Evidence for the authenticity of the Protocols of Zion

• Jews had more motive for plagiarism than "anti-Semites"; Jews needed a contingency plan in event of discovery that would allow them to cry "forgery" and blame "anti-Semites" for authorship.
• Around 1889 at the time of the Protocols' compilation, Alphonse de Rothschild found that Russian merchants were pirating his wine brand by bottling cheap wine and forging "Lafite Rothschild" labels, which served as inspiration for Rothschild's contingency plan of plagiarism so as to be able to play the "forgery" card.
• The similarity of several parallel passages is so strikingly obvious that it is indicative of 'evidence' deliberately being planted in such a way to guarantee its discovery, rather than an "anti-Semite" on a rush job.
• The Okhrana archives were saved, shipped to the US, and were made available to researchers at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, California, more than 50 years ago. There is zero evidence of a conspiracy to create the Protocols, and there is no evidence of "anti-Semitism".
• Jews have a long history of resorting to plagiarism, and Rabbi Avraham Yosef, son of the late Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, says that plagiarising academic papers is permitted under Jewish law. French Chief Rabbi Gilles Bernheim, an Ashkenazi Jew, was found to have "long passages" in his 2011 book Forty Jewish Meditations that "repeated word for word an earlier book by the eminent philosopher Jean-François Lyotard." And Bernheim, who lied about his academic credentials when he claimed to have a doctorate in philosophy, even stooped to plagiarising Elie Wiesel! The actor Shia LaBeouf, born to a Jewish mother, was such a habitual plagiarist that after one particular instance of having been caught, his apology was itself found to have been lifted from a 2010 post on Yahoo! Answers, and Time Magazine ran a piece entitled A Brief History of Shia LaBeouf Copying the Work of Others, citing no less than fourteen examples. 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.
• Jews have a long history as forgers. The Jewish "historian" Flavius Josephus (approx. 37-100 CE) quoted and summarized material that he "repeatedly" cited as the work of 4^th century BCE Greek historian Hecataeus of Abdera. The fragments purported to 'prove' that Hecataeus had written a separate book on the Jews ("On the Jews"). And naturally, the material supposedly showed that early Hellenistic authors had not only referred to the Jews but even admired their religion, and it included claims about Jewish origins that were used to legitimize Jewish settlement in Egypt. Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Professor of Ancient Jewish History, Tel Aviv University, recently proved that On the Jews was a forgery, most likely fabricated by one of the "moderate conservative Jews of Alexandria",  "a Diaspora Jew between 107 and 93 BCE". And this Jew, dubbed "Pseudo-Hecataeus", most likely concocted On Abraham and the Egyptians. In any case, scholars regard the latter work, attributed to Hecataeus, as "definitely the work of a Jewish author", so if two authors were involved, the second Jewish forger plagiarized the first Jewish forger! In May 2014, Haaretz reported that Jewish settlers have been using forged documents to defend illegal settlements built on Palestinian land on the West Bank. Al-Watan, subsidiary of the settlement organization Amana, has a history of using "dubious documents". "Time after time, it turns out that the settlers' claims of purchase, which always happen at the last minute, are based on forged documents."
• Jews have a long history as liars. Around 2,000 years ago, they were lying about their origins to justify a Jewish settlement in Egypt. Today, they lie about their origins when they claim that most Jews, even most Ashkenazi Jews, are of Semitic heritage (known as the "Rhineland hypothesis"), in an attempt to legitimize their disastrous annexing of Palestine. The fact is that the vast majority of today's "Jews" are descended from the Khazars, a Turkic Asiatic tribe, and the 20^th century's lies about their origins were merely a political ploy to grab themselves 8,000 square miles of Palestinian land. A 2012 study published in a peer-reviewed journal by Eran Elhaik, a Jewish Israeli-born molecular geneticist, demolished the fraudulent Rhineland hypothesis, and concluded: "The geographical origins of European Jews varied for different reference populations (fig. 4 and supplementary fig. S5, Supplementary Material online), but all the results converged to Southern Khazaria along modern Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. Eastern European Jews clustered tightly compared with Central European Jews in all analyses. [...] Remarkably, the mean coordinates of Eastern European Jews are 560 km from Khazaria’s southern border (42.77 N, 42.56 E) near Samandar—the capital city of Khazaria from 720 to 750 CE (Polak 1951)."
• Jews have a long history of deception. The motto of Israel's Mossad is "By Way Of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War". There is overwhelming evidence of Israel's central role in the 9/11 terror attacks, all from mainstream sources and an FBI report, and the best proof, often overlooked due to technical discussions on how "office fires" supposedly brought about the total collapse of three steel-framed 110-story or 47-story high-rises on the same day, when it had never happened before and has never happened since, is the fact that three Israeli Jews - Oded Ellner, Yaron Shmuel and Sivan Kurzberg - had proven foreknowledge of the attacks on the World Trade Center, knew that both Towers would be hit, and were celebrating the attacks by high-fiving, hugging each other, holding up a lighted lighter like they were at a rock concert, telling macabre jokes, and grinning like Cheshire cats (the FBI reported that "the Israelis are visibly happy on nearly all of the" "76" photographs that they took). They claimed to have read about the first plane crash on the internet whilst at their "moving company" offices, but were seen atop their Urban Moving Systems van with their cameras filming the attacks and celebrating at the Doric apartment block, 100 Manhattan Avenue, Union City, New Jersey, within four-and-a-half minutes of the first plane crash and before the news had even broken on 1010 WINS, the local AM news station. Even at the best of times - and this was a Tuesday morning rush hour before 9 a.m. - it's a four- to five-minute drive from 3 West 18th Street, Weehawken, where UMS had its offices, to the Doric apartment block in Union City. From the roof of UMS, the top of the North Tower was visible, but the South Tower was obscured by the North. Ellner subsequently admitted under FBI questioning that they made the decision to go to Doric because it "gave them a view of the entire length of both towers". Thus, the decision to go to Doric was taken not only before news broke of the first plane crash, but before any innocent person knew the South Tower would also be hit! Of course, it's patently obvious that the Israelis were in fact already at Doric with their cameras already set up when the first Tower was hit. Ellner would later admit on Israeli TV, when safely out of reach of US authorities, that "our job was to document the event". By the time they were arrested on the afternoon of 9/11/01, the Israelis must have offloaded the video camera, possibly at White Glove Movers of 930 Newark Avenue, Jersey City.
• Their well-honed skills in plagiarism, forgery, lying and deception could be employed to document their plans for Jewish imperialism and world conquest in a format that could be read out at a series of fringe meetings held at the same time as a Jewish international political conference, to sell the revolutionary program to prospective financial backers, whilst at the same having a built-in contingency plan in the event of discovery. Previous books would be plagiarised, and the final work "forged" to look like the product of "anti-Semitic" "forgers" who'd fabricated it to seem as if it were the minutes of the official meetings at the international conference.
• The Protocols is far more than just a simple plagiarism; it's a superb blueprint for world conquest, padded with blindingly obvious plagiarism.
• All of Jewry's various conflicting conspiracy theories about the compilation of the Protocols have fatal chronological problems; they are not in accordance with the laws of causality.
• One of the star witnesses (Princess Radziwill) for Jewry's forgery conspiracy theory was a convicted forger, fraudster, briber, blackmailer and jailbird, who tried to conceal her past by concocting an amusing story about having a "dead" "double".
• Another of the star witnesses (Count du Chayla) for Jewry's forgery conspiracy theory was a convicted traitor and a two-faced liar, with a reputation as a "swindler".
• Another of the star witnesses (Mrs. Henrietta Hurlbut) for Jewry's forgery conspiracy theory was a gold-digging legacy chaser.
• Jewry continued to channel their asinine conspiracy theory through the convicted forger for at least fourteen years after her antics had been thoroughly exposed. For example, Princess Radziwill's scams go back at least to 1900 when she claimed to have been robbed of jewellery worth ten thousand pounds, and it turned out that the "stolen" 'jewels' were merely paste, and the real jewels were in a safe place. In December 1921, Radziwill was held in $1,000 bail after failing to pay a hotel bill of $1,239, and Assistant D.A. Gibbs told Magistrate Levine that she'd served eighteen months in the South Africa House of Detention (1902-1903) for swindling Cecil Rhodes in a forgery of $200,000. It is inconceivable that the finest brains of World Jewry were all too dense to see through her act for another fourteen years, up until the 1935 Berne trial.
• A group of people who had been wrongly accused - e.g. of conspiring to achieve world conquest and of documenting their program for world conquest - and were attempting to set the record straight and clear their reputation would have honest characters testifying in their support; they would not select a convicted fraudster, a convicted traitor, and a money-grubbing coffin chaser to convey the evidence.
• A group of people who were seeking world conquest, and whose documented program for world conquest had been discovered and publicly exposed, would employ dubious characters whom they could pay to lie for them, such as a convicted fraudster, a convicted traitor, and a money-grubbing coffin chaser.
• The Protocols' plan to have the press in their hands corresponds to the fact that, by their own admission, Jews dominate the mainstream media.
• The Protocols' plan to control newspapers representing all shades of political opinion corresponds to the fact that Jews control newspapers and TV channels representing all shades of political opinion, so that those who repeat the opinion of any one of them is merely following the flag that Jews hang out for them.
• As in the Protocols, presidents and prime ministers of Western "democracies" are simply puppets who - upon election - invariably adopt policies that benefit organized Jewry, Israel, Zionism and the Rothschilds, such as a "War on Terror" that has these so-called "democracies" fighting Muslim nations. In those rare instances where a president opposes the Rothschilds' interests, such as JFK's opposition to Israel having nuclear weapons, or Saddam's rebellion against the petrodollar system, it does not fare well for them.
• The Protocols' plan for Jews to appear "as alleged saviours of the worker" from the "oppression" of "merciless money-grinding scoundrels" corresponds to the fact that revolutionary Jews such as Trotsky and Lenin, financed by Jewish bankers such as Jacob Schiff and Max Warburg, appeared in Russia as alleged saviours of the worker and proposed that the worker enter the fighting ranks of their communists, prior to Jews looting the nation and wreaking havoc. The 1939 book A Program for the Jews and An Answer to all Anti-Semites; A Program for Humanity by Rabbi Harry Waton, a Marxist Jew, admitted that Communism is Jewish and the Jews aim to conquer the world. Waton wrote, "Since the Jews are the highest and most cultured people on earth, the Jews have a right to subordinate to themselves the rest of mankind and to be the masters over the whole earth."
• The admission in the Protocols that the Jews are interested in "the diminution, the killing out of the goyim" corresponds to the deaths of many tens of millions of Gentiles in the USSR and in two World Wars, and is consistent with the behavior of Jews who have Gentiles lined up in their weapons' sights, e.g., USS Liberty, Arabs, Christians, peace activists, UN observers, Red Cross ambulance drivers, etc.
• The Protocols' plan to subdue the nation-state by setting up a "Super-Government Administration" corresponds to the setting up of the League of Nations, the United Nations, NAFTA, the European Union, etc.
• The Protocols' plan to bring about a rise in wages that would not benefit the worker because of prices rises corresponds to the fact that inflation rocketed in Russia in 1917, with prices in 1917 being four times higher than in 1914.
• The frequent boasts in the Protocols about having "the gold [...] in our hands" corresponds to the Rothschilds' obsession with gold, and their amassing of around $2 billion by 1900 at 1900 prices.
• The Protocols' plans for the Jews to operate as moneylenders who exploit over-spending by the "goy" governments corresponds with the fact that in 1910 the Jew Paul Warburg drafted much of the plan to set up the privately-owned Federal Reserve Banks, Rothschild proxies have a controlling interest in the stock, there hasn't been a non-Jewish chairman of the Federal Reserve since 1987, and the US public debt now exceeds 100% of GDP.
• Discussion in the Protocols of how "wealthy foreigners" would benefit from lending money to governments, with the "poor taxpayers" having to pick up the tab so that the money would flow into the Jews' "cash-boxes", is consistent with the fact that the Rothschilds made substantial profits from their foreign loans operations.
• A reference in the Protocols to "repeated discussions" of how "anti-Semitism is indispensable to us" correspond to Herzl's statements of how "Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies. [...] The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends." It is not consistent with an "anti-Semitic" Russian secret police agent on a rush job who didn't even have time to disguise his plagiarism, and would not have had time to research the Jewish mindset.
• The reference in the Protocols to how the conspirators "have in [their] service persons of all opinions, of all doctrines, restoration monarchists, demagogues, socialists, communists, and utopian dreamers of every kind"  is consistent with the existence of right-wingers, left-wingers, liberals, republicans, monarchists, etc., who all perform as assets of Jewry.
• The Protocols' reference to having "merciless vengeance, hatreds and malice" as "weapons in [their] hands" for "the diminution, the killing out of the goyim" corresponds to the subsequent "diminution" and "killing out" of tens of millions of Russian Christians in the decades following the Jewish Bolshevik takeover of Russia; the choice of Russia as target was in revenge for the Rus' having driven the Asiatic Khazars out of their beloved kingdom of Khazaria around 1,000 years ago, and all ties up with the fact that most of today's "Jews" - including all of Israel's prime ministers - are descendants of the Khazars.
• The Protocols' reference to "the "all-engulfing terror" corresponds to Stalin's Great Terror, and, more recently, Jewish false-flag terror operations such as 9/11, London 7/7, Amman 11/9/05, and others. It is most definitely not consistent with Joly's Machiavelli saying, "To rule today does not require committing atrocities, or decapitating your enemies, confiscating the goods of your subjects, or engaging in widespread torture. No. Death, expropriation, and torture should only play a minor role in the internal politics of modern states."
• Protocol No. 2's statement: "...thanks to the Press we have got the gold in our hands, notwithstanding that we have had to gather it out of oceans of blood and tears" is consistent with how the Rothschilds got rich from profiteering from various battles and wars from Waterloo to the war in Iraq, and from tricking the "goyim" into fighting each other, with Jewish control of the press playing an increasingly important part of the deceit. The "oceans of blood and tears" refers to the fate of those hapless "goyim" who were killed, crippled and wounded in wars for Jewry.
• The Protocols' prediction of an economic crisis, which would "stop dealings on the exchanges and bring industry to a standstill", and "throw upon the streets whole mobs of workers simultaneously in all the countries of Europe" is consistent with The Great Depression, starting with the Stock Market Crash of "Black Tuesday" on October 29, 1929, which led to the unemployment of the Thirties.
• Protocol No. 3's statement: "Remember the French Revolution, to which it was we who gave the name of 'Great': the secrets of its preparations are well known to us for it was wholly the work of our hands" is consistent with the fact that the Ashkenazi Jew Marx called the French Revolution the "old" and "great" revolution, and with the fact that Jews such as Haym Salomon of Portuguese Sephardic heritage, Benjamin Levy, of Philadelphia, Benjamin Jacobs, of New York, Samuel Lyon, of New York, Isaac Moses, of Philadelphia, Herman Levy, another Philadelphian, and Manuel Mordecai Noah, of South Carolina, financed the American Revolution, that - according to Lord Acton - served as "the spark that changed thought into action" in France, and brought about the French Revolution.
• The fact that the Protocols writer boasted about starting the French Revolution is certainly not consistent with a scenario in which the Protocols was an Okhrana forgery and Jews had nothing to do with the French Revolution, because in such a scenario there would be no evidence to support the claim and no motive for the "forger" to boast that "his" group of supposed Jewish supremacists were behind the Revolution, since the "forger" has a motive to make his document look credible with points that could be verified.
• The fact that the Protocols writer boasted about starting the French Revolution is consistent with a scenario in which the Protocols is an authentic Jewish creation and Jews orchestrated the French Revolution, because in such a scenario, it's only natural that the Protocols writer would boast about starting the Revolution, and the writer has no need to sell his assertions to his co-religionists, who are well aware of how they orchestrated the Revolution, whatever evidence happened to be in the public domain.
• The fact that the Protocols writer bragged about how "we were the first to cry among the masses of the people the words 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,' words many times repeated since those days by stupid poll-parrots who from all sides round flew down upon these baits and with them carried away the well-being of the world, true freedom of the individual, formerly so well guarded against the pressure of the mob" is consistent with a scenario in which the Protocols is an authentic Jewish creation, Jews orchestrated the French Revolution, and Jews were in fact the first to cry, 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,' whatever the evidence in the public domain; it is not consistent with a scenario in which the Protocols was an Okhrana forgery, since a forger would have no motive to insert a claim that could not be verified.
• Protocol No. 4's statement: "Gentile masonry blindly serves as a screen for us and our objects, but the plan of action of our force, even its very abiding-place, remains for the whole people an unknown mystery" is consistent with Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise's statement in The Israelite of America: "Masonry is a Jewish institution whose history, degrees, charges, passwords and explanations are Jewish from beginning to end", and with Jews' admissions that by "the middle of the 18^th century Jews joined the lodges, not only in England but also in Holland, France, and Germany".
• Protocol No. 1's prediction of Jews getting into their hands "the master card - the destruction of the privileges, or in other words of the very existence of the aristocracy of the goyim, that class which was the only defense peoples and countries had against us" is consistent with how the Russian aristocracy, in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution, came to be called the "former people", with how the French Revolution's Reign of Terror forced the aristocratic classes to flee or face the guillotine, and with how in England, the proportion of the land owned by the landed aristocracy declined from more than half in 1880 to a quarter or less in 1980.
• Protocol No. 17's statement: "We have long past taken care to discredit the priesthood of the goyim, and thereby to ruin their mission on earth which in these days might still be a great hindrance to us. Day by day its influence on the peoples of the world is falling lower. Freedom of conscience has been declared everywhere, so that now only years divide us from the moment of the complete wrecking of that Christian religion..." is consistent with Jewry's long-standing hatred of Christianity and of using their puppets in government and the judiciary to do everything they can to weaken it, such as penalizing a Christian counselor who refused to advise gay couples and ordering a New York court clerk to issue same-sex marriage licenses.
• Protocol No. 17's statement: "...as to other religions we shall have still less difficulty in dealing with them, but it would be premature to speak of this now" predicts how, more than a century after the compilation of the Protocols, and in the wake of a Jewish false-flag terror operation targeting the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Jewish press went on to establish Muslims as the villains. There's no mention of that in Joly or Goedsche.
• Protocol No. 13's statement: "In order that the masses themselves may not guess what they are about we further distract them with amusements, games, pastimes, passions, people's palaces..." predicted reality TV and game shows, more than 35 years before John Logie Baird's public demonstrations in the mid 1920s. There's no mention of that in Joly or Goedsche.
• Protocol No. 14's statement: "In countries known as progressive and enlightened we have created a senseless, filthy, abominable literature" foresaw how Jews such as Al Goldstein, Reuben Sturman and Seth Warshavsky would go on to become the top players in the pornography industry. There's no mention of that in Joly or Goedsche.
• The Protocols' frequent boasts of how the Jews are supposedly superior to the "goyim", such as: "In this difference in capacity for thought between the goyim and ourselves may be clearly discerned the seal of our position as the Chosen People and of our higher quality of humanness, in contradistinction to the brute mind of the goyim", is consistent with the opinions of a Jewish supremacist indoctrinated and radicalized by the Talmud, is consistent with Talmud statements such as: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts" (Baba Mecia 114, 6), is consistent with the views of a religious fanatic such as Rabbi Ovadia Yosef: "Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat… That is why gentiles were created," and is not consistent with the writing expected of a Russian secret police agent who was on a rush job to plagiarise Joly or Goedsche.
• As Bernard Lazare, an honest Jew, said: "An opinion as general as antisemitism, which has flourished in all countries and in all ages, before and after the Christian era, at Alexandria, Rome, and Antiochia, in Arabia, and in Persia, in mediaeval and in modern Europe, in a word, in all parts of the world wherever there are or have been Jews such an opinion, it has seemed to me, could not spring from a mere whim or fancy, but must be the effect of deep and serious causes."
• The signed deposition by Philip Stepanov that he had a manuscript copy of the Protocols in his possession by 1895 is inconsistent with Jewry's old conspiracy theory - as proposed by Princess Radziwill - that the Protocols was "forged" in 1905, and with Jewry's modern conspiracy theory that Golovinski "forged" the Protocols at "the end of 1900 or in 1901" - as proposed by Mikhail Lépekhine and Eric Conan.
• The allegation that Rachkovsky helped to compile the Protocols in Paris in 1905 is inconsistent with the fact that Rachkovsky left Paris and the secret police in November, 1902, and was based at St. Petersburg, not Paris, throughout his final spell in the secret police from July 1905 to July 1906.
• The allegation that Rachkovsky headed a project to forge the Protocols is inconsistent with testimony by his son Andrej, who said that he'd searched through his late father's archives and had never found any evidence that he'd had anything to do with the Protocols, and his father had never been an "anti-Semite"; in fact, he'd had Jews as friends and collaborators, including his secretary the Jew M. Golschmann at the time the Protocols were published.
• Claims by Jewry's eyewitnesses Radziwill, du Chayla and Hurlbut that they saw a manuscript of the Protocols with a blue ink stain are inconsistent with the fact that Nilus's son Sergei wrote to The American Hebrew in 1936, stating that he saw his father receive the Protocols in French from a neighbor named Sukhotin in 1901, and there was no ink blotch on either the French or Russian translation of the Protocols.
• Testimony by A.S. Spiridovich, who knew Rachkovsky personally, corroborates testimony elsewhere about Rachkovsky never exhibiting any "anti-Semitism" and having Jews as friends and collaborators - such as "the Jew Gol'shman" who was Rachkovsky's secretary, and the Jew "Gekkel'man" who was Rachkovsky's "chief assistant", and is inconsistent with the allegation of Rachkovsky being in charge of a conspiracy to forge the Protocols to smear the Jews.
• The claim that the Russian secret service forged the Protocols is inconsistent with the fact that the revolutionary Jew Leonid Menschikoff told of how he infiltrated the Russian secret service, had access to secret documents and the ability to copy them, and "remain[ed] for twenty years in the enemy's camp", throughout the entire period that Jewry assures us that the Okhrana forged the Protocols, yet Menschikoff remained completely oblivious to this "forgery" operation that was supposedly going on right under his nose.
• In the German .pdf report of the Berne trial proceedings (p. 71 of 203, section V), Boris Nicolaevsky, one of Jewry's witnesses, amusingly says that the personality of "Frau Glinka" is very well known ("...die Persönlichkeit der Frau Glinka ist sehr gut bekannt"). This was in the mid-1930s, by which time the personalities of Princess Radziwill and Counte du Chayla were very well known, but Jewry pretended not to know that!
• The fact that Jewry never employed people to work through the Berne trial transcript, make a fresh, clear digitized copy, translate into various languages and put them online, shows that they don't believe the Berne trial proceedings would convince any fair-minded person that the Protocols was a forgery, which is not consistent with the Protocols being a forgery.
• The Berne trial's failure to serve as a convincing proof of forgery is even more glaringly at odds with the position that the Protocols was a forgery, given that the judge was in the pocket of the Jews. As evidence of the judge's allegiance, he allowed nineteen (19) witnesses for the Jews (including three cited but unable to attend court) in 1934 but only one for the defense, whilst refusing dozens of witnesses that the defense wanted to call. (See part 3 of Karl Bergmeister's report.) In 1935, of the three experts, one was appointed by the judge, one was appointed by the plaintiffs, and Ulrich Fleischhauer was appointed for the defense. However, the judge simply ignored Fleischhauer's refutation of the claims of the liars Radziwill and du Chayla. Jewry's lackeys never let facts get in the way of a good piece of propaganda!
• Given that Princess Radziwill was a known fraudster and liar who was in need of money and had already "built up contacts with influential people in the journalistic world" in the 1890s or earlier, and there is no dispute that Jews are and were "influential [...] in the journalistic world", Jewry had the means, motive and opportunity to employ Radziwill as one of their propaganda agents to plug their "forgery" conspiracy theory.
• Given that Henrietta Hurlbut was an associate of Princess Radziwill, and in late 1920 needed money for her lawsuit to attempt to win a bigger share of a $1.7 million legacy from Mrs. Frank Leslie (Baroness de Bazus), Jewry had the means, motive and opportunity to employ Hurlbut in March 1921 as one of their propaganda agents to plug their "forgery" conspiracy theory.
• The fact that Hurlbut's story contradicts Radziwill's account - by way of Radziwill claiming Golowinsky was the "proud" secret police agent who called on her and showed the manuscript to her and her friends, whilst Hurlbut said, "Orgewsky was very proud of his work. He never hesitated to boast about it. He would come to the home of Mme. Radziwill in the Champs-Élysées...", and Hurlbut said she could "substantiate Princess Radziwill's account in every detail" - is not conducive to the idea that Radziwill and Hurlbut were credible witnesses.
• The fact that Paris registry records had no trace of a Princess Radziwill residing on the Champs-Élysées in 1904-5, which is where Hurlbut claimed Radziwill had a home, does not support Hurlbut's testimony.
• If the Russian secret police were hard at work in Paris in 1905 forging an anti-Semitic tract for political purposes, they would not reveal their secret plot to a woman who had just been exposed in the press in April of the previous year as a destitute confidence trickster, and who had only been released from jail in August 1903 for crimes of forgery, fraud, bribery and blackmail. And they would not show it to the fraudster's friends, too!
• Jewry's forgery conspiracy theory has the Jew Ivan Manasevich-Manuilov involved in forging the Protocols, in which case we have the bizarre spectacle of the Jews trying to 'prove' that Jews didn't write the Protocols by claiming that a Jew helped to write the Protocols, and the Jews trying to 'prove' that the Protocols were "forged" to make people hate the Jews by claiming a Jew helped to forge the Protocols to make people hate the Jews!
• Princess Radziwill denied that any of the Csars were murdered by Jews, which demonstrates that her allegiance was to Jewry, rather than to Russia, her country of birth.
• Count du Chayla's remarks to the Russian lady Tatiana Fermor on the theme of how "One must have a good pogrom in Russia" is in sharp contrast to du Chayla's subsequent testifying in defense of the Jews against the Protocols, but du Chayla's double-dealing behavior is entirely consistent with his being convicted of treason after it was found he was running articles that praised the achievements of the March Revolution and attacked the Whites whilst he was chief of propaganda for the Don Cossack Corps of General Wrangel's army.
• The convicted traitor du Chayla's allegation that "Madame K" was Nilus's source for the Protocols via Rachkovsky is contradicted by Sergei Svatikov's testimony that "Madame K" was Madame Komarowsky, together with a July 13, 1936 statement by Rachkovsky's son Andrej that his father had never been acquainted with Madame Komarowsky.
• The fact that convicted traitor du Chayla was paid 4,000 Swiss francs (32,105 CHF or ~ $35,000 at 2013 prices) to attend the Berne trial in 1934 is hardly conducive to an independent, unbiased testimony.
• The historian Boris Nicolaevsky admitted privately that he believed Count du Chayla was a "swindler" who knew nothing about the origin of the Protocols.
• Jewry's allegation of the Protocols being a "forgery" by the Russian secret police is contradicted by the unbiased historians Charles A. Ruud and Sergei A. Stepanov who, after evaluating the historical evidence, conclude that the Protocols is not a product of the Russian secret police. At the end of chapter 10, p. 224, Fontanka 16, they conclude: "As for the Jews, the Okhranka as an institution saw the folly of targeting them, and did not, as is often thought, issue the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to blame the troubles of the autocracy on the Jews." And p. 203: "...solid data on the actual publication of the Protocols before the revolution explode the thesis of Okhranka involvement."
• According to Professor Yuri K. Begunov, there was an early manuscript of the Protocols - a hectographed copy - that was in the USSR State Library until the 1960s, but it mysteriously disappeared. This supports the Sukhotin / Stepanov 1895/1897 early history of the Protocols, and is inconsistent with Jewry's claims of a "forgery" in 1900/1901 or 1905.
• According to Professor Begunov, Alfred Nossig, who attended the First Zionist Congress, revealed how the Protocols was being discussed there in French, which also corroborates the existence of the Protocols in 1897, and refutes Jewry's allegations of a forgery in 1900 or later. Nossig was eventually murdered by Jews, after being accused of working for the Gestapo - at the age of 76 - and of being a "Jewish traitor", which is consistent with him revealing information that organized Jewry wanted to keep under wraps.
• Zionist leaders such as Herzl always wrote and spoke in German for serious communication, and so if the Russian secret police were going to forge a document as the handiwork of the "Elders of Zion", they would have fabricated it in German, not French, as pointed out by Dr. Revilo P. Oliver. The original Protocols manuscript was in French, which contradicts the claim of a forgery by the secret police.
• As conceded by Norman Cohn, a Jew and forgery conspiracy theorist, in addition to the fact that the Okhrana archives at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, reveal no evidence of a plot to forge the Protocols, Rachkovsky's private archives in Paris (now lost) also revealed nothing when Boris Nicolaevsky inspected them in the 1930s.
• The fact that the six pre-revolution Russian printings of the Protocols were circulated only through obscure "right-wing" outlets, with zero or negligible government association, is evidence of non-involvement by the Okhranka or any other government agency.
• The documented September 28, 1905 decision by Moscow censor S.I. Sokolov to reject Nilus's plans to publish the Protocols as a "short" book on grounds that it could "lead to the annihilation" of Jews is evidence of non-involvement by the Okhranka or any other government agency.
• The fact that a copy of the Protocols was found in the murdered Tsarina's room, and Tsar Nicholas also had a copy of the Protocols in his private library, is not consistent with the Protocols being a forgery.
• The fact that "anti-Semitic" extremists had vowed to kill Rachkovsky's "political master and patron" Sergey Witte, for being too soft on the Jews, is not consistent with Rachkovsky having a hand in crafting an "anti-Semitic" tract designed to foment hatred against Jews.
• When the Protocols was written in the late 19th century, most of the Rothschild fortune was in France (e.g., in 1874, the Paris branch had £20,087,652 out of the total of £34,358,562), and the Protocols' many references to French affairs, along with the first manuscript being in French, indicate a French writer.
• Both the Protocols writer and Alphonse Rothschild, the top Rothschild at the time the Protocols was written, were opponents of the gold standard.
• Protocol No. 10 describes a plan to "arrange elections in favor of such presidents as have in their past some dark, undiscovered stain, some 'Panama' or other"; the Jews Baron Jacques de Reinach (a banker), Cornelius Herz, and Léopold [Émile] Arton were all heavily implicated in the Panama Canal Scandal as bribers ("bribe dispensers"). And Ferdinand de Lesseps' banker Marcel Lévy-Crémieux, who was initially the scheme's first financial agent before de Reinach took over upon his death, was also Jewish. Alphonse Rothschild was a business associate and financial backer of Herz (e.g., they co-founded the American Syndicate of Electricity).
• Léon Bourgeois, one of the Elders' "best agents" according to Protocol No. 16, was accused of involvement in the Panama scandal, and went on to have a glittering career in politics spanning five decades. He introduced "teaching by object lessons", was a "long-standing member of the most influential of France's Freemason lodges, the Grand Orient", which explains how he could have been recruited as an agent for Jewry. In 1920 he was President of the Council of the League of Nations, and in 1923 responded to critics of the League by declaring it was "materially impossible" for it to be or become a "Super-State", thereby helping with Protocol No. 5's plan to set up a "Super-Government Administration" that would help to destroy the nation-state and prepare the way for world government, following insane policies from the European Union such as banning vacuum cleaners over 1,600 watts, supposedly to "save energy" and counter "global warming".
• Alphonse Rothschild founded the Caspian-Black Sea Oil Industry and Trade Society in 1883, going on to become a leading player in the Baku oil boom. After his death in 1905, ownership passed to his younger brother Edmond. The Protocols predicted a Jewish "communist" revolution. In 1912, the Rothschilds sold their Baku oil interests to Shell, clearing a profit of around ten million roubles (then worth $5 million), in advance of ensuing geopolitical events - WWI and the Bolshevik Jewish communist Revolution - that, as "innocent" Jews, they were not supposed to be aware of.
• In Protocol No. 2, the writer boasts about "the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism", following a remark in the previous paragraph of how "we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories." In 1887 and 1888 Friedrich Nietzsche corresponded with Georg Brandes (1842–1927), a "Danish" Jew whose real name was Kohn. Encyclopaedia Judaica, Second Edition, Volume 4 says, "In the 1880s Brandes read the still unknown Friedrich Nietzsche and found a message for himself. His Danish article on the German philosopher (1888) was published in Germany (Aristokratischer Idealismus, 1890) and marked the starting point of Nietzsche's world fame." In Danish literary history in the 1870s, Brandes spearheaded a movement known as 'The Modern Breakthrough', advocating naturalism in literature; they embraced Darwin as providing the chief ideological material for their literary revolution. Jens Peter Jacobsen wasn't Jewish, but was "greatly influenced" by Georg Brandes, and "was the most important populariser of Darwinism in Denmark in the nineteenth century. He translated the Origin of Species and Descent of Man and wrote several articles on Darwinism in the first half of the 1870s. [...] From 1872 Jacobsen had been on friendly terms with the young journalist and freethinker Edvard Brandes [Georg's brother], who was overwhelmed by what he regarded as Jacobsen's exceptional poetical talent. The influential Edvard Brandes made sure that Jacobsen's literary works were well received in the press...".
• As Peter Myers noted, the Protocols writer uses plenty of sophisticated words such as "cassate", "perquisitions", "interpellation", "inexpugnable", etc., which is hardly appropriate for an "anti-Semitic" "forgery". The evidence clearly places the Protocols writer as one of the Jewish "intellectual class", with an interest in philosophers generally, and in Jewish writers specifically.
• Evidence points to two Jewish writers of the Protocols: (i) a politically-minded, possibly secular member of the Jewish "intellectual class", whose job was to plagiarise Joly and insert his own material, to draw up the plans for bringing about revolution and a sinister Machiavellian despotism. (ii) a Talmud-thumping religious bigot, who thought "Darwinism" was a false theory in which the "goyim" had a "blind confidence" rather than a theory that was successful because it was right, and who subscribed to the Biblical view in the second half of Isaiah that the Jews would inherit the earth's riches whilst the Gentiles would come flocking to worship the Jews and bring them tribute (e.g. 60:12 "For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted", or 61:5 "And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers"), and whose job was to plagiarise Goedsche and insert his own material.
• Golovinski didn't even get to Paris until 1896, so even if Jewry's latest conspiracy theory of Golovinski writing the Protocols in 1900/1901 is wrong and Golovinski had improbably managed to finish the Protocols in the same year he arrived in Paris, he is still writing the Protocols a year after Stepanov and Sukhotin already have the Protocols.
• Jewry's story is that Golovinski started out as a Jew-hating secret police forger, who revelled in his job as the "second writer" of the "fanatic" and "antisemite" Michel Soloviev, and forged the Protocols to make people hate the Jews. But then, in 1917, when the Jewish Bolsheviks assume power, they don't take revenge and kill Golovinski. They forgive him, let him switch sides and give him a top job! They must have had a powerful motive, such as knowing full well that the claim about Golovinski forging the Protocols was simply false, and that they could potentially use him to back up their own web of lies. That is, if he hadn't died in 1920, just before Jewry were to launch their Radziwill and Hurlbut double act.
• According to Jewry, Soviet Jews' failure to reveal that Golovinski forged the Protocols was not because he didn't forge the Protocols, and not because it was better for Jewry to avoid giving the Protocols publicity from 1917-1920 before publication in Europe and the US, but because they were embarrassed by Golovinski, the "forger", having become a "fellow traveler" of the Bolsheviks in 1917. However, Golovinski was an aide to "Trotsky" / Bronshtein, and as Stalin was building up his power in the 1920s, he would have relished the opportunity to score a propaganda victory over his opponents by exposing how a Trotsky aide had "forged" the Protocols. And the Jewish Western press would have taken great delight in broadcasting how "Uncle Joe" had exposed the "forgery". The fact that there was no such exposure suggests that there was nothing to expose.
• Historians Charles A. Ruud and Sergei A. Stepanov inform us (in Fontanka 16) that in an unpublished manuscript from 1921, "Svatikov says that he interviewed Foreign Agency detective Henri Bint both in 1917 and 1921 and learned from him that Rachkovsky planned to hone a more readable and compelling Protocols tract in 1905", and "what inspired Rachkovsky to take up the [Protocols] for the first time was the Protocols text that Nilus published in 1905 (censor Sokolov recommended in September that authorities examine it)". This sharply contradicts the idea that Rachkovsky was involved in compiling the Protocols.
• By the time the Svatikov / Bint / Rachkovsky story was recycled by Lépekhine and Conan in 1999, the timeline had changed, so that instead of late 1905, after Nilus published the Protocols and Rachkovsky rejoined the Police Department in St. Petersburg, Jewry has Golovinski forging the Protocols in 1900 or 1901. This is consistent with Jewry clutching at straws in 1921 - seizing upon the possibility that Rachkovsky might have studied the Protocols following Nilus's publication and the Russian censor's recommendation that the authorities examine the Protocols - and Jewry changing their story around the time of the Berne trial, when they realized that Radziwill's 1905 claim wouldn't fly because the Protocols was already published in 1903.
• By revising their claim of the Protocols being compiled in 1905 to 1900/1901, Jewry must correspondingly revise their cherry-picking of evidence in their attempt to make their conspiracy theory fit. This time, in addition to the fact that Philip Stepanov and Alex Sukhotin were in possession of the Protocols in 1895, and Stepanov arranged a private printing through Arcadii Kelepovskii in 1897, with the Stepanov deposition corroborated by testimony from Madame Antonia Porphyrjewna Manjkowsky née Suchoton, Jewry must also ignore the 1921 Svatikov manuscript about a possible embellishment of the Protocols in 1905, and pretend Bint said 1900/1901 when in fact he said 1905. In any case, any "anti-Semitic" tract produced in France after 1894 couldn't have failed to mention the Dreyfus Affair, which was widely reported by December 1894 and January 1895, and was the sort of event that would have been seized upon by "anti-Semites" eagerly attempting to discredit the Jews by compiling a forgery. Thus, either Lépekhine and Conan know their own claim of 1900/1901 to be a lie, or someone tampered with Bint's "personal papers" before Lépekhine got to them, so that Lépekhine was duped.
• As a Jew, Eric Conan must have enough knowledge of the Protocols and the various contradictions between Jewry's claims and reality to know that his conspiracy theory is balderdash. That just leaves the question of whether Lépekhine - who originally had no interest in the Protocols - chose to go along with Conan's disingenuity for career purposes, or is an honest but naive historian who failed to examine the archives in California and was duped by documents that he discovered in Moscow.
• Svatikov's testimony that Bint believed Rachkovsky intended to publish a revived version of the Protocols in 1905 to incite Russians against the revolutionaries, not against the Jews, is not consistent with Rachkovsky publishing an "anti-Semitic" forgery to incite Russians against the Jews.
• Svatikov's testimony that in 1921 Bint had shown Svatikov several contrived pamphlets - all devoid of anti-Semitism - that Rachkovsky had, on his own initiative, published in Paris before 1902 to accomplish the aim of inciting Russians against the revolutionaries, is not consistent with Rachkovsky publishing an "anti-Semitic" forgery to incite Russians against the Jews. It does corroborate all the other evidence that Rachkovsky was not "anti-Semitic" and had friends and collaborators who were Jews.
• The historian Michael Hagemeister revealed that Russian historian Boris Nicolaevsky, a coordinator of the Bern trial and an expert on the Tsarist secret police, admitted in a confidential letter that his own research had convinced him that Rachkovsky "under no circumstances could have had anything to do with the preparation of the Protocols." Nikolaevsky chose not to present his findings at the trial, and instead testified in favor of Jewry's conspiracy theory. He later explained his actions by writing that to do otherwise would have been "a stab in the back" of the Russian experts, and would have objectively "disorganized the campaign against Hitler". This is what's known as not telling the truth - i.e., lying - in order to support a politically motivated conclusion.
• According to Michael Hagemeister, Burtsev and Svatikov were "financially distressed". This hardly puts them in the position of being able to comfortably speak the truth, or likely to speak the truth, if that truth happened to be at odds with what World Jewry and the judge wanted to hear.
• According to Conan, Nilus said to du Chayla, "Let us admit that the Protocols are false". Given that du Chayla was a known liar, deceiver and traitor who would pose as anti-Catholic and anti-Judaic when he wanted to ingratiate himself with Russian Orthodox Christians, would lie for the benefit of World Jewry when it paid him, had just been paid four thousand Swiss francs to testify at the Berne trial, and Conan is taking Count "Chameleon" du Chayla's word as gospel, Conan is either an appallingly bad historian and researcher, or has deliberately omitted inconvenient facts about Armand Alexandre du Chayla that don't suit his political agenda.
• In February/March 1921, Jewry attempted to peddle a vague claim via their mouthpiece Radziwill about a "first draft" of the Protocols that was inspired by General Orgewsky in 1884, allegedly to convince Alexander III that Jews were behind the 1881 assassination of his father. In this conspiracy theory offered by Jewry, the Tsarist police conduct such a detailed study of the Talmud that they understand all about Talmudic supremacism and Talmudists' hatred of "goyim", just as if the secret police agents were themselves Talmudic supremacists and had undergone many years of rabbinical education. At the same time, they produce the best program for world domination that anyone has ever come up with. And they produce an extraordinarily accurate forecast of future events and an extraordinarily accurate record of past events, such as how Jews brought about the French Revolution. And all of these efforts are in vain, because Orgewsky doesn't have any personal contact with the Tsar, and can't persuade General Cherevin (or Tcherewine) to pass it on to the Tsar! Eventually, the Protocols gets passed on to Tsar Nicholas II in 1896, after Cherevin leaves it to him in his will, two years after the death of Alexander III. Strangely, the Tsar and Tsarina both possess copies of the Protocols "forgery" when they are murdered by Jews, twenty-two years later in 1918.
• In the February 25, 1921 New York Times article, Radziwill claims Orgewsky's agents "compiled citations from Jewish philosophers". Thus, she is effectively admitting what any thinking person who's already researched the subject already knows - that the Jewish contempt for the "goyim", as expressed in the Protocols, is reflected in the Jewish Talmud and in the writings of "Jewish philosophers".
• Radziwill claimed Cherevin gave her a copy of the first draft of the Protocols because she was "one of his closest and dearest friends". Radziwill being friends with Cherevin is at least consistent with Radziwill and Cherevin both being assets of Jewry. Unfortunately for her story, Radziwill never provided her "copy" as evidence, which suggests that she never had one.
• Jewry's claim of the Okhrana forging a first draft of the Protocols in 1884 is preposterous and contradicted by all the evidence. Far more plausible is that Glinka obtained a French manuscript of the Jewish-authored Protocols from the Jew Schorst, passed the original on to Orgewsky, who handed it onto to Cherevin, who merely filed it as he was under obligation to wealthy Jews, and then on his death in 1896 willed a copy of his memoirs containing the Protocols to Nicholas II. So by this time there's a new Tsar, who was so impressed with the Protocols that when Jews slaughtered him and his family in cold blood 22 years later in 1918, Nicholas II had a copy of the Protocols in his private library, and a copy of the Protocols was found in the murdered Tsarina's room too. In the meantime, Sukhotin received a copy of the Protocols from Glinka by 1895, and gave Stepanov a copy that year.
• Regardless of whether the Protocols was a genuine Jewish composition that had been obtained from a Jew by agent Glinka, or a forgery fabricated by the Okhrana themselves, the fact that the Russian secret police were in possession of the Protocols would have become known to Jewry, either through their debtor Cherevin, or through Jewish infiltrators such as Leonid Menschikoff or Ivan Manasevich-Manuilov. And those infiltrators didn't expose the "forgery", because they knew it wasn't a forgery.
• Princess Radziwill, as "Paul Vasili", Behind the Veil at the Russian Court (1914), unwittingly revealed how Jewry benefited after the 1881 assassination of Tsar Alexander II: "One of the first cares of Alexander III when he began to reign, was the financial condition of Russia. [...] It was impossible to do without [foreign credit], for the national deficit could not be met from the resources of the country alone. At length, under endless trouble, a loan was arranged, but under terrible conditions, imposed by the Jewish banking world of Paris and Berlin."
• Émile Durkheim (1858-1917), the sociologist, social psychologist and philosopher, came from a long line of devout French Askenazi Jews. His father Moïse (Moses) Durkheim was the Chief Rabbi of the Vosges and Haute-Marne, and his great-grandfather Simon Simon Durkheim was appointed a rabbi in Mutzig, Alsace, in 1784. Durkheim began his education in a rabbinical school, but in his youth, through a local teacher, "came under the influence of a mystical form of Catholicism". He soon rejected that, but on completing secondary school he moved to Paris, and decided to pursue a more secular career. Durkheim "never deliberately and irrevocably cut himself off from all his Jewish roots and connections. [...] he did not convert to Christianity nor did he remain completely aloof from attendance at the synagogue, though it was obvious that he only attended on rare occasions, when, for example, he was in Epinal [...]. Without any shadow of doubt Durkheim wanted to be seen as a Frenchman, as an unqualified patriot." He "never denied his Jewish background and indeed was prepared to declare openly that he was a Jew", for example, when he was speaking about "anti-Semitism" at Henri Dagan's inquiry in 1899 during the Dreyfus Affair. Durkheim "married a Jewess, Louise Dreyfus". He "remained active in the Jewish community, collaborating with Jewish scholars and involving himself in French-Jewish affairs".
• Durkheim wrote his Latin dissertation on Montesquieu - Quid Secundatus politicae scientiae instituendae contulerit - in 1892. It was submitted in November that year, following his March 1892 main thesis on the division of labor. He wrote Montesquieu and Rousseau: Forerunners of Sociology in 1893; common terms and phrases appearing within included "authority", "despotism", "force", "laws of nature", "political law", "primitive", "reason", "sovereign power", "superior", and "thinkers", which also feature in the Protocols. And he wrote that it was "unjust to compare Montesquieu with Machiavelli". Given his interests, there is little chance that Durkheim was unaware of Joly's The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu.
• In 1889, Durkheim wrote a review of an 1888 thesis by Polish philosopher Wincenty Lutosławski on the State Constitution according to Plato, Aristotle and Machiavelli. Durkheim writes: "Two questions dominate the whole of Aristotle's doctrine: how do revolutions arise, and how can they be prevented? In other words, what causes constitutions to perish? What causes them to last?" We can be sure that the Rothschilds and other prominent Jews found those questions particularly intriguing. The Rothschilds would have been interested in any material on Machiavelli, particularly if a Jew was involved. And the name Machiavelli is retained in the title of Durkheim's review: "Lutoslawski, W., Erhaltung und Untergang der Staatsverfassungen nach Plato, Aristoteles, und Machiavelli."
• In 1887, Durkheim acquired a teaching position at the University of Bordeaux. The years 1887 to 1902 were known as his "Bordeaux period".
• Around 1890, Alphonse Rothschild would have taken a keener interest than usual in his Château Lafite vineyard in Pauillac, northwest of Bordeaux. Château Lafite Rothschild started bottling a large proportion of their wine in 1890. This was partly due to requests from "negociants", who would buy in advance of bottling, shipping, marketing, etc., and partly to combat a problem with piracy. It had become apparent that merchants from countries such as Russia were bottling cheap wine and selling it with "Lafite Rothschild" labels on the bottles. Thus, if Rothschild visited Pauillac to deal with the problems, it was probably shortly before 1890; say, 1889. He normally made only occasional visits to Pauillac to attend to his vineyard, but 1889 is a relatively likely time for such a visit. The route from Paris to Pauillac necessitated travelling via Bordeaux; short of finding some other means of crossing the river. Thus, in 1889, Rothschild had a pretext for travelling to Bordeaux to meet with Durkheim, the Jewish author of a short publication that dealt with the subjects of Machiavelli and revolution.
• Rabbi Elliot J. Cosgrove said, in a 2012 sermon, "For Theodore Herzl, the founder of Political Zionism, it was the Dreyfus trial that spurred him to reject the promise of emancipation and turn to the establishment of a Jewish State. Durkheim's scholarship, concurrent with Herzl's activism, provided French Jewry with the language and tools to express their particularity as full participants in the revolutionary principles of liberty, equality and fraternity."
• In Emile Durkheim, His Life and Work: A Historical and Critical Study, Steven Lukes says: "Durkheim, like [Jean] Jaurès at that time [when Durkheim was at the École Normale Supérieure in the early 1880s], was entirely persuaded by the rhetoric of republicanism and convinced of the need to establish a national creed based on 'liberty, equality, fraternity'; they both admired Gambetta as the spiritual embodiment of the Republic and thus as 'the heroic defender of the good society, who worked for justice at home and peace abroad'. Durkheim is reported to have spent the entire day demonstrating in the Paris streets during the fourteenth of July [Bastille Day] celebrations of 1880."
• Léon Gambetta was of Jewish stock through his Crypto-Jewish "Italian" father. The Inter Ocean of Chicago ran a long obituary on January 2, 1883, that included: "Leon Michel Gambetta was born April 3, 1838, at Cahors, where his father, a Genoese of Jewish origin, was engaged in commercial pursuit. [...] He was for some time secretary to the late M. Crémieux, the veteran democrat." Herbert R. Lottman, in Return of the Rothschilds: The Great Banking Dynasty Through Two Turbulent Centuries, says: "Not even Léon Gambetta - that flagbearer of progressive France - could ignore the power of the banks in general and of the Rothschilds in particular. A witness (the dramatist Ludovic Halévy) recorded a dinner meeting of Gambetta and Alphonse de Rothschild in April 1881, when the politician was president  of the Chamber of Deputies, kingmaker rather than king. Reproached by the politician with responsibility for the defeat of conservative leader Adolphe Thiers eight years earlier, Rothschild was heard to reply, "That isn't true. I obviously did have some influence on a large number of legislators, and I kept Thiers in office six months longer than he'd have lasted without me."
• Durkheim's death, on November 15, 1917, came a mere eight days after the armed insurrection in Petrograd, and is the day when Soviet power reached Moscow. Russia didn't adopt the new Gregorian calendar until 1918, when Wednesday January 31, 1918 was followed by Thursday February 14, 1918, so the "October" Revolution was really the November Revolution.
• There is no evidence that Durkheim was a bloodthirsty monster who relished war, torture, murder, executions, etc., and would have approved of "the diminution, the killing out of the goyim". Had he lived for another year or two, he would surely have been horrified by reports of what was happening in Russia. His death has been blamed on how he was heartbroken over the loss of his son André, killed in 1916 in WWI, on the Bulgarian front. This could be seen as evidence against Durkheim's involvement in writing the Protocols, but it is known that Durkheim was anxious to present himself as a patriotic, assimilated, French Jew. He may have thought that fleeing the country in advance of the war would have increased the chances of exposure of his role in compiling the Protocols, and maybe he gambled with his son's life, hoping that he would come back and could be hailed as a hero to bolster the legend of Émile Durkheim the patriotic Frenchman. And if Durkheim was wracked with guilt after his son died, that could have contributed to Durkheim's death from a heart attack the next year in 1917.
• Durkheim's death has been variously attributed to a "heart attack", or a "stroke", or "cancer", but it certainly came at an opportune time for Jewry's leaders who knew that terrible events were imminent in Soviet Russia - the sort of events that might have led to Durkheim speaking out about his involvement in documenting the Rothschilds' plans for a Jewish world despotism.
• Durkheim would have been hired to transform Joly's Dialogues into a first draft of the Protocols. As a political scientist, he was the ideal member of the Jewish intellectual class that the conspirators required to produce their first draft. That would have been a gentler, kinder version of the Protocols, featuring Durkheim's view, as he expressed in Professional Ethics and Civic Morals, that "every society is despotic, at least if nothing from without supervenes to restrain its despotism. Still, I would not say there is anything artificial in this despotism: it is natural because it is necessary, and also because, in certain conditions, society cannot endure without it. Not do I mean that there is anything intolerable about it...". And Durkheim was a statist who believed that the State must permeate into "all spheres of social life and make itself felt": "The State must therefore enter into their lives, it must supervise and keep a check on the way they operate and to do this it must spread its roots in all directions. For this task, it cannot just withdraw into the tribunals, it must be present in all spheres of social life and make itself felt."
• Durkheim, in his 1895 work The Rules of the Sociological Method, said that crime was "necessary", "useful", and even "indispensable" (a word that appears sixteen times in the Protocols). In an argument that would not seem out of place coming from Machiavelli or even the Protocols, he says, "the criminal no longer seems a totally unsociable being, a sort of parasitic element, a strange and inassimilable body, introduced into the midst of society. On the contrary he plays a definite role in social life."
• The completed Protocols still retains some of the kinder, gentler elements of the first draft; the 'benevolent' "patriarchal" State that believes it has the right to meddle into the affairs of the individual. Protocol No. 15 says: "Our government will have the appearance of a patriarchal paternal guardianship on the part of our ruler. Our own nation and our subjects will discern in his person a father caring for their every need, their every act, their every inter-relation as subjects one with another, as well as their relations to the ruler. [...] As you see, I found our despotism on right and duty: the right to compel the execution of duty is the direct obligation of a government which is a father for its subjects. It has the right of the strong that it may use it for the benefit of directing humanity towards that order which is defined by nature, namely, submission. [...] And so shall we be this something stronger for the sake of good." And Protocol No. 22 says: "We shall contrive to prove that we are benefactors who have restored to the rend and mangled earth the true good and also freedom of the person, and therewith we shall enable it to be enjoyed in peace and quiet, with proper dignity of relations, on the condition, of course, of strict observance of the laws established by us."
• After others had embellished the Protocols, the version that reached Nilus would include, as featured in Protocol No. 3, the Jewish fanatics' admission that they were interested in "the diminution, the killing out of the goyim". Also inserted would be some of Alphonse Rothschild's financial views, such as how "the gold standard ha[d] been the ruin of the states which adopted it". As Lewis E. Lehrman said in his book The True Gold Standard, "Gold convertibility and wide circulation of legal tender gold coins put the ultimate regulation of the money supply in the hands of a free people – removing it from arbitrary government control, central bank manipulation, and control by the banking cartel."
• La Société des Études Juives (The Society of Jewish Studies), headquartered in Paris, was founded in 1880. The 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia includes the description: "Society for the study of Jewish history and literature, and especially of the history and literature of the Jews of France; its headquarters are in Paris. It was founded in 1880, chiefly through the efforts of Baron James Edouard de Rothschild, Isidore Loeb, Arsène Darmesteter, Charles Netter, and especially Chief Rabbi Zadoc Kahn." The Society's annual review included the previous year's accounts, mentioned various society members and founders such as Edouard de Rothschild, and featured current publications by the members.
• The first Protocols writer, e.g., Durkheim, being aware of Georg Brandes' promotion of Nietzsche and Darwin, had probably just made a comment about how his co-religionists were responsible for promoting such theories. So then the next Protocols writer takes over, and this writer is a Talmudic supremacist and Tanakh-thumping Creationist who thinks that "truth is one" and "in it there is no place for progress" (Protocol No. 13). His 'truth' is what he was taught - say, in the 1840s or 1850s. His beliefs resemble those of a classical rabbi who thinks that 'truth' was revealed to Moses about six thousand years ago, that the Jews' "G-d" made man and all the animals, and so on. In his world there is no place for the scientific method, for looking at the evidence, for proposing a hypothesis, and for looking to see if the evidence continues to support the hypothesis. It is this Protocols writer, not the "goyim", who had a "blind confidence" in his "theories" and who "puff[ed]" himself up with his 'knowledge' without any logical verification. It is this Protocols writer whose mind had been "direct[ed]" and "turned" by Judaism's early leaders who wrote the Tanakh and the Talmud, and it is this Protocols writer who was unable to see how that work was "a departure from truth". It is this Protocols writer who wrote the part in Protocol No. 2 about having "arranged" for the success of "Darwinism", which is indicative of an epistemological weakness and a misguided belief that centuries-old, anti-Gentile, hate-filled rants in the Talmud, the Tanakh and the Mishna are the fount of all knowledge and wisdom.
• The Jew Isidore Loeb, according to the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, was a "French scholar; born at Sulzmatt (Soultzmatt), Upper Alsace, Nov. 1, 1839; died at Paris, June 3, 1892. The son of Rabbi Seligmann Loeb of Sulzmatt, he was educated in Bible and Talmud by his father. After having followed the usual course in the public school of his native town, Loeb studied at the college of Rufach and at the lycée of Colmar, in which city he at the same time attended classes in Hebrew and Talmud at the preparatory rabbinical school founded by Chief Rabbi Solomon Klein. In 1856 he entered the Central Rabbinical School (Ecole Centrale Rabbinique) at Metz, where he soon ranked high through his knowledge of Hebrew, his literary ability, and his proficiency in mathematics. In 1862 he was graduated, and received his rabbinical diploma from the Séminaire Israélite de France at Paris, which had replaced (1859) the Metz Ecole Centrale Rabbinique. [...] He went to Paris, where he was appointed (June 1, 1869) secretary of the Alliance Israélite Universelle, which position he held until his death. [...] he created the library of the Alliance, which is one of the most valuable Jewish libraries in existence. [...] His main activity, however, was devoted to the Société des Etudes Juives, which was organized in Paris in 1880. Beginning with the first number, he successfully edited the "Revue des Etudes Juives," the organ of that society, and was, moreover, a voluminous and brilliant contributor thereto."
• There is an interesting quote, attributed to Loeb: "The nations will gather to pay homage to the people of God: all the fortunes of the nations will pass to the Jewish people, they will march captive behind the Jewish people in chains and will prostrate themselves before them, their kings will bring up their sons, and their princesses will nurse their children. The Jews will command the nations, they will summon peoples whom they do not even know, and peoples who do not know them will hasten to them. The riches of the sea and the wealth of nations will come to the Jews of their own right. Any people or kingdom who will not serve Israel will be destroyed."
• Now that's not quite what Loeb said. Loeb made the statements in French in his La Littérature des Pauvres dans la Bible [pp. 219-20] (1892). Georges Batault, Le Problème Juif [p. 135], quoted Loeb, but he took out Loeb's footnotes, and also some of Loeb's less "interesting" remarks, retaining the more controversial points. But Batault did preface the quote by saying it was a description of messianic times as portrayed in the 2nd Isaiah. Then Vicomte Leon de Poncins, in his Judaism and the Vatican, quoted from Batault's quoting of Loeb, and there is also an English translation of de Poncins' book. However, de Poncins and Batault make a fair point that Jewish messianism is merely imperialism in disguise. Loeb serves as evidence of that.
• Loeb's book La Littérature des Pauvres dans la Bible is selling for about 100 euros and it's not available online in its entirety, but fortunately the passages of interest here are available online in the digitized newsletter of the Rothschild/Kahn/Loeb/Reinach library La Société des Études Juives. The newsletter is Revue des Études Juives; available in all formats; the link states 1880, which is when the library was formed; the front cover states 1891, but it has the 1891 accounts and internal dates are January 1892, and sections from Loeb's 1892 book are included, which fortunately includes the passages of interest here. The quote, in French, starts on p. 169 of that newsletter, paragraph 247: "Les Nations se réuniront pour aller porter leurs hommages au peuple de Dieu...". It finishes on p. 170 with "...Le peuple et le royaume qui ne te serviront pas seront détruits". (In Batault's Le Problème Juif it goes from the bottom of page 133 to page 134. And the last part has become "Le peuple et le royaume qui ne serviront pas Israël seront détruits." But that could be a revision made by Loeb by the time it got in his book. ) When Loeb's references are included, we see that his Biblical sources include Isaiah 60:3 et seq.; there is also a little bit from 45:14 about how "the labour of Egypt and merchandise of Ethiopia [...] shall be thine". That part continues: "...in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, saying, Surely God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God." Also see 49:22.
• Since those aren't actually Loeb's words, but Loeb writing about prophecies in the Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh), this raises the question of whether or not Loeb and certain Jews believe in the material. If Loeb had in fact written a disclaimer that prophecies of the Jews inheriting the earth, of the Gentiles giving up their treasures to serve the Jews, of any Gentiles who resisted being destroyed, and so on, were all total nonsense, only an idiot could believe it, it was fiction, and he was actually debunking it, then that would put him in the clear. But there's no evidence that he ever said anything like that; if he had, he would be persona non grata at a library that was set up by James Edouard de Rothschild and Zadoc Kahn who was the chief rabbi of France by 1891/1892, when Loeb was publishing that material in the library's newsletter. All indications are that Loeb believed in those prophecies, and his readership believed in them.
• Also in La Littérature des Pauvres dans la Bible, not mentioned by Batault or de Poncins, is a paragraph that summarizes the central problem with Judaism. For his co-religionists, Loeb has compiled all the 'evidence' from the Hebrew Bible that Jews are the Chosen Ones, God's People, and so on, complete with chapter and verse references pointing to the location of this 'evidence'. When a tiny group of racial or religious supremacists believes it has the right to treat its fellow men as equivalent to bipedal beasts, it's bound to end in tears. One has merely to look at how Jews treat the Palestinians to see the more obvious examples of how their supremacist beliefs translate into action. But on a larger scale, Jews are applying their same primitive mode of thought to the entire world. "C'est surtout envers les Juifs que Dieu exerce sa vertu et sa bonté. Il est le Dieu du peuple juif (XL, 1, 3, 9; XLI, 10, 13, etc.), le Dieu d'Israël (XLI, 17; XLV, 15; XLVIII, 1, 2), le saint d'Israël (XLI, 14, 16, 20 ; XLIII, 3, 14, 15; XLV, 11, etc.),il est saint et son nom est saint (XL, 25; LVII, 15), il est le roi d'Israël et le roi de Jacob (XLI, 21 ; XLIII, 15 ; XLIV, 6), le fort de Jacob [two Hebrew words] (XLIX, 26 ; LX, 16). Le peuple juif est son peuple ([Hebrew word] XLVII, 6 ; LI, 4, 16; LVII, 14; [Hebrew word] LI, 4), le peuple de sa sainteté (LXIII, 18), et on l'appellera plus tard peuple de la sainteté (LXII, 12). Dieu est le père du peuple juif (LXIII, 16 ; LXIV, 7), les Juifs sont ses fils et son héritage (XLV, 11 ; LXIII, 17; XLIII, 6, où il n'est pas impossible cependant que les fils et les filles de Dieu représentent les fidèles de toutes les Nations)."
• That is paragraph 232, p. 26 of the above Revue des Études Juives link. (Identification of the four Hebrew words is best left to Hebrew speakers; we'll suppose there is no coded secret conspiracy there.) So the English translation is: "It is especially toward Jews that God exercises his virtue and goodness. He is the God of the Jewish people (XL, 1, 3, 9, XLI, 10, 13, etc.), the God of Israel (XLI, 17; XLV, 15; XLVIII, 1, 2), the saint of Israel (XLI, 14, 16, 20; XLIII, 3, 14, 15;. XLV, 11, etc.), he is holy and holy is his name (XL, 25; LVII, 15), he is the king of Israel and the King of Jacob (XLI, 21; XLIII, 15; XLIV, 6), the strength of Jacob [two Hebrew words, a reference to Jacob becoming the firstborn?] (XLIX, 26; LX, 16). The Jewish people are his people ([Hebrew word] XLVII, 6; LI, 4, 16, LVII, 14; [Hebrew word] LI, 4), the people of his holiness (LXIII, 18), and they shall call later people of holiness (LXII, 12). God is the father of the Jewish people (LXIII, 16; LXIV, 7), the Jews are his son and his legacy (XLV, 11; LXIII, 17; XLIII, 6, where it is not impossible, however, that the son and daughters of God are the followers of all Nations)."
• Both Durkheim and Loeb were working on material with a strong Protocols theme in 1892. That doesn't tell us whether the Protocols was written in 1892, or was written about 1889 and served as inspiration for their next work, but at least, it's consistent. If the Protocols was written in 1892, that would be consistent with internal evidence, but the part that doesn't fit is the story about Radziwill retaliating against Glinka by publishing her book La Sainté Russie; la cour, l'armée, le clerge, la bourgeoisie et le peuple in1890 under the pseudonym "[Count] Paul Vassili", so that it would be attributed to Glinka, anger the Tsar, and cause her to be banished to her estate in Orel. A Russian source states it was the early 1890s that Glinka met with the landlords of Chern County, Orel Province, including Sukhotin, after having been framed for authoring the book Holy Russia, the courtyard, the army, the clergy, the bourgeoisie and the people (translating from Russian back to English) and then banished to her Orel estate. If the Protocols was written in 1889, the 1890 Radziwill retaliation story can fit, the Jew Georg Brandes has already promoted Nietzsche - or "Nietzsche-ism" - in 1888 in addition to "Darwinism" in the 1870s, Jewish intriguers are well aware of dozens of politicians with "some dark, undiscovered stain, some 'Panama' or other" - a bribe - given that Jewish speculators such as Jacques de Reinach did the bribing, agent Léon Bourgeois was already under-secretary for home affairs in 1888 and Jewish intriguers are aware of their plan for him to introduce "object lessons", which were already part of the English school curriculum as early as 1873, and so on.
• Thus, in Paris in 1892, within two or three years of the time that the Protocols was being completed in Paris by a Jewish supremacist who exhibits the mindset of a trained rabbi who obtains his 'truth' from the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud, we have Isidore Loeb - a trained rabbi who was educated in Bible and Talmud by his father Rabbi Seligmann Loeb of Sulzmatt, graduated in 1862 and received his rabbinical diploma from the Séminaire Israélite de France at Paris, was appointed (June 1, 1869) secretary of the Alliance Israélite Universelle, and in 1880 was co-founder of its library La Société Des Études Juives - promoting the very same theme of Jewish imperialism as seen in the Protocols. As a Talmud / Tanakh hugger, Loeb is the very model of a person who would have viewed Darwinism as a false theory.
• Loeb functioned as a Jewish propagandist in Paris around 1890, trying to sell the idea of the poor, persecuted Jews to any Gentiles gullible enough to swallow it. He wrote Le juif de l'histoire et le juif de la légende, of which the full text is available online in French. Loeb claimed it was undeniable that the Jews, collectively, were "poor, miserable and starving". He said it was generally assumed (as of 1890) that there were some seven million Jews in total, and some one-and-a-half million of those lived in "satisfactory" conditions. These "satisfactory" Jews were those living in Western Europe and most of the US; the poverty-stricken Jews were in Turkey, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria, part of Hungary, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Persia, parts of Russia, etc. He concluded that at least five million were in deepest destitution.
• Seven years after Loeb wrote that propaganda piece, Max Nordau would employ a similar theme at the First Zionist Congress, where he spoke of two forms of "Jewish misery" - the material and the moral. The former was seen in Eastern Europe, North Africa and Western Asia, where Jews suffered from "the painful fight for the maintenance of a bare existence". In Western Europe, the "misery" was "moral" according to Nordau, because Jews weren't granted the rights that they should have. And ten years after Loeb was promoting the idea of at least five million Jews in deepest destitution, Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise spoke of "six million living, bleeding, suffering arguments for Zionism" at a Federation of American Zionists meeting at Cooper Union in Manhattan on June 10, 1900.
• Also in Le juif de l'histoire et le juif de la légende, there is another statement by Loeb that, for 1890, displays astonishing prescience if he wasn't involved in writing the Protocols: "L'histoire des persécutions subies par les Juifs est une honte pour l'humanité et qui doit rendre modestes ceux qui parlent de civilisation, de progrès, de morale et de charité. Ce n'est pas seulement au moyen âge, c'est aujourd'hui et tous les jours que nous voyons se produire, au sujet des Juifs, les mensonges les plus effrontés, les exagérations les plus ridicules, les documents inventés de toutes pièces, des allégations prises en l'air et affirmées avec un aplomb inouï." He says the history of the "persecution" of Jews is a "disgrace to humanity", and claims, as one of his examples, "documents invented from scratch". Note that 1890 is also years before Jewry's claim that Dreyfus was "framed" on the basis of "numerous documents" that were "forged", in addition to being 31 years before Jews would attempt to refute the Protocols in 1921 by claiming it was a false document, a "forgery". And amusingly, as mentioned above, Jews have been forging false documents from Hellenistic times - e.g., fabricating Judeophilic quotes attributed to Hecataeus of Abdera - to modern times, such as Al-Watan's regular forging of fake documents for Jewish settlers to defend illegal settlements built on Palestinian land on the West Bank. (Esterhazy already served as a Jewish asset in the early 1890s, writing articles defending the Jews, and after taking the rap for Dreyfus, was allowed to flee to England, where he lived until 1923, and received sums of money at a post office from an "unknown source".) Now admittedly, Jewry claims the Protocols was plagiarised rather than "invented from scratch", but in both the Protocols and the Dreyfus Affair, Jewry falls back on the same defense of false documents fabricated by their opponents to serve as evidence against Jews, as already cited by Loeb as early as 1890.
• Jews found themselves in a quandary that led to a delicious contradiction. They needed to forge documents that demonstrated how Gentiles supposedly admired them. For example, the fragments of text quoted by Josephus, which he attributed to Hecataeus of Abdera. Yet every time some Gentile criticises the Jews, exposes their criminality, or simply doesn't lavish sufficient praise on them, they are "anti-Semites" who simply "hate" the Jews for no reason at all. And of course, whenever Gentiles admire the Jews, it's supposed to be for perfectly valid reasons. It's hard to be envious of the Jews; they certainly have their work cut out!
• There is some evidence that Loeb tended to copy other people's research and present it, almost unchanged, as his own work. In 1866, Dr. Christian David Ginsburg, an English Christian, published The Kabbalah, Its Doctrines, Development and Literature: An Essay. Arthur Edward Waite, in The Doctrine and Literature of the Kabalah (1902), devotes a lot of his discussion to Ginsburg's essay (he dates it at 1865 in a footnote in the Preface). Towards the end of his book, he has a few things to say about Isidore Loeb's essay on the Kabbalah, which was published as an entry (q.v. here) in La Grande Encyclopédie, a 31-volume encyclopedia published in France from 1886 to 1902. Starting from p. 409, Waite comments: "There is a period of a quarter of a century between the two writers, and as their point of view is in general respects almost identical and, indeed, suggests that the French critic has profited by the English, it is interesting to note the one matter over which they diverge, namely, the authorship of the Zohar. [...] If we take in connection with this the fact that M. Isodore [sic] Loeb, who so closely resembles Dr. Ginsburgh, abandons the theory of unqualified imposture... [...] For M. Loeb the Kabalah is a part of the universal mysticism which seeks to explain the disparity between an infinite God and a finite world by means of intermediate creations through which the Divine Power descends, diminishing in its spiritual qualities as it removes further from its source, and becoming more imperfect and material. [...] On the whole, I do not think that M. Loeb's critical faculty, or indeed his erudition, is at all comparable to his graceful synthetic talent."
• So, apart from making "almost identical" reproductions of previously published work, Loeb is clearly pro-mysticism and anti-science - confirming him as the very sort of character who would perceive Darwinism as a false theory, and his forte was his "graceful synthetic talent", which is the very quality required of someone whose job was to plagiarise or embellish already existing work. And unlike Durkheim, Loeb didn't quit his rabbinical training part way through and take a secular approach to his education.
• The evidence points to the Jews Émile Durkheim and Isidore Loeb as the hired writers of the Protocols - and plagiarisers of Joly and Goedsche respectively. Alphonse Rothschild may have hired Durkheim after learning of his 1889 review of Lutosławski's 1888 paper, which between them addressed the subject of Machiavelli and revolution, and Rothschild would have had a pretext to go to Bordeaux after learning that Russian pirates were forging labels bearing the brand name of his wine. The new chief rabbi of France, Zadoc Kahn, may have recruited Loeb, his fellow Alsatian and Talmud / Tanakh scholar. Both Kahn and Loeb were born in 1839. Being heavily involved in the Rothschild-founded library in Paris, Loeb was an obvious choice to take up the Protocols after Durkheim had finished his part. Kahn had all the connections; he was sometimes seen with Alphonse Rothschild, and could have provided Loeb with information from people whom Loeb didn't have access to. Loeb was the more prolific writer, whereas Kahn was more of an orator. Kahn could have been supervising operations and reporting back to Rothschild.
• On the one hand, Alphonse Rothschild has to sell his program for Jewish imperialism to revolutionary Jews - and to those who would finance them - at a fringe meeting at the forthcoming international Jewish conference in 1897. (Jacob Schiff, who would provide Trotsky with $20,000,000 in gold, and had funded Japan's war against Russia, was then a 50-year-old German-born "American" Jewish banker, already the head of Kuhn, Loeb & Company. Max Warburg, who would provide Lenin with $6,000,000, was then a 30-year-old "German" Jewish banker, whose brother Paul would go on to draft the plans for the American Federal Reserve private banks and had already married the daughter of Solomon Loeb. Neither are on the attendees list for the First Zionist Congress, but the fringe group would hardly want to advertise its existence and movements. And if the top bankers didn't attend, they could send their proxies and then peruse the minutes at their leisure.) On the other hand, he has to peddle the theme of the poor, persecuted Jews for general Gentile consumption, even as the Jews are getting all the gold in their hands, the press in their hands, the politicians and the judges in their pockets, and so on. The goyim, with their "purely brute brains", are just not supposed to notice all that, like turkeys that are unaware of what happens at Thanksgiving or at Christmas. So Rothschild might as well employ the same writer for both jobs. Isidore Loeb can put his name to his Le juif de l'histoire et le juif de la légende work published in 1890. Should his other anonymous manuscripts, on which he was working at just about the same time, fall into Gentile hands, they play the forgery card, as already allowed for in their contingency planning, which was inspired by the fact that Rothschild had just fallen prey to wine pirates forging his "Lafite Rothschild" labels at the same time the Protocols was hatched.
• Théodore Reinach wrote the Preface to Loeb's La Littérature des Pauvres dans la Bible. Reinach was one of three brothers who were (first) cousins of the banker Baron Jacques de Reinach, the chief "bribe dispenser" in the Panama Canal Scandal, who apparently killed himself in November 1892 as the scandal broke. Thus, the (Jewish) Reinach family provide a strong link between La Société des Études Juives (S.E.J.), the Panama Canal Scandal, and political figures. Cornelius Herz is linked to Alphonse de Rothschild through their shared interests in electricity and telecommunications; for example, Herz and Rothschild co-founded the American Syndicate of Electricity, later to amalgamate with the Westinghouse Syndicate. As bribers in the Panama Canal scam, both Herz and Jacques de Reinach knew that many Deputies had "some dark, undiscovered stain, some 'Panama' or other" before the scandal broke late in 1892. Of the three Reinach brothers, Théodore (1860-1928) was the secretary of S.E.J. for "many years", Salomon (1858-1932) published various articles in the S.E.J.'s Revue and served as its president (as well as a vice president of the Alliance Israélite Universelle), and Joseph (1856-1921), a protégé of Gambetta in 1881, was elected to the Chamber of Deputies in 1889, and re-elected in 1893.
• Rather than information being passed from Herz to Rothschild to Kahn to Loeb, it's more likely that one of the Reinach brothers simply informed Loeb about how the "goyim" had been bribed, when both happened to be working in the S.E.J. library some day and the brother was recounting his cousin's / "uncle's" Panama Canal exploits. So then Loeb decided to make a comment about it in Protocol No. 10 for the impending address at the international Jewish conference, which was still to be organized.
• It's possible, but not necessary, that Loeb would have approved of "the diminution, the killing out of the goyim". If so, then Loeb could have inserted that comment; if not, then Rothschild could have put it in when making the final touches, along with adding some financial commentary, e.g., about the "gold standard". Either way, Loeb died in 1892, so there was no chance of him speaking out when Jewish Bolsheviks butchered the "goyim".

Evidence for forgery

• Parts of the Protocols was plagiarised from Joly.
• The Jews say so.

Ironically, both of those are evidence for authenticity, not for forgery. Of the hypothetical "anti-Semite" and the hypothetical Jewish supremacist conspirator, it is the Jew who had the stronger motives for plagiarism, which would allow Jewry to cite it as 'evidence' of "forgery". As to Jewish assurances that nefarious "anti-Semites" fabricated the Protocols, apart from the fact that the allegation is refuted by reams of evidence, Jewish claims of "forgery" should be judged in the context of previous statements by Jewry. Here's the sort of thing:

When we killed thirty-three Syrian and Lebanese farm workers who were loading plums and peaches in Al-Qaa in 2006, we didn't really mean to do it, you know; there was a building nearby that we thought was being used to store weapons.
Our attack on the USS Liberty (in international waters), in which thirty-four American sailors died and 174 were wounded, was an accident. Okay, we carried on attacking for well over an hour; I believe the technical term for it is a sustained atta... sorry, a sustained accident, yeah, that's what it was. It just lasted longer than most accidents do.
We promise that the UN observer post will not be targeted in this 2006 war on Lebanon.
Red Cross ambulances are never deliberately targeted by Israeli forces; we must have hit the very center of each cross on each ambulance by accident, and it was a coincidence.
Look, we hit a UN base in Qana in 1996 and killed 100 people who were sheltering, and you have to believe us, it was an accident then, so now that we've gone and done the same thing again in 2006, with our massive bomb causing a building in the town to collapse on top of dozens of sheltering people, killing more than 60 including 37 children, it must have been another accident, right? Or, shall we say, a mistake?
When the Palestinian Ghalia family were blown to smithereens as they were picnicking on a Gaza beach, we stopped shelling the beach nine minutes before they died, and we were targeting an area of the beach about 250 meters from where they were, so it proves they must have done it themselves with one of their own bombs; we were not responsible.
Although we, the Mossad, did have foreknowledge of the London 7/7 bombings, the information only reached us six minutes before the first explosion.
When a bomb exploded in a false ceiling at the Radisson Hotel in Amman on 11/9/05, we Israelis didn't put it there and never knew it was there; it was actually a suicide bomber who was responsible for the killing of the wedding party, and when the suicide bomber's bomb went off - don't look skeptical, of course there was a suicide bomber there, someone else must have already placed the other bomb without being spotted, and it was just coincidental that the suicide bomber set off the other bomb too, Israelis were evacuated in advance of the blasts, the only Israeli casualty was an Israeli Arab, blundering Arabs targeted Arabs rather than Jews or Americans, and Israel didn't want to have King Abdullah II mediating between the US and Syria.
More than 1,000 Palestinians in Gaza, mostly civilians, have been killed by Israeli forces, whilst at the same time a mere three Israeli citizens have been killed by Palestinian rockets or mortar, but that's not evidence that we Israelis engage in deliberate slaughter of Arab civilians; it's all just a long series of one accident after another, and the fact that we keep having such accidents is purely coincidental.
When our Israeli commandos boarded a Turkish ship in a humanitarian aid flotilla in international waters and killed nine of those on board - with a tenth going on to die in 2014 after being in a coma for four years, our peace-loving commandos were merely defending themselves against attacks by the dangerous peace activists, who were pretending to be humanitarians whilst spoiling for a fight.

A truthful statement by organized Jewry is a rarity indeed.

Conclusion

The Protocols documentation exists as evidence for a Jewish conspiracy, corresponds with external events that prove the existence of a Jewish conspiracy, and the burden of proof rests with those who are attempting to refute it. After more than ninety years of trying, Jewry has singularly failed to do so.

The Protocols of Zion is an authentic document detailing Jewry's plans for establishing a world despotism.

Q.E.D.

See the long version of this page here: The Protocols of Joly