FreddSeptember 22nd, 2009 at 1:26 amSome writers - such as Paquita de Shishmareff, author of Waters Flowing Westward - have argued that the internationalist-Protocols are the work of Asher Ginsberg, aka Ahad Ha’am (his pen name), presented to the B’Nai Zion (sons of zion) congregation. It would have been only later that the internationalist new world order ideology of the Protocols would have been introduced into the Zionist movement created by Herzl, who was the main opponent of Ginsburg. Herzl believed in zionism as “an economic-political entity” for Jews, whereas Ginsburg believed in a cultural “Jewish state” as a world-center for judaism. One thing is for sure: the Protocols do not promote in any way any nationalist plan to massively displace and unite Jews in a national Palestine, yet they do promote international jewish dominion through machiavelian means. Some perceptive russian writers have even compared NWO ideologue Asher Ginsberg to the fascists of the 30’s and 40’s because of his nietzschean “superman” vision of jewish supremacism. Since the 30’s and the 40’s, we should note, the religious-cultural version of Zionism promoted by Ginsberg and (fascist) Jabotinsky rapidly took over the secular-economic Zionism of Herzl. So, again we see that the notion that “zionism is an extreme opposite of judaism because it is founded on the vision of secular non-believer Herzl”, is incorrect.http://ziofascism.net/blog/2009/08/prot ... hmotocols/
The aim throughout them all is the destruction of all religions and nation-states and the establishment of a global super State ruling the world by ruthless terror. Here I'm paraphrasing Douglas Reed's words written in 1956. They ring true with greater clarity with each passing year.
Publication historyThe Protocols appeared in print in the Russian Empire as early as 1903. The anti-Semitic tract was published in Znamya, a Black Hundreds newspaper owned by Pavel Krushevan, as a serialized set of articles. It appeared again in 1905 as a final chapter (Chapter XII) of a second edition of Velikoe v malom i antikhrist (The Great in the Small & Antichrist), a book by Serge Nilus. In 1906 it appeared in pamphlet form edited by G. Butmi.These first three (and subsequently more) Russian language imprints were published and circulated in the Russian Empire during 1903–1906 period as a tool for scapegoating Jews, blamed by the monarchists for the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War and the 1905 Russian Revolution. Common to all three texts is the idea that Jews aim for world domination. Since The Protocols are presented as merely a document, the front matter and back matter are needed to explain its alleged origin. The diverse imprints, however, are mutually inconsistent. The general claim is that the document was stolen from a secret Jewish organization. Since the alleged original stolen manuscript does not exist, one is forced to restore a purported original edition. This has been done by the Italian scholar, Cesare G. De Michelis in 1998, in a work which was translated into English and published in 2004, where he treats his subject as Apocrypha. As fiction in the genre of literature the tract was further analyzed by Umberto Eco by his word, Foucault's Pendulum in 1988, and in English translation in 1989, and in 1994 in chapter 6, "Fictional Protocols", of his Six Walks in the Fictional Woods.As the 1917 Russian Revolution unfolded, causing white Russians to flee to the West, this text was carried along and assumed a new purpose. Until then The Protocols remained obscure; it was now an instrument for blaming Jews for the Russian Revolution. It was now a tool, a political weapon used against the Bolshevikis who were depicted as overwhelmingly Jews, allegedly executing the "plan" embodied in The Protocols. The purpose was to discredit the October Revolution, prevent the West from recognizing the Soviet Union, and bring the downfall of Vladimir Lenin's regime. In that regard, The Protocols failed to achieve their aim.It was first published in the United States in the English language in 1919 as two newspaper articles in the Philadelphia Public Ledger by journalist Carl W. Ackerman, but all references to Jews were replaced by references to Bolsheviks and Bolshevism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protoc ... rs_of_Zion
Ahad Ha-'Am: A Political Failure?, by Yossi Goldstein © 1990 Springer.AbstractWhy is it that Ahad Ha-'Am failed to attain political predominance within the Zionist movement of his time? This question has not been addressed by scholars, who have accepted Ahad Ha-'Am's protestations of "non-alliance" at face value -- his desire to appear before the public as an apolitical figure, an intellectual, a commentator on Jewish events, literature, and philosophy. It may be said without exaggeration that, over time, he achieved the status of teacher and prophet in the eyes of his followers. His opinions on both secular and religious issues were eagerly sought and his writings well received. But his biography belies the claim that this was all he aspired to. Ahad Ha-'Am was always in the eye of the political storm, active in struggles and political intrigues, and in search of positions of power and influence. What prevented him from achieving political leadership? The obvious conclusion to be drawn from Ahad Ha-'Am's public career and his not having attained positions of power within the Zionist movement was that he avoided responsibility at any cost. Even when he enjoyed authority -- for instance, when he stood at the head of Bnei Moshe (1889-97) -- he was ambivalent about his position and refused to pursue power. This was the key to his behavior at the first All-Russian Conference of the Zionist movement (Warsaw, 1898). It was also the case when members of the Democratic Faction sought to present him as an alternative to Herzl (1900-1901), when the Russian Zionists at the second Zionist Conference in Minsk (1902) considered him a leader, as well as during the Russian revolution of 1905 and at the time of the Balfour Declaration (1917-18). Each time Ahad Ha-'Am was close to the pinnacle of political power, and each time he withdrew. He explained his behavior as his rejection of the authority inherent in political power. However, this contradicts the facts of his own intensive political activity. Perhaps the inconsistency was born of his own manic personality, with its radical mood swings, and of his fear of political leadership. Such explanations are difficult to address precisely, but they seem the most likely. Is it possible to describe Ahad Ha-'Am as a political failure? Objectively, he did not attain political power. But his other achievements -- He was a figure of perhaps greater influence on his particular brand of Zionism than any of his contemporaries, as well as a successful editor and writer -- compensated in large measure for his political failings. /// [Abstract in Hebrew].http://www.jstor.org/pss/20101080
The son of Alexander Petrovich Nilus, from a family of Swiss immigrants, Nilus was a landowner in the government of Orel. He studied law and graduated from the University of Moscow, and was a magistrate in Transcaucasia. He later moved to Biarritz, living there with a mistress named Natalya Komarovskaya until his estates went bankrupt and he broke off their relationship. Though he was raised in the Russian Orthodox faith, Nilus did not seem to care much about religion until an accident with his horse caused him to recall an unfulfilled childhood vow to visit the Troitse-Sergiyeva Lavra. Later he met St. John of Kronstadt, whom he credited with healing a throat infection and turning him fully back to his native faith.In 1901 or 1902, Nilus published his book Velikoe v malom i antikhrist, kak blizkaja politicheskaja vozmozhnost. Zapiski pravoslavnogo (The Great within the Small and Antichrist, an Imminent Political Possibility. Notes of an Orthodox Believer). The text of the Protocols appeared as Chapter Twelve of the 1905 edition of this book. A secret investigation ordered by the newly-appointed chairman of the Council of Ministers Pyotr Stolypin soon determined that the Protocols had first appeared in Paris in antisemitic circles around 1897–1898.In 1906 Nilus married Yelena Alexandrovna Ozerova, who had served as a lady-in-waiting to Alexandra Feodorovna, last empress of Russia. In 1907, Nilus moved to Optina Monastery, where he lived until 1912. During this time he published several books on spiritual topics, including his most famous work (other than Velikoe v malom): On the Bank of God's River, a portrait of his years at Optina and of the many Orthodox Starets living there. During this timeframe, Nilus was given the papers of Nikolay Motovilov, a Russian landowner and Fool for Christ who was a disciple of St. Seraphim of Sarov. Nilus published one of these manuscripts as "A Wonderful Revelation to the World: the Conversation of St. Seraphim with Nicholas Alexandrovich Motovilov on the acquisition of the Holy Spirit." This manuscript would become one of the most oft-read Orthodox texts of modern times. In 1912 a report was received by the Holy Synod that Nilus was living at the monastery with his wife (though the Niluses were not actually living within the monastery, but rather as guests in a small house nearby), and Nilus was ordered by the Synod to leave Optina.Nilus circulated several editions of the Protocols in Russia as part of an antisemitic campaign. Though the early prints were in Russian, the Protocols were quickly spread to the rest of Europe by Russian expatriates after the 1917 revolution. Some of them claimed that they provided proof that the Jews were behind the Russian Revolution. By the time Nilus died, Europe had been saturated by millions of copies of the Protocols.Under the new Soviet government, Sergei Nilus was arrested and briefly imprisoned in 1924, 1925 and 1927. He died on January 14, 1929, after a heart attack.In the USSR possession of Nilus' books was punished by up to 10 years of imprisonment, as "running anti-Soviet propaganda by keeping anti-Soviet literature".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Nilus
George Shanks was an expatriate British man, who is most famous as the first translator of Protocols of Zion into the English language. His version was produced for The Britons, an early anti-immigration and anti-Semitic organization.Shanks was the son of a well-known English merchant who resided in Moscow. As a result of the Russian Revolution of 1917, the family sustained financial ruin and became refugees in London. It is believed that the translation was completed during this period. His identity was not discovered until 1978; initially, it was believed that Victor E. Marsden was the translator, as his name came to be associated with the British English language translation of the Protocols in pamphlet or booklet form soon after he died in 1920.Shanks is known to have engaged in a dispute with The Britons over payment of the royalties to which he was entitled regarding their publication of The Jewish Peril.In the United States the initial translation of this notorious anti-Semitic forgery is associated with several names, arguably the most important of the names being Boris Brasol, Natalie de Bogory, and Dr. Harris Ayers Houghton.
Spiritual and Cultural ZionismThe history of Zionism before the First World War is reflected in the multitude of themes that ran across the Zionist Movement, such as the secular, political and social emphases on national reconstruction and renaissance, and the capacity of Jews to transform themselves into autonomous agents of history, as well as Jewish solidarity. These themes were interwoven into the principle of shlilat ha'galut and were intended to be molded, once a Jewish nation in Eretz Israel was established, into a new Jewish collective identity (Eisenstadt, 1992). This utopia is found in the literary masterpieces of Ahad Ha’Am, who was Herzl’s ideological opponent.Ahad Ha’Am was a prolific Zionist writer and a political actor. He contributed more than any writer to the creation of modern Hebrew prose and, at the same time, supported the Lovers of Zion, attended the first Zionist congress and was elected as a member of the Odessa central committee which was the center of the Lovers of Zion organization. Later, Ahad Ha’Am became Chaim Weizmann’s confidant during the negotiations over the Balfour Declaration. He attempted to influence the course of Zionism by emphasizing that Zionism should be a cultural movement, not just a political force. It should attempt to solidify the spiritual content of Jewish existence and reconstitute Jewish national culture so that, upon the acquisition of a state, Jews would continue to be guided by their historic quest for spiritual greatness.Ahad Ha’Am presciently realized the establishment of a Jewish state would cause only a small portion of the Jewish people to immigrate to Israel. This implied that the Diaspora would continue to house the majority of the Jewish population. Since a newly established Jewish state would not solve the economic problems of Jews who continued to reside abroad, its responsibility toward their vitality would exist through spiritual and cultural spheres.Spiritual and Cultural Zionism was meant to offer spiritual Jewish values to both the individual Jew in Western Europe who was unable to integrate into the liberal culture of his home country and the East European Jew unable to identify with the nationalist culture of his home country. Not surprisingly, after the publication of Herzl’s Altneuland, Ahad Ha’Am published a scathing critique of Herzl’s vision of the Jewish state because it ignored the spiritual dimension. In addition, Ahad Ha’Am was among the first writers to emphasize the necessity of confronting the Arab problem in Palestine, first and foremost, by changing the attitudes of the first settlers toward the Arab population. He also warned of the potential emergence of an Arab Palestinian national movement that would eventually confront the Zionist movement.
The Influence of Ahad Ha-Am on modern IsraelBy Sidney RosenfarbDuring the time of the beginning of Zionism, which was at the end of the 1800's and beginning of the 1900's, the Jews were drawn in many directions. There was the Yiddish culture advocates, who while they had no external religious expressions of their Jewishness, yet felt that as Jews, they possessed a culture far superior to that of the native culture in the lands in which they lived. To this group, the procreation and enjoyment of the Yiddish culture defined a national entity of the Jews.Opposite of this view were the political groups of the many and various venues of thought. Amongst them were the Bolsheviks, the communists, the Socialists etc, all divided up in their many sub-categories. These Jews believed that the future of the Jew was to be found in a stable government which gave equality to all of its citizens. They had no religious leanings, but felt that the Jews, both as a group, and as individuals, had their future tied up with the form of government that could grant them their personal liberties.The religious Jews, in their various forms, Chassidic or just traditional, were losing numbers to the various ideologies that were stirred in the winds. The leading Rabbis in most cities warned their faithful to separate from the Yiddishists, Zionists, and Socialists (in all of their various forms).The Zionist movement was just beginning to sprout its head. It was small and unorganized. The various Zionist groups were local with out the international organization that was to come later. The draw of the East European Jew to Zion was like a magnet, like a dream. The conditions under which the Jew lived in Eastern Europe were terrible: Pogroms, discrimination and material hardship, coupled with the possibility of oppressive forced military service, Zion was more than a dream, it seemed an only choice to many. To live in our own land, to determine our own fate drew many youth to desire that this be the logical possibility.Unfortunately, Herzl had not yet set up his Zionist congress, nor revealed his dream. Life in Israel was wrought with danger from Arabs and disease. The land needed hard work and living conditions were very trying even to the most dedicated Zionist.Asher Ginsberg, who became known via his pen name of Ahad Ha-am, was one of the most influential people in this important time.Ahad Ha-am was born in Skvira, a small town near Kiev in the Ukraine in 1856. He received the traditional Jewish education from the age of three. He excelled in his talmudic studies and became familiar with the various Jewish philosophic rabbinical texts.He was a strong willed boy who had a tremendous amount of intellectual curiosity. At the age of eight he taught himself to read Russian. By twelve, he began reading the forbidden "haskala" (Jewish Enlightenment) literature. Although he became a "free-thinker" he continued his talmudic education.He was a fastidious, morally upright person with a strong sense of human dignity. He disliked corruption and vulgarity. He was quiet, reserved and shy and felt that only work was worth doing. He enjoyed deep conversations with friends which gave him his relaxation. Although he distanced himself from his religion, yet he maintained the Jewish dietary laws, said Kaddish when it was necessary, had a reverence for the Jewish tradition.Although he lived among the Yiddish writers and was fluent in Yiddish, he maintained a contempt for Yiddish. Ahad Ha-am wrote only in Hebrew, and because of his respect for the tradition coupled with his solid knowledge of the Talmud and biblical sources, his writings were enriched and inseparable from Jewish values.He married a simple and poor Jewish girl who bore him three children. Although she stood by his side through out his life, he always felt a spiritual lonliness. When one of his daughters married a Russian gentile, Ahad Ha-am refused to speak with her for many years, so strongly did he feel his Jewishness, yet he was unable to transfer it to his daughter.At first Ahad Ha-am wanted to study the works of the "haskala" but he was disappointed in the "maskilim". The maskilim were the authors and thinkers of the haskala movement. With his disappointment in the maskilim, Ahad Ha-am went to study the various secular subjects taught in the universities. He mastered many languages.In Odessa, he became acquainted with the Hovevei Zion movement. He joined the central committee and became embroiled in many arguments over the method of settling Eretz Israel.At that time the Hovevei Zion movement recruited candidates to go to Israel. They provided money and support for those who went there to settle. Unfortunately, many were disillusioned in what awaited them in Israel. It was Ahad Ha-am who proposed a rigorous training program in Europe to give the agricultural skills to those who desired to emigrate along with philosophy to carry them through the difficult period of re-adjustment.It was at that time that he published his first important article, Lo Zeh ha-Derich, (This is not the Way) which advocated dedicated and trained settlement. This controversial essay written under the pseudonym Ahad Ha-am (meaning "One of the People") propelled him into fame as an intelligent thinker and convincing writer.He continued to write and was adopted as the spiritual leader of the "B'nei Moshe" movement. This movement lasted for about eight years, and his writings were their direct inspiration.In 1891, Ahad Ha-am visited Eretz Israel and summed up his impressions in Emet me Eretz Yisrael, (Truth from the Land of Israel). He was strongly critical of the economic, social, and spiritual aspects of the Jewish Settlements. He visited a second time in 1893 and published similar criticisms. He planned at this time an educational encyclopedia on Jews and Judaism (Otzar ha-Yahadut) which he hoped would encourage Jewish studies and revitalize Jewish thought. The massive work was never completed, but he became the manager of an influential Jewish publishing house, and the editor of their monthly magazine, Ha-Shilo'ah.He advocated a continuity between tradition and the emergence of the new Israeli culture. He felt that with out the traditional Jewish values, the Zionist dream would turn into a secular state devoid of inherent Jewish values.Ahad Ha-am clashed with the other leaders of Zionism, notably Herzl and Nordau. He had no faith in the dream of Herzl to set up a Jewish state anywhere, devoid of Jewish values. Herzl and Nordau's estrangement from Jewish values and culture troubled him. He accused them of neglecting the cultural tradition which he felt were the pulse and soul of the emerging Jewish nation.When Herzl published his book, "The Jewish State" in 1896, Ahad Ha-am wrote a scathing review of it asking what was Jewish about this proposed state and pointed out the absurdities in it. During the Sixth Zionist Congress, in 1903, Ahad Ha-am expressed his opposition to Herzl's consideration for the British proposal for an autonomous Jewish entity in Uganda.It was the East European Zionists who insisted on Palestine and caused the rejection of the famous "Uganda Plan". It was due to this defeat that Herzl suffered his heart attack which eventually took his life. After Herzl's demise, Chaim Weizmann and others, together with Ahad Ha-am took over the World Zionist Organization.Ahad Ha-am was considered an important contributor to the Jewish character of the modern Jewish state. He basically used his excellent mind and writing skills to outline the need for a Jewish character for the new Jewish state.He settled in Israel in 1922 where he remained until his death in 1927. His essays were not confined to Zionism, but were philosophical analysis of ideas and concepts that affected the life of all men. A man of tremendous stature and influence in his life time, today his works are perhaps too philosophical for a generation of enjoyment seekers.He explored the desire to live individually, and as a nation. He touched on the attributes of divine mercy and G-d's attributes. He tried to define the essence of a Jew and of the Jewish nation. He explored the consant sub-conscious of the Jew and of the Jewish nation. After the rise of the Jewish State, his ideas reached their fruition as embodied in the Jewish spirit of the Jewish State.~~~~~~~from the February 2004 Edition of the Jewish Magazine
Quote from: "ArthurTopham"The aim throughout them all is the destruction of all religions and nation-states and the establishment of a global super State ruling the world by ruthless terror. Here I'm paraphrasing Douglas Reed's words written in 1956. They ring true with greater clarity with each passing year.Arthur - Great first post.I wish more people would read Douglas Reed's Books.He is one of the great forgotten writers of the 20th century.(1930's-50's)A best selling author world wide, until he started writing about zio-Jewish control and the corruption of our society.The Contoversy of Zion and Far and wide stick out in my mind.Welcome to tiu
Welcome to TiU!I too would like to know more on the authorship of the Protocols.
Welcome to TIU Arthur,You make a good argument about the Protocols, but I don't think it holds together.
"If or when one mentions the Protocols alleged to be of the Elders of Zion, one is frequently met with the reply: "Oh, but they are a forgery."Certainly they are a forgery, and that is the one proof we have of their authenticity. The Jews have worked with forged documents for the past 24 hundred years, namely ever since they have had any documents whatsoever. And no one can qualify as a historian of this half century without having examined the Protocols....The interest in them does not lie in the question of their having been or not been concocted by a legislative assembly of Rabbis — democratically elected or secretly chosen by the Mysterious Order of Seven Branched Antlers or the Bowling Society of Milwaukee. Their interest lies in the type of mind, or the state of mind of their author. That was their interest for the psychologist the day they first appeared. And for the historian two decades later, when the program contained in them has so crushingly gone into effect up to a point, or down to a squalor."
Only an acutely observant political Jewish mind much like Asher Ginsburg's (who helped negotiate the BALFOUR DECLARATION -- read that again if you must to let it sink in -- Asher Ginsburg a nationalist for the Jewish people and obviously a Talmudic would have the drive to prepare his "students" for the upcoming Jewish role in the world under the financing of Rothschild.
George Shanks was an expatriate British man, who is most famous as the first translator of Protocols of Zion into the English language. His version was produced for The Britons, an early anti-immigration and anti-Semitic organization.Shanks was the son of a well-known English merchant who resided in Moscow. As a result of the Russian Revolution of 1917, the family sustained financial ruin and became refugees in London. It is believed that the translation was completed during this period. His identity was not discovered until 1978; initially, it was believed that Victor E. Marsden was the translator, as his name came to be associated with the British English language translation of the Protocols in pamphlet or booklet form soon after he died in 1920.
Ahad Ha’am influenced a generation of young Zionists, most particularly in Eastern Europe that included Hayyim Nahman Bialik, Chaim Weizmann, and Micha Josef Berdyczewski. Although he moved to London in 1907 to serve as the agent for the Wissotzky tea company, he continued his Zionist work, playing a part in the securing of the The Balfour Declaration. In 1922, he arrived in Eretz-Israel to spend the last five years of his life in Tel Aviv.
Ahad Ha’am (the pen name of Asher Ginsberg, a Jew from Skvira, near Kiev, Ukraine) (1856-1927) (18) warned his fellow Jews about purchasing Arab land in Palestine: He wrote presciently in 1912 the following:“We are in the habit of thinking that all the Arabs are wild men of the desert and do not see or understand what goes on around them. But that is a great mistake. The Arabs, especially the town-dwellers, see and understand what we are doing and what we want in Palestine, but they do not react and pretend not to notice, because at present they do not see in what we are doing any threat to their own future. …But if ever we develop in Palestine to such a degree as to encroach on the living space of the native population to any appreciable extent, they will not easily give up their place.” (19)Herbert Samuel (1870-1963), a British Jew and member of Parliament, who later became High Commissioner of the British Mandate of Palestine, wrote from Palestine in 1921 the following:“There are those...who sometimes forget or ignore the present inhabitants of Palestine. Inspired by the greatness of their ideals, feeling behind them the pressure of two thousand years of Jewish history, intent upon the practical measures that are requisite to carry their purpose into effect, they learn with surprise and often with incredulity that there are half-a-million people in Palestine, many of whom hold, and hold strongly, very different views.” (20)
Chaim Weizmann Appears on the SceneIn 1914 native Russian and devout Zionist Chaim Weizmann (1874-1952) was 40 years old and a naturalized British citizen. As a result of solving some pressing British munitions problems (he was a chemist) in the early days of World War I, he was able to meet Welshman David Lloyd George (1863-1945), then Minister of Munitions and later to become Prime Minister, who once joked that “acetone converted me to Zionism”. (21) Weizmann made a good impression on Lloyd George who also said, “I am his proselyte…There is no man with a greater part in the conversion of the Gentiles running the war than my friend Dr. Weizmann…[He is] one of the noblest and most unselfish men I have ever met.” (22)More on David Lloyd GeorgeRecall that Lloyd George had first come into contact with Zionism in 1903 when Joseph Chamberlain asked Lloyd George’s law firm to draft up the scheme to sell British land to Jews migrating to East Africa (see above). When Britain declared war on Turkey in November 1914, Lloyd George, who had remained quiet about his opinions on Zionism for a decade, told Herbert Samuel that he was “very keen to see a Jewish State established” in Palestine.” (23) Thus, when Chaim Weizmann entered the picture in 1914, Lloyd George was “predisposed to be receptive”, notes Stein.Lloyd George had mixed feelings about Jews. Occasionally he would make remarks, such as: “There were a good many Jews they could well spare”, while other times he would show sensitivity to the “Jewish mystique”. (24) He admitted once that growing up in Wales he learned more about the history of the Jews in Old Testament readings than he learned about his own people. He loved those stories, including the prophecy about restoring the Jews to the Holy Land. He also related to Jews because, he said, he, too, belonged to a small nation [Wales].Lord Balfour AgainLloyd George became Prime Minister in December 1916 and decided right away to take the risk of a large-scale campaign for the conquest of Palestine, which he confided to a friend was “the one really interesting part of the War.” (25) Meanwhile Arthur Balfour, former Prime Minister (1903-1905), joined the Lloyd George Government as Foreign Secretary at the end of 1916. In 1906, Balfour had actually met Weizmann at a Manchester meeting when the East African project was still roiling. Balfour recalled the meeting vividly. When Weizmann was attempting to connect with Balfour via a mutual friend, Balfour wrote in 1914: “I have the liveliest and also the most pleasant recollections of my conversation with Dr. Weizmann…and should be very pleased to hear from him.” (26)Weizmann wrote to Ha’am (see above) of the meeting with Balfour, as follows:“I saw Balfour on Saturday….Our talk lasted an hour and a half. Balfour remembered everything we had discussed eight years ago, and this made it superfluous for me to repeat my exposition of the Jewish problem in its national aspect…When I expressed my regret that our work [in Palestine] had been interrupted, he said: ‘You may get your things done much more quickly after the war….’…He said that, in his opinion, the [Jewish] problem would not be solved until either the Jews became completely assimilated here or a normal Jewish society came into existence in Palestine, and, moreover, he was thinking more of the West European Jews than of those of Eastern Europe. [Weizmann persuaded Balfour of the need to look at the plight of Eastern European Jews and asked to see Balfour again after the war.]The two subsequently met several times in 1915 and 1916. Weizmann wrote that Balfour said: “Christian civilisation owes to the Jews a debt which it cannot repay.” (27) Balfour hedged on British taking responsibility for Palestine for “she would be suspected of seeking territorial aggrandizement” and favored the United States undertaking the role of protecting the Jews in their development of Palestine, according to Weizmann who felt “ashamed of my niggling mind.” (27)Nevertheless, it turns out that stony Balfour revered Old Testament stories during his youth in Scotland, and, like Lloyd George, had a soft spot for the Jews and their dilemma. After the Balfour Declaration had been announced, Balfour said that both he and Lloyd George “have been influenced by a desire to give the Jews their rightful place in the world; a great nation without a home is not right.” (28)The British Invasion of Palestine in 1917 Just several months after David Lloyd George became Prime Minister in early December 1916, he began pushing the War Cabinet to invade Palestine. British troops had already cleared Egypt of Turks but Lloyd George wanted them to capture Jerusalem and then expel the Turks from Palestine. Stein writes: “So far as Palestine was concerned, it is clear that Lloyd George was influenced by other than purely military considerations. He writes in his “Memoirs” that, when the question of going on with the Palestine campaign was discussed by the War Cabinet on 2 April 1917, ‘we realized the moral and political advantages to be expected from an advance on this Front, and particularly from the occupation of Jerusalem.’” (29) Indeed, the object of the Palestine campaign was not merely to defeat the Turks there but to bring Palestine permanently under British control. (29)At first the War Cabinet wavered about an offensive in Palestine, but eventually moved forward with it, which had the effect of bringing the Zionist question into the foreground. On April 3, 1917, Lloyd George saw Weizmann who was subsequently told to be ready to leave for Egypt within the next ten days by diplomatic advisor Sir Mark Sykes who “showed interest in [Weizmann’s] proposal that a statement of British policy in a pro-Zionist sense should be prepared for publication in Palestine at the first opportune moment.” (30)British War Cabinet Considers a Pro-Zionist Public AnnouncementThe British War Cabinet first began to discuss the advisability of a public pronouncement in favor of a Jewish national home in Palestine in summer 1917. Weizmann on June 13, 1917 wrote to Sir Ronald Graham that “it appears desirable from every point of view that the British Government should give expression to its sympathy and support of the Zionist claims on Palestine. In fact, it need only confirm the view which eminent and representative members of the Government have many times expressed to us, and which have formed the basis of our negotiations throughout the long period of almost three years.” (31)The Foreign Office, led by Lord Balfour, agreed, and on June 13, 1917, suggested that the time had arrived “when we might meet the wishes of the Zionists and give them an assurance that His Majesty’s Government are in general sympathy with their aspirations.” (31) United States President Woodrow Wilson and France did not object. Stein writes that “Weizmann and his colleagues were being encouraged to impress upon the American and Russian Jews that if Great Britain gained control of Palestine, she could be relied upon to favour the building up of a Jewish Commonwealth. They had hinted, or more or less hinted, that they were authorized to give this assurance, but it would be all the more convincing if a friendly interest in Zionism had been openly expressed by the British Government itself. (31) Indeed Weizmann in June persuaded Balfour to receive “a declaration which would be satisfactory to us [Zionists], and which he would try and put before the War Cabinet.” (32)Anti-Zionist Jews Respond BitterlyIt took a while to hammer out the wording of the declaration. Meanwhile, non-Zionist Jews caught wind of the arrangement and complained bitterly. An good example of their sentiment is in the words of Mr. Montagu, as follows: “The Government has dealt an irreparable blow at Jewish Britons and they have endeavored to set up a people which does not exist; they have alarmed unnecessarily the whole Moslem world; and, in so far as they are successful, they will have a Germanised [militaristic] Palestine on the flank. Why we should intern Muhammad Ali in India for Pan-Mohammedanism when we encourage Pan-Judaism I cannot for the life of me understand. It certainly puts the final date to my political activities.” (33) [Bolding by Editor.]http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_re ... BiotID=394
To be honest Topher,I think I should actually sit down and read Reed's book "The Controvesy of Zion" from cover to cover. (since I haven't cough...)
I do hope you have success in fighting off the B'nai Brith of Canada in court, one thing is that if you at least point to one Jewish leader and say "This is the guy that wrote the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and then go on to prove the motivations behind the writing of the Protocols, you might force them into examining the conflicted factions of the early Zionist movement.
Ahad Ha’am (the pen name of Asher Ginsberg, a Jew from Skvira, near Kiev, Ukraine) (1856-1927) (18) warned his fellow Jews about purchasing Arab land in Palestine: He wrote presciently in 1912 the following:“We are in the habit of thinking that all the Arabs are wild men of the desert and do not see or understand what goes on around them. But that is a great mistake. The Arabs, especially the town-dwellers, see and understand what we are doing and what we want in Palestine, but they do not react and pretend not to notice, because at present they do not see in what we are doing any threat to their own future. …But if ever we develop in Palestine to such a degree as to encroach on the living space of the native population to any appreciable extent, they will not easily give up their place.”
Herbert Samuel (1870-1963), a British Jew and member of Parliament, who later became High Commissioner of the British Mandate of Palestine, wrote from Palestine in 1921 the following:“There are those...who sometimes forget or ignore the present inhabitants of Palestine. Inspired by the greatness of their ideals, feeling behind them the pressure of two thousand years of Jewish history, intent upon the practical measures that are requisite to carry their purpose into effect, they learn with surprise and often with incredulity that there are half-a-million people in Palestine, many of whom hold, and hold strongly, very different views.”
The Protocols have been known to be a forgery since 1921, when The Times of London revealed that they had been largely copied from an 1864 political tract by a Frenchman, Maurice Joly. That work was a commentary on French politics and had nothing to do with Jews. Golovinski, working with such mystical anti-modernizers as the Holy Brotherhood, combined Joly's fantasy elements of world domination with earlier anti-Jewish and anti-Masonic material to produce "evidence" of an overarching Jewish-Masonic plot. Late-Imperial Russia was awash in documentary forgeries, domestic spying, and counterspying, with revolutionaries and the Czarist secret police often involved in complex duplicities. Golovinski himself changed sides after the 1917 revolution, becoming a Bolshevik propagandist.
Thursday, April 29, 2010Meet the Forger of "The Protocols of Zion": Mathieu GolovinskiForging ProtocolsCharles Paul FreundFrom the February 2000 issue of ReasonThe last mystery surrounding the infamous anti-Semitic pamphlet Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion--the identity of the 1904 hoax's author--finally has been solved. According to the Russian historian Mikhail Lepekhine, the Protocols were concocted by a Russian propagandist named Mathieu Golovinski as part of a monarchist scheme to persuade Czar Nicholas II that the capitalist modernization of Russia was really a Jewish plot to control the world. Golovinski's handiwork--24 subversive "protocols" that purport to be the minutes of a secret "Zionist" conclave--was to become a bulwark of anti-Semitic paranoia and an essential text of Nazism. The Protocols remain dear to credulous paranoids throughout the world.Historian Lepekhine discovered Golovinski's authorship in Russia's long-closed archives and published his findings last November in the French newsweekly L'Express. Golovinski had been linked to the work before: The German writer Konrad Heiden identified him as an author of the Protocols in 1944.The Protocols have been known to be a forgery since 1921, when The Times of London revealed that they had been largely copied from an 1864 political tract by a Frenchman, Maurice Joly. That work was a commentary on French politics and had nothing to do with Jews. Golovinski, working with such mystical anti-modernizers as the Holy Brotherhood, combined Joly's fantasy elements of world domination with earlier anti-Jewish and anti-Masonic material to produce "evidence" of an overarching Jewish-Masonic plot. Late-Imperial Russia was awash in documentary forgeries, domestic spying, and counterspying, with revolutionaries and the Czarist secret police often involved in complex duplicities. Golovinski himself changed sides after the 1917 revolution, becoming a Bolshevik propagandist.Of course, a parallel universe of Protocol-believers has continued to claim that the Protocols are authentic, and that any evidence to the contrary is the real forgery. The leading proponent of this view was probably Nesta Webster, who wrote prolifically in the 1920s about purported Jewish conspiracies, and whose anti-revolutionary zeal may have stemmed from her belief that she had been guillotined by French revolutionaries in an earlier incarnation.The Protocols remain widely sold in the Middle East, are readily available in Japan, and have lately become quite popular in the Balkans. In the U.S., reprints can be found in many Afrocentric bookstores. The Protocols were reprinted in their entirety in William Cooper's popular 1991 conspiracist work, Behold a Pale Horse, though Cooper instructed readers that "any reference to 'Jews' should be replaced with the word 'Illuminati.'"http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/04 ... -zion.html
"Gold in the hands of experts will always be the most useful weapon for those who possess it and an object of envy for those who are without it. With gold one can buy the most upright consciences. With gold one can fix the value of every stock, or every merchandise, one can loan it to states that afterwards one holds at one's mercy. Already the principal banks, the stock exchanges throughout the world, the loans to all the governments are in our hands. The other great power is the Press by ceaselessly repeating certain ideas the Press in the end makes them considered as true. The theare renders similar services. Everywhere theatre and press follow our directives." "An indefatigable campaign in favour of the democratic form of government will divide the Gentiles amongst themselves in political parties, and we shall thus destroy the unity of their nations. We will sow the seed of discord. Powerless they will have to accept the law of our banks, always united, always devoted to our cause." "We will push the Christians into war by judicious exploitation of their pride. They will massacre each other and thus make more space where we can place our own people. The possession of land has always procured influence and power. In the name of social justice and equality we will divide the great properties. We will give small fragments of these properties to the peasants who desire them with all their heart but who will soon be indebted to us by the very exploitation of these properties. Our capital will enable us to become the real masters. In our turn we shall become the great owners of land and this possession will assure our power." "Let us use all our force to replace the circulation of gold by that of paper. Our banks will absorb the gold and we shall decide then what value the paper money will have. This will make us the masters of every man's existence. We will have amongst ourselves many fine orators capable of feigning enthusiasm and of convincing the masses. We will send them among the nations to announce the changes that will make for the happiness and prosperity of mankind. By gold and by flattery we will win the proloteriat who will take on their shoulders the job of exterminating Christian capitalism. We will promise to the workers salaries that they have never even dared dream of, but we will also heighten the price of all necessities, so much so that our profits will be even greater." "In this manner we will prepare the revolutions that the Christians will conduct themselves and out of which we shall collect the fruits. By our jokes and by our attacks we will render their priests ridiculous and eventually odious. Their religion as ridiculous and as odious as their priests."