by Revilo P. Oliver
YOU WILL BE glad to know that the courageous French periodical, Révision, which I mentioned in June (pp. 52-59), continues publication despite constant harassment (1) by the Jews’ governor of France, Mitterand and his gang. I have received the issue for November 1990.
Révision published in May 1990 an important article on the famous Protocols by the editor, Alain Guionnet. Before I report on it, however, I should summarize what is indisputably known about that document.
In the last days of August 1897 the first Zionist congress met in Basel, Switzerland. It was evidently so successful that in the following week the organizer and chairman of the meeting, Theodore Herzl, in a highly confidential letter, boasted: “In Basel, I founded the Jewish State.” (2) The proceedings of this Congress or such part of them as it was deemed expedient to make public were published in Vienna by a firm called “Erez Israel” under the curious title, Protocols. The word was evidently used with its common meaning: an informal statement of the points which have been agreed on in a conference or diplomatic negotiation and which are to be embodied in a formal treaty between the contracting parties. (3)
(1. One cute trick was to invoke against the magazine the laws against pornography and pretend that truth would corrupt the minds of French moppets. The same excuse was used by the German traitors in Bonn when they first restricted dissemination of Professor Arthur Butz’s fundamental The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and the German translation of it, Der Jahrhundert-Betrug (Richmond, Surrey; Historical Review Press, 1977). These are facts that should be pondered by those who are now clamoring for foolish laws against pornography.)
(2. “In Basel habe ich den Judenstaat gegrundet.”)
(3. The word originally designated a strip of parchment that was glued to the first page of a manuscript or, if it had been bound, its cover, listing its contents. From this was derived the Table of Contents of modern books. The term was also used in diplomacy (a) to list and limit the subjects that were to be discussed in a conference, and (b) to formulate the diplomatic etiquette to which ambassadors and other diplomatic representatives were expected to conform. The word is sometimes used to designate what is to be taken for granted in a written discussion or in a meeting (e.g., in this country, Robert’s Rules of Order), whence the peculiar American use of the term in the south-western states, where, in abstracts of title under the American government, the protocol is the original grant of land to an individual by the Spanish Crown, which is thereby recognized as the basis from which the legal title is derived.)
Sometime after the Congress and before 1901 at the latest, through channels that are variously described, (4) a manuscript reached Russia and was said to be the secret part of the Protocols of the Congress at Basel. The manuscript may or may not have borne the title, Protocoles des sages de Sion, by which it became subsequently known. It was written in French, purportedly the language of the original.
The document is no longer available. It and all copies of it were probably destroyed when a Jew, whose real name may have been Adler (depending on whether or not his mother had been legally married to his father) but who disguised himself by taking the name of the stupid Russian who had married his mother, Kerensky (5), wormed his way into the position of Prime Minister in 1917 to prepare the way for the Bolsheviks under Lenin. He immediately used the powers of the Russian government to silence opponents of his predatory race and suppress whatever documentation they possessed. He is known to have destroyed all copies of the book by Nilus, which will be mentioned below.
It is significant that the document was in French. That creates a certain presumption of authenticity, for all of the leaders of Zionism, Herzl, Wolfsohn, Kellner, Weizmann, et al., all wrote and spoke German for serious communication (6), and the Zionist periodical, Die Welt (a title which foreshadows a determination to occupy the whole world, not merely a small part of Asia Minor), was published in German in Vienna. Anyone undertaking to forge such a document (e.g., the Russian Secret Police) would naturally have produced it in German, rather than use an unlikely language, French, which would immediately raise questions about a document attributed to persons who normally and almost exclusively wrote in German. (Modern Hebrew, which is now used, in addition to English and Rumanian, by many Jews in Israel, was not invented until later. It is more commonly written than spoken.)
(4. The most common and plausible account is that given on pp. 100-102 of the larger of the two English editions I shall cite below. There are many variants, some probably arising from the habitual practice of intelligence agencies to conceal their sources. Some may have been devised to discredit the revelation of Jewish strategy. That must account for the wild story that the text was found, and translated from, a parchment written in Hebrew (a mistake for the Rabbinical dialect of Aramaic?), found in a library in southern Russia — unless the story arose from a confused recollection of a letter written by the Prince of the Jews to rabbis in Spain in 1489, which I shall mention shortly. Such a letter, written to Jews in the Ukraine, might well have been in Rabbinic.)
(5. The Jews have attained such effective control of even responsible publications that, for example, two of our most common reference works, Webster’s Biographical Dictionary and the Columbia Encyclopaedia lie to their readers and call “Kerensky” a Russian.)
(6. Yiddish, which is a dialect of German corrupted with words and expressions taken from the dialect of Aramaic current among Jews in the Middle Ages and perhaps from Hebrew, is too crude a language to be used in discussion of topics requiring philosophical and intellectual terms. Educated Jews naturally used German in writing on such subjects and even in their diaries and personal letters about trivial matters. See, for example, Herzl’s Tagebucher (3 vols., Berlin, Jüdischer Verlag, 1922-1923).)
The French text was translated into Russian, perhaps by Mlle. Justine Glinka, who is said to have purchased the French text from a Jew and transmitted it to General Orgevskii in the Czar’s Ministry of the Interior, reportedly in 1885 (obviously long before Herzl convened his Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897!). The French text may or may not have been the text of secret proceedings at that Congress which is said to have been obtained for the Russian Secret Police by Eno Azev, a rabbi who had defected from his race and eventually became a Christian monk in a monastery in Serbia, were he is said to have vigorously insisted that he knew that the Protocols were genuine and gave only an outline of the world conquest that Jewry was systematically carrying out. That text, in an unspecified language, was presumably translated into Russian by Eno Azev or another. I have no information that would enable me to discriminate between the two original versions of the Protocols, assuming that there were two.
A Russian translation of the French Protocols, presumably Mlle. Glinka’s, was given by her to a Russian nobleman, Sukhotin, in 1895 (note date) and privately published by one of his friends at Orel in 1897. No copy of this anonymous publication is known to exist, but the fact of publication was attested by the amateur publisher, who escaped from the Judaeo-Bolshevik seizure of Russia and executed an affidavit to that effect. This is the Russian version that Professor Sergius A. Nilus inserted in his book of Jewish influences, published in 1901. Professor Nilus again published this translation in 1905, and he or someone else sent a copy of this second edition to the British Museum, where it was received and catalogued in 1906.
Nilus’s text was translated into English by Victor E. Marsden, who had been the representative of the Morning Post (London) in St. Petersburg, and who escaped from the doomed land only with great difficulty after torture by the enemies of mankind. (7)
Marsden’s English translation was first published in London in 1920 under the title, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. This text has been reprinted many times.
A copy of Nilus’s book also reached Germany and the text was translated into German by Gottfried zum Beek, if am correctly informed, and published under the title, Die Geheimnisse der Weisen von Zion, in 1919. The Protocols have been translated into many languages, including Japanese, and some years ago I was sent a copy in Turkish. I assume that most or all of the translations into other languages, with the possible exception of the French, were translated from either Marsden’s English or Herr zum Beek’s German.
(7. It seems that he had prudently sent his Russian wife to England before the Jews took control of Russia, while he remained, hoping, perhaps, that the Bolsheviks would have some wish to imitate the behavior of civilized nations to foreign visitors.)
Two English reprints of Marsden’s text are available from Liberty Bell Publications, viz.: (a) a booklet of 72 pages, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, containing only the text without commentary and a few pages of excerpts from other Jewish manifestos of similar purport; (b) A book of three hundred pages, The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion, with preface and explanatory notes. This edition, first published in 1934, is much later than the booklet and contains a wealth of material illustrative of the application of the Yids’ strategy and tactics to the date of publication. Everyone who is interested in the possible survival of our race or even is his own chances of dying a natural death should have a copy of the Protocols at hand for reference, and this is the edition which I now recommend — unless you read Spanish with ease.
I owe to a generous reader of this magazine a copy of what is by far the best edition of the Protocols known to me: Los Protocolos de los Sabios de Sion, 1898-1990, commentados por Joaquim Bochaca Oriol (Bogota, Columbia; Editorial Solar, 1990). The text was probably translated from Marsden’s English, but Senor Bochaca, in his commentary after each paragraph, has abundantly and cogently illustrated the operation of the Jewish strategy during the past ninety-two years, and has considered (pp. 511-521) even the now fashionable comedy of ‘perestroika’ and ‘glasnost’ with which Gorbachev and Bush entertain “conservative” children and excite frenzied applause from simple-mined “intellectuals,” with, of course, the cooperation of all the jewspapers and boob-tubes. This vaudeville act, which has inspired some intellectual mammothrepts to assure us, for the nth time, that the Sheenies have lost control of Russia, is simply a phase in the gradual consolidation of the two principal techniques of subversion, communism and capitalism, in preparation for the New World Order clearly planned in the Protocols, to establish which our War Lord proposes to use our weapons to blast the whole world into bloody and “peace-loving” submission to our enemies.
Señor Bochaca has added an excellent preface in which he frankly confronts the obvious problem: Are the Jews, who have devised and so successfully applied the methods described in the Protocols, a race so mentally and socially superior to our own that we Aryans, despite all the courage and all the scientific prowess of which we gave abundant proof in past centuries, will necessarily undergo the fate of all inferior species in the struggle for life that is the only law of the planet on which we live? If that is so, then we, as Aryans, may regret and deplore our irremediable inferiority, but, as members of the only race capable of philosophical objectivity, we may also not only recognize the inevitable but even approve it as probably a stage in the eventual progress of our planet to the Jews’ Biblical ideal of a “desolation of desolations,” such as we now find on all the other planets of our solar system. I commend Señor Bochaca’s thoughtful discussion to you with the hope that the exiguous grounds for hope that he gives us may prove to be substantial.
Ever since the first publication of the Protocols in a European language, the Sheenies have been yelping that they are a “forgery,” i.e., not actually composed by Jews. That contention, of course, is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant. If we are given a map that purports to be taken from the London Times‘ great atlas, whereas it was compiled by someone else and is thus a forgery, all that will really matter to us is whether or not the map is accurate.
Whoever wrote the Protocols produced a minutely accurate description of the Jews’ conquest of the world by deceit. A cogent argument in favor of their authenticity is the obvious fact that they show an attitude towards goyim that is precisely that of the Babylonian Talmud and the authoritative epitome of it, Caro’s Shulhan ’Aruk, Jewish scriptures of which no one can dispute the authenticity. (8)
That contemptuous hatred of goyim appears in many other Jewish compositions, not all of which, surely, can be dismissed as forgeries by nasty Aryan pigs.
The Jewish plan of world conquest by economic looting and by using hirelings and dupes to befuddle Aryans is certainly not an invention of wicked “anti-Semites” in the nineteenth century. It has been attested long before that; for example, in a letter of instructions written by the Prince of the Jews, who than resided in Constantinople, to the Jews in Spain in 1498, when there was already prevalent the popular sentiment that resulted in the expulsion of “unconverted” Jews by Ferdinand and Isabella four years later, in the year of Columbus’s fateful rediscovery of the Western Hemisphere.
A facsimile of what is probably the first printing of this letter, in a book published in Spain in 1608, will be found following page 98 in the edition of the English Protocols that I recommended above. The letter is in Spanish, as is natural, since the Jews of the Mediterranean lands all spoke Ladino, a Jewish dialect of Spanish, just as Yiddish is a Jewish deformation of German, while educated members of the international tribe used Spanish for serious writing. (9)
The letter, as I have said, anticipates the essentials of the Protocols and attests the vampire races’s determination to exploit and ultimately destroy the hated goyim. The Sheenies will wail, of course, that there is no proof that their Prince actually wrote that letter in 1498, but that is irrelevant, because the orders given in the letter, whoever wrote it, were in fact followed by the Yids in Spain at that time.
The Prince, for example, orders his subjects in Spain to feign conversion to the religion of the stupid Aryans, and then slither upward into positions of power in both church and state so that they can dominate Spain and drive it to destruction. That is precisely what most of them did.
The majority of the Jews in Spain obeyed their Prince’s command and masqueraded as converts to Christianity. That is made absolutely certain by the fact that in one typical small town, Borja, almost all of the c. 300 Jews infesting it professed the religion of their hated Spanish hosts to avoid emigration; see Miguel A. Motis Dolader, Los Judios de Borja en el siglo XV (Borja, Centro de Estudios Borjanos, 1987), based on the municipal records. One nice detail is the conduct of some of the Yids: They apparently intended to emigrate, sold their property to Christians, and left the town, but, probably on the advice of their superiors, changed their minds, had themselves sprinkled with the Christian’s magic water, and returned to Borja to reclaim their property.
Yahweh’s race, from their first appearance in history, perpetually snivel about the “persecution” they have suffered (and richly deserved) in every civilized nation into which they have penetrated, but the next time you hear them wailing about the cruel “expulsion of Jews” from Spain in 1492, just remember that (a) it was the expulsion of c. 5% of the Jews who then infested Spain, (b) the five per cent. went to Holland (where, by the way, they continued to speak and write Spanish among themselves) and became suddenly wealthy; and in the next century Holland, having become Protestant, revolted against the Hapsburg monarchy in a civil war that bled Spain for a century, and (c) the 95% who remained in Spain so successfully masqueraded as Christians that we need not wonder why Spain, after becoming the richest nation in Europe and the dominant world power, lapsed into the irremediable economic, moral, and intellectual decadence that was most perceptively and bitterly described by the great Spanish satirist and moralist, Francisco Quevedo.
Quevedo, who, by the way, was a close and loyal friend of the great Jesuit, Juan de Mariana, the most learned Spaniard of his time, (10) understood what had been done to his nation. In the “Isla de los Monopantos,” the thirty-ninth and penultimate chapter of his Hora de todos (not later than 1636), (11) Quevedo describes the looting and corruption of Spain by an alliance of Jews and financiers, and attributes to the Jews precisely the purposes set forth in the Protocols.
In the transparent fiction of the “Isla de los Monopantos,” Quevedo first describes a Congress of leading rabbis from all parts of Europe, who have met in Salonica (then Turkish territory) to plot further means of destroying European civilization. The rabbis were evidently the leaders of Jewry in their respective countries at that time, and Quevedo gives them names that are anagrams of their real names or significant references to them. (12) To the Jewish Congress come the Monopantos, who are the international sect (Quevedo’s term) of governmental ministers and financiers who dominate all the nations of Europe and are in fact the masters of the kings in whose names they rule. The Spaniards among them are designated by anagrammatic names of transparent allusions. (13)
The governmental financiers and thieves are an international sect because they have rejected Christianity and become atheists after the example of Machiavelli (Quevedo was a staunch Christian), (14) and their purpose is to rob their subjects and reduce them to penury and hence slavery. Their purposes are thus sufficiently close to those of the Jews to permit the two groups to conspire together against civilization. Each party mistrusts the other, of course, but the Jews intend to use the financiers for their own ends and then betray them, while the atheistic politicians, better called Argyrotheists because their god is money, intend to use and betray the Jews in the same way. (15)
One could compile a very long list of sagacious Aryans who have perceived and identified some of the Jews’ operations against our race and culture, and a very short list of Jews who have defected from their race and exposed, at least in part, its hatred of us, but well-trained Americans will shudder at the thought that there could be persons so evil that they do not adore the innocent darlings of God’s race, who are so vilely persecuted just because they are incapable of wrong-doing.
If one examines the Protocols, which obviously must have been written before 1901, one finds a detailed exposition of events that have taken place long after that date. The plans for looting a nation through a central bank, for example, are almost a blueprint for the Federal Reserve, which was devised by the Jew, Warburg, who conspired with greedy financiers of our own race to grab control of our currency in 1913. Consider the plans for an “international Super-Government” and compare them with the “New World Order” that Bushy is creating by making the “United Nations” the arbiters of peace and war and of our daily life. And who could have imagined in 1901 that a nation would ever fight a war without intending to win it, as the American cattle have done in Korea and Vietnam?
I shall not argue that the Protocols were an authentic map of what was in the future when they were written. Read them and judge for yourselves. (16)
(8. For a convenient conspectus of some characteristic passages in the Talmud, see the Christian News Encyclopaedia, which I cited in Liberty Bell, November 1989, pp. 1-7. It reproduces those passages photographically from the Jews’ official English translation. So far as I know, there is no English translation of the epitome, but it was translated into German by Dietrich Hoffmann, Der Schulchan Aruch (Berlin, 1895).)
(9. It is curious and perhaps significant that the version of this letter published in the Rothschild’s Revue des études juives (of which an English translation appears on p. 7 of the shorter edition of the English Protocols) oddly and implausibly substitutes the King of France for the “Rey de España” of the original. There was an obvious reason why the Prince should give sage instructions to his subjects in Spain in 1498, but he had no reason to advise the Jews who were battening on the French in that year.)
(10. Mariana, the son of a ranking ecclesiastic by his concubine, is best known for the stylistic brilliance of his Historiae de rebus Hispaniae libri (first edition, Toleti [= Toledo], 1592; augmented edition, Moguntiae [= Mainz], 1605; reprinted with supplement, Hagae Comitum [= The Hague], 1733). His essay, “De monetae mutatione,” one of his Tractatus VII (Coloniae Agrippinae [= Cologne], 1609) may have been the first treatise on economics to expose the irremediable defect of fiduciary currency: It inevitably leads governments to swindling their citizens (as, of course, it has done in the United States). It earned him the hatred of the Spanish Prime Minister and the bureaucratic gang. Mariana’s sound views on education (as distinct form brainwashing), as set forth in his Discursus de erroribus Societatis Jesu (placed on the Catholic Church’s roster of forbidden books in 1627; I do not know of a trustworthy translation) earned him the hostility of his own order, which therefore did nothing to obtain his release when the Dominicans, with the cordial assent of the Spanish government, threw him into the dungeons of the Inquisition and then into a monastic prison, in which he suffered and languished until he was released, a broken old man of 75. He received the usual reward of intelligence that is not inspired by knavery.)
(11. It is likely that this, like many of Quevedo’s other works, circulated in manuscript for years before his final revision of it was printed.)
(12. Luis Astrana Marin, in his thorough study of the works he edited, says that the names of the Jews are “imposible hoy de descifrar,” but if there is a goy who has made a study of the intrigues of Sixteenth-Century Jews, I wish he would try to identify some of the rabbis who could have written their own set of “protocols” at Salonica.)
(13. E.g., Pragas Chincollos = Gaspar de Guzman, Conde-Duque de Olivares, one of whose territorial titles was Zuniga y Conchillos. Then Prime Minister, he was believed to be at least partly of Jewish descent and is know to have favored many Marranos. Philargyros (‘lover of money’) is obviously Guzman’s henchman, Juan Bautista Saenz. Danipe = Juan de Pineda. Etc.)
(14. Quevedo’s philosophical premises were fairly close to those of the famous Bishop Berkeley, and on this basis he refused to doubt Christianity as taught by the Catholic Church, and saw in application of it the only means of maintaining collective and individual morality. His political opinions were formed by Roman history; see his essay on Marcus Brutus, which takes the form of a commentary on the biography by Plutarch (it was written in Spanish, but a Latin translation, published in 1660, was widely circulated in Europe); it to some extent supersedes his earlier Politica de Dios. The greater part of his numerous writings consists of mordent satires directed against the moral corruption of all ranks of Spanish society in his time.)
(15. It is a curious coincidence that Quevedo satirically predicts a rupture of the criminal alliance, as was recently done by Hans Schmidt in the December issue of his GANPAC Brief, in which he advances a theory that Bush’s invasion of Saudi Arabia and projected attack on Iraq is in the interests of the “Trilateral” financiers and adverse to the interests of the Sheenies, with whom they were formerly allied, so that “the Jews have been had.” Whether Schmidt is right will doubtless become apparent early in 1991.)
(16. There is only one passage which may arouse misgivings. It is the statement in Protocol 2, “Think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzsche-ism. To us Jews, at any rate, it should be plain to see what a disintegrating importance these directives have had upon the minds of the goyim.” This may seem like Christian propaganda, such as a “fundamentalist” holy man might have inserted in a forged document. The English is somewhat awkward — remember that you are reading a translation of a Russian translation from the French — and you should not take ‘directives’ literally. There is no implication that our enemies invented or inspired the doctrines of Darwin or Nietzsche, and it is quite true that those doctrines, intellectually sound as they are, did serve to increase the disruption of a society that had befuddled itself with Christian superstitions. The Jews, you must remember, are not in the least interested in the truth or falsity of ideas, only in their potentiality for use as weapons to destroy us. There is a highly significant declaration in Protocol 5: “Nowadays it is more important… to catch up and interpret the ideas of others than to eradicate them.” You should ponder that statement, especially if you share my dismay at the present state of scientific knowledge and research.)
Having thus summarized, I hope adequately, the problem of the Protocols as I understood it, I come to the two important amendments made by Révision.
First and most significant is the finding that there were two independent Russian translations of the Protocols, the one published by Nilus and another, differing in some particulars, published by a man named Boutmi in 1905. (17) It is the latter form which was made the French translation published by Révision: Protocols des sages de Sion (1989).
It is obviously of the utmost importance to collate the two versions, and I confess with embarrassment that I have not done so. A letter to the French periodical either miscarried or was intercepted by the Jews’ government of France. I shall continue to seek a copy of the translation from Boutmi’s translation, and, if I succeed, I will collate it with Marsden’s version and report on the result. In the meantime, I thought it much more important to call attention to the existence of two Russian translations of the same text.
Second, M. Guionnet discounts all reports about the existence of a text of the Protocols before 1897, including, of course, the accepted story about Mlle. Glinka I mentioned above (unless the dates given in that story are erroneous). He further proposes that the French original was the manuscript or a stenographic record of a discourse, delivered in sections on 30 August 1897 and the following day by Theodor Herzl, who simply explained to the other Zionists what they would have to do. He spoke in French because during the four years he spent in France he had come to do his political thinking in that language, (18) and perhaps also because he wished to be understood only by the minority of Zionists who were competent in French but would explain his discourse to the others. That is what happened, according to an author whose identity is prudently concealed under the pseudonym, l’Aigle Noir, and who claims to have been present at the Congress in 1897 and, one assumes, must therefore have been a Jew. (19)
(18. “Le fait qu’il ait recu sa véritable formation politique en France a du l’influencer dans son choix [de langue].”)
(19. L’Aigle Noir is quoted from an unspecified source as having written that when Herzl “commenca à donner ses directive,” he spoke slowly and with attention to each word. “Dans l’auditoire nombre de congressistes ne comprenaient que des bribes des phrases qu’il prononcait. Mais it leur suffisait d’attendre pour avoir les explications nécessaires de leurs coreligionnaires qui parlait francais, à l’occasion des nombreuses pauses qui eurent lieu durant ces deux jours pendant lesquels fut prononcé le discours aujourd’hui connu sous le nom de Protocole [sic] des sages de Sion.”)
This account does not really exclude the possibility, which may have occurred to you, that Herzl, instead of reading a discourse of his own composition, read one naturally composed in French by Issac Moïse, alias Adolph Crémieux, who held high office in several French governments, and who founded in 1860 the Alliance Israelite Universelle with a programme of achieving eventual world dominion, or by his successor, Narcisse (!) Leven, who succeeded him in 1880. In that event, Herzl’s discourse “tait bien celui d’un autocrate” because he was speaking, not in his own name, but in the name of a Jewish monarch whose orders had been transmitted though “Crémieux.”
In any event, you will have seen immediately the drastic implication of the claim that the Protocols are the text of Herzl’s discourse in Basel. The Protocols obviously contemplate the conquest and ruin of the whole world, not the occupation of a shabby piece of unattractive territory in Asia Minor. That means that Zionism is itself just a gigantic hoax, like the “Holocaust,” devised to cover and facilitate policies designed to liquidate our race and annihilate the civilization it created.
Forward, to the abyss!