Peter Myers B. A. Hons B. Sc., - 16th December 1999
The Protocols of Zion is the most tabooed book in the world; but where it is not tabooed, its interpretation is usually fitted into conservative viewpoints called "Right-wing". One is race-based, looking back to the time when whites controlled Africa, China and the world generally; the other is religion-based, nostalgic for the time when the Christian religion (rather than the present ideologies of Liberalism, Human Rights, and Ecology) dominated the thinking and culture of the world.
Although the Protocols is usually associated with Hitler, Nazism only appeared after the German defeat in the First World War, whereas the Protocols was first distributed, in Russia, about 1903, and would have been written about 1897. Its first mass distribution was among the "White" Russians fighting the Bolsheviks during the Civil War. These people faced the loss of their land, their place in society, the right to practice their religion, and the prospect of state terrorism against them. Not surprisingly, the Protocols has, since then, been used by conservatives facing dispossession, and been seen as Right-wing propaganda.
Critics argue that it is a forgery, cobbled together from various sources. This view is put by Norman Cohn in his book Warrant For Genocide, which studies the relationship between the Protocols and other texts which constitute its precedents. However scholars do not argue that the Gospel of Matthew is a forgery just because it has parallel passages with the Gospels of Mark and Luke; most think instead that the parallels point to a common source in a third document they call "Q" (e.g. see Robert Funk et. al., The Five Gospels). Could this be true of the Protocols too? Cohn fails to even consider such broader textual analysis.
There are two versions of Creation in the Bible. In the first, God creates the animals before the people (Genesis 1:25-26), while in the second (2:18-20) he creates Adam before the animals. Similarly there are two versions of the story about Noah's Ark. In the first version, God tells Noah to save one pair of every species (Genesis 6:19-20), while in the second version (7:2-3) Noah is told to save 7 pairs of every clean species and 1 pair of every unclean species. The Book of Genesis was put together by an editor, from many sources. Despite these contradictions a few lines apart, Genesis is the reason why the state of Israel was created 50 years ago.
Cohn's greatest failing is that he does not ask the question, "Is there any independent evidence that there is a one-world conspiracy; and if so, how might the Protocols be related to it?" H. G. Wells wrote, in his book The Open Conspiracy, that there is indeed such a conspiracy, and that he is part of it (see Exposure, April 1999). Wells was an admirer of Trotsky but an opponent of Stalin; Stalin, it seems, ruined the plot.
There is a Left interpretation of the one-world-conspiracy which also fits closely with the Protocols. This view is put by Karl Marx (last century), and today by Benjamin Ginsberg, Israel Shahak and Roger Garaudy. Many such people are Jews, and although they dismiss the Protocols as a forgery, they find this a difficult task because they expose the extent of Jewish power in the capital cities of the capitalist world. Benjamin Disraeli made similar disclosures (Lord George Bentinck, ch. 24; and Coningsby, ch XIV).
Karl Marx
The Protocols' description of the secret operation of the capitalist finance
system - glossed over by Cohn, though it is the most important part of the
Protocols - is comparable to Marx' papers On the Jewish Question and The
Jewish Bankers of Europe . If the Protocols is suppressed, they will have
to be suppressed too.
In his article The Russian Loan, Marx wrote, "the Jews ... monopo lise the machinery of the loanmongering mysteries by concentrating their energies upon the barter of trade in securities, and the changing of money and negotiating of bills in a great measure arising therefrom. Take Amsterdam, for instance, a city harboring many of the worst descendants of the Jews whom Ferdinand and Isabella drove out of Spain, and who, after lingering awhile in Portugal, were driven thence also, and eventu ally found a safe place of retreat in Holland. ... The smartest highwayman in the Abruzzi is not better posted up about the locale of the hard cash in a traveller's valise or pocket than those Jews about any loose capital in the hands of a trader".
Far from being a hater of Christianity like the Bolsheviks who later usurped the socialist movement, Marx continued, "This Jew organisation of loanmon gers is as dangerous to the people as the aristocratic organisation of landowners ... Let us not be too severe upon these loanmongering gentry. The fact that 1855 years ago Christ drove the Jewish moneylenders out of the temple, and that the moneylenders of our age enlisted on the side of tyranny happen again chiefly to be Jews, is perhaps no more than a historical coin cidence. The loanmongering Jews of Europe do only on a larger and more obnoxious scale what many others do on one smaller and less significant. But it is only because the Jews are so strong that it is timely and expedient to expose their organisation." (ibid., in Saul K. Padover (ed.) The Karl Marx Library, Vol. 5, p. 221).
In On the Jewish Question, Marx wrote, "Money is the zealous one God of Israel, beside which no other God may stand. ... The God of the Jews has become secularised and is now a worldly God. The bill of exchange is the Jew's real God. His God is the illusory bill of exchange" (tr. Dagobert Runes as A World Without Jews).
In his book The Making of Modern Zionism (p. 41), Schlomo Avineri discloses that the information about the connection between Judaism and capitalism was provided to Marx by none other than Moses Hess, the "red Rabbi" who later became one of the founders of modern Zionism through his book Rome and Jerusalem. Hess died in 1875, but in 1950 his remains were moved to Israel as a tribute to his role in Zionism (Avineri, p.36).
Benjamin Ginsberg
An American Jew and Professor of Political Science, Ginsberg discloses
that in the US, "Today, though barely 2% of the nation's population is Jewish,
close to half its billionaires are Jews. The chief executive officers of
the three major television networks and the four largest film studios are
Jews, as are the owners of the nation's largest newspaper chain and most
influential newspaper, the New York Times. In the late 1960s, Jews already
constituted 20% of the faculty of elite universities and 40% of the professors
of elite law schools; today, these percentages doubtless are higher." (The
Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, p.1). He further attests to the dominant
role of Jews in the creation of the USSR: "Three of the six members of Lenin's
first Politburo - Trotsky, Kamenev, and Zinoviev - were of Jewish origin.
... Kamenev and Zinoviev became members of the triumvirate (along with Stalin)
that ruled the Soviet Union immediately after Lenin's death in 1924" (p.
30). In other words, of the three who ruled the USSR after Lenin's death,
Stalin was the only non-Jew; when he later secured sole power, he purged
the Jews from the leadership (pp. 53-6).
Israel Shahak
A retired Israeli Professor of Chemistry, Shahak is praised for his
analysis and his courage by Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal and Edward Said. Shahak
has translated into English, articles originally published in Hebrew in the
Israeli press, which expose
• the Jewish domination of the Clinton government; apart from major cabinet positions such as Madeline Allbright (Secretary of State, i.e. Foreign Minister), Robert Rubin (Treasurer), Mickey Kantor (Secretary for Trade, in charge of GATT and WTO), William Cohen (Defence), Sandy Berger (National Security Adviser), there are many other lesser Jewish appointees as well.
• Israel's hatred for Christianity (converts to Judaism are encourgaged to spit on the cross, in an official program financed by the Israeli government).
These and other articles of Shahak's, plus his book Jewish History, Jewish Religion, may be downloaded (while free speech remains) from http://abbc.com/islam/english/jracism/shahak.htm.
Roger Garaudy
A leading French communist, Garaudy began to research Zionism after
Israel's invasion of Lebanon. After he published his findings, he was ostracised
from the media. In his book The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics he writes,
' Until 1982 I had free access to the biggest publishing houses, T.V., radio,
and press.'
'But, from this point, the media asphyxiation begins: no more access to television, my articles refused. I had published forty books in all the great publishing houses, from Gallimard to Seuil, from Plon to Grasset and Laffont. They had been translated into twenty-seven languages. From now on, all the big doors are closed: One of my biggest publishers is heard to say to his adviser: "If you publish a book by Garaudy, you will no longer have the right to translate American works." To have accepted me would have brought the firm down. Another "big wheel", about another work, said to his literary director (who, impassioned by the book, worked for three months to help me to finish it): "I don't want any Garaudy in the house.' (Part III).
Garaudy's book may be downloaded for free from http://codoh.com/zionweb/zionmythgar.html.
The Protocols on Socialism
The Protocols explicitly admits that Socialism is the only escape from the
Capitalist trap, but claims to have subverted the Socialist movement:
"The people have raised a howl about the necessity of settling the question of Socialism by way of an international agreement. Division into fractional parties has given them into our hands, for, in order to carry on a contested struggle one must have money, and the money is all in our hands " (Protocol 8).
These sentences would surely not be present in the Protocols if, as the critics say, it was composed by the Czar's secret police. Would they admit that Socialism is the only answer? Would they admit to having taken over the Socialist movement? The terror and totalitarianism of the USSR are not a necessary or intrinsic part of Socialism, and they are not consistent with the philosophy of Karl Marx. There is hope yet.