of politics is only a relative idea. The need to live is what dominates the country as it dominates individuals. "

In the Protocols the sentence reads, "From the natural law the emergence of strength. Political independence is an idea, not reality, and people must know how to use it (political independence) as bait at any time to attract time ... for one party who has the goal of destroying the other party in power. "(Protocols 1)

Graves does not include the last part to make the equation look more intense than it really is.

Dialogues (7) says, "In all of Europe ... we must create chaos, division, and hostility." There is no reference to the emphasis on these matters in a country.

This equation can be explained by the fact that Protocols already existed first and he was used to them.

Conclusion

Both books differ in their tone and relevance. Dialogues books when viewed with our current glasses appear to be academic and esoteric and require an interpretation. He was an attack on Napoleon III who saw Joly get the thought of Machiavelli. Ironically, this is the place where he sneaks into Protocols.

On the contrary, the authenticity of Protocols is very clear to those who have an open mind. He describes the world we live in.

If your plan to master the world is leaking, what will you do? Will you admit it? No, you will send secret forces to stigmatize that the document is a lie motivated by "bad prejudice" and "anti-Semitism". They have carried out this "destruction control" perfectly, a measure of their power to empower even when the truth has been revealed.

This is the only conspiracy that has won even though its ugly blueprint is in the midst of society. He revealed the innocence (or damage) and power to the period (liberalism, socialism) as a way to secure ultimate power for themselves. According to Protocols, they will eventually withdraw the wealth when [2] the "subtle government" has become invincible. "War on terror - war on terror"