info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were Plagiarized !!!
23 views
Skip to first unread message
Henosis Sage
Jan 21, 2024, 2:24:43 AMJan 21
to
"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" were Plagiarized!
Most of the core text and ideas had been copied, taken, lifted, ripped off from a book published in 1864 and 1868, a fictional work called "Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu" by Maurice Joly.
The source for what follows is from this archive document url
https://web.archive.org/web/20060113121421/http://www.h-net.org/~antis/doc/graves/graves.a.html
Doc Includes 6 pages - next page links at bottom right of each page from page 0
About The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Introduction
by Gordon Fisher
The document known in English as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is, to many people, obviously a clumsy piece of false antisemitic propaganda.
Nevertheless, there have been and still are others who have taken and take the work to be a kind of revelation of the truth about a conspiracy of a small number of Jewish leaders to gain political control of the whole world.
The Protocols seem to have been first made available to a wide public in Russia in book form in 1905, in a Russian version. However, there was a somewhat truncated version published in a St. Petersburg (Russia) newspaper Znamya (The Banner) in 1903. Norman Cohn says (Warrant for Genocide, 1966-7, p 65-66): "Znamya was edited by P. A. Krushevan, the noted and militant antisemite. [...]
The first version in book form appeared as an appendix in the third edition, in 1905, of a book called (in Russian) "The Great in the Small: Antichrist" considered as an imminent political possibility, by a Russian mystic named Sergei Nilus. The original manuscript, which has never been discovered, may well have been written in French (cf. Cohn, p 69) and translated into Russian.
Cohn says (p 67) "It was Nilus's version, not Butmi's, that was to become a force in world history. That did not even begin to happen in 1905 . . . It happened only when the book reappeared, somewhat revised and enlarged, under the title [in Russian] He is Near, At the Door . . . Here comes Antichrist and the reign of the Devil on earth. And it happened because of the moment: 1917."
Some say widespread attention to the Protocols began a little later, in 1918, after the defeat of Germany in World War I (cf. Herman Bernstein, The Truth About "The Protocols of Zion", 1935, p 50, quoting Count du Chayla, who knew Nilus personally).
In 1921, The Times of London published three articles written by the newspaper's Constantinople (now Istanbul) correspondent, Philip Graves, which showed that the Protocols had been extensively plagiarized from a book by a French lawyer and writer named Maurice Joly.
The book by Joly was called (in French) "Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu." It was published in Brussels (Belgium) in 1864 (with a Geneva imprint, although the edition I have seen is dated 1868 and has a Brussels imprint). Cohn notes (p 74-5): "In all, over 160 passages in the Protocols, totaling two-fifths of the entire text, are clearly based on passages in Joly; in nine of the chapters the borrowings amount to more than half the text, in some they amount to three-quarters, in one (Protocol VII) to almost the entire text. This should be enough to demonstrate that plagiarism occurred. [...]
There is one very notable difference between the Protocols as put forth by Nilus and the Dialogues as put forth by Joly. In the Dialogues there is no mention of Jews. These Dialogues were a political satire directed at the government of Napoleon III in France, during the Second Empire. Joly was given 15 months in prison by this government for his satirical effort. The author or authors of the Protocols, so far as they were plagiarized from the Dialogues, substituted Jews where Joly had (non-Jewish) members of the government of Napoleon III. [...]
The origins of the basic ideas of the Protocols can be traced back much further than the work of Joly. To examine this tangled skein, one can examine the following works:
Herman Bernstein, The Truth About "The Protocols of Zion," 1935
Norman Cohn, Warrant for Genocide, 1966-67
Goran Larsson, Fact or Fraud? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 1994
(a Christian point of view)
Richard S. Levy, A Lie and A Libel, 1995, which contains a translation of:
Binjamin Segel, Welt-Krieg,Weltverschwörung, Weltoberregierung, 1926
Web sites: (as of Jan 2000)
Abdul Hadi Palazzi, "Antizionism and Antisemitism in the
Contemporary Islamic Milieu"
https://web.archive.org/web/20060113121421/http://www.ummah.net/islamic_institute/racism.html
Leon Zeldis, FPS, 33º "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
Anti-Masonry and Anti-Semitism"
https://web.archive.org/web/20060113121421/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/9991/protocols.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key passages from this archived internet article include:
The original manuscript, which has never been discovered, may well have been written in French (cf. Cohn, p 69)
Cohn notes (p 74-5): "In all, over 160 passages in the Protocols, totaling two-fifths of the entire text, are clearly based on passages in Joly; in nine of the chapters the borrowings amount to more than half the text, in some they amount to three-quarters, in one (Protocol VII) to almost the entire text. This should be enough to demonstrate that plagiarism occurred."
The author or authors of the Protocols, so far as they were plagiarized from the Dialogues, substituted Jews where Joly had (non-Jewish) members of the government of Napoleon III.
This is a favorite tactic of many of those whose believe in the authenticity of the Protocols. They argue on the basis of documents that might have existed, and actions that could have taken place, even though no evidence whatsoever is available that they existed or took place.
... practically certain that the Protocols were fabricated some time between 1894 and 1899
... good grounds for concluding that forgery of the Protocols
... the work is a forgery as well as a plagiarism.
... The 'Protocols' were concocted .... to influence and inflame a feeble-minded person
... obviously a clumsy piece of false antisemitic propaganda
... a clumsy plagiarism.
The original exposure of the plagiarism involved in the Protocols was made by Philip Graves in three articles published in 1921.
[The "Protocols"] authenticity has been frequently attacked and many arguments have been adduced for the theory that they are a forgery.
Shortly after [the Dialogues] publication [1865], Maurice Joly, a Paris lawyer and publicist, was arrested by the police of Napoleon III. and sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.
"... and you will find irrefutable proof that the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Sion' is a plagiarism."
Mr. X. believes it must be rare, since, had it not been so, the "Protocols" would have speedily been recognized as a plagiarism by anyone who had read the original.
That the latter is a "fake" could not be maintained for an instant by anyone who had seen it.
... soon realized that the "Protocols" were to a very large extent as much a paraphrase of the Geneva original ...
The "Protocols" follow almost the same order as the Dialogues. Dialogues 1-17 generally correspond with "Protocols" 1-19.
There are scores of other parallels between the books. Fully 50 paragraphs of passages in the Protocols are simply paraphrases of passages in the Dialogues.
Example:
Geneva Dialogues, p. 141:---
"Like the God Vishnu, my press will have a hundred arms, and these arms will give their hands to all the different shades of opinion throughout the country."
Protocols, p. 43:--
"These newspapers, like the Indian god Vishnu, will be possessed of hundreds of hands, each of which will be feeling the pulse of varying public opinion."
Example:
... "for the least of which they would have beheaded twenty constitutional kings."
... "for the smallest of which they would have murdered twenty kings."
Such are Professor Nilus's rather contradictory accounts of the origin of the Protocols. Not a very convincing story!
... rather, they have done harm by persuading all sorts of mostly well-to-do people that every recent manifestation of discontent on the part of the poor is an unnatural phenomenon, a factitious agitation caused by a secret society of Jews.
The author of the "protocols" simply copied from the "Dialogues" a number of passages in which MACHIAVELLI is made to enunciate the doctrines and tactics of despotism as they were at that time practiced by NAPOLEON, and put them into the mouth of an imaginary Jewish Elder.
At any rate, the fact of the plagiarism has now been conclusively established, and the legend may be allowed to pass into oblivion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN SAYS:
Unfortunately being forgotten never happens. Because there will always be people who insist on continuing to Believe what they have from reading the material originally. Whether that is The Protocols or a new age Religion or some modern day news media hack, it makes no difference.
The other thing that makes no difference? No amount of evidence provided can convince some people otherwise. It's linked in with psychological problems such as Cognitive Dissonance - the desire to continue to believe outweighs all other knowledge and motivations.
So, don't push it, because it soon becomes like arguing with a drunk on the street. :-)
URL
https://web.archive.org/web/20060113121421/http://www.h-net.org/~antis/doc/graves/graves.a.html
It covers 6 webpages of info. It is true in my experience that proven examples of Plagiarism typically follow a number of patterns and similarities in both the style of the texts, the kind of transposing/editing they apply, and the behaviour of the perpetrator in how they assemble the material. All of which shows up in this reference provided by Gerry here.
When I first read, and reread the Protocols it was clear to me they were a fraud at face value. I can't recall now exactly why or what stood out, but none of the material made any rational sense to me they were what they presented themselves as being. It ideas and statements simply did not add up rationally, and importantly the text itself did not "follow" logically or coherently as if by the same author. I immediately smelled a Rat.
But I did NOT think of plagiarism at the time. And never researched the issue. I simply never believed the Protocols were legitimate, because at face value they made no rational sense to me.
These patterns showing Plagiarism I learnt about much later. They arise in all past known examples and the present in the news media today. Because it is shown (in this record) that everything is not taken from 'The Dialogues' I suggest the rest would have been Plagiarized / Lifted from several other existing works yet to be determined.
The entire Protocols would have been copied from several other works, combined and edited to fit the desired 'narrative'.
A Plagiarizer does not write their own material and then insert copied material to fit. They simply cannot do that. It is far too hard. A Plagiarizer does not start with a blank sheet of paper. A Plagiarizer always starts with "the borrowed material" and then they cut and paste it in the same order (here and there) and only then do they EDIT into a readable tome until it flows and says what they wanted to say.
So there ya go ... make of that what you will, but I highly recommend looking at the accumulated facts shown in all this prior material.
Most of the core text and ideas had been copied, taken, lifted, ripped off from a book published in 1864 and 1868, a fictional work called "Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu" by Maurice Joly.
The source for what follows is from this archive document url
https://web.archive.org/web/20060113121421/http://www.h-net.org/~antis/doc/graves/graves.a.html
Doc Includes 6 pages - next page links at bottom right of each page from page 0
About The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Introduction
by Gordon Fisher
The document known in English as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is, to many people, obviously a clumsy piece of false antisemitic propaganda.
Nevertheless, there have been and still are others who have taken and take the work to be a kind of revelation of the truth about a conspiracy of a small number of Jewish leaders to gain political control of the whole world.
The Protocols seem to have been first made available to a wide public in Russia in book form in 1905, in a Russian version. However, there was a somewhat truncated version published in a St. Petersburg (Russia) newspaper Znamya (The Banner) in 1903. Norman Cohn says (Warrant for Genocide, 1966-7, p 65-66): "Znamya was edited by P. A. Krushevan, the noted and militant antisemite. [...]
The first version in book form appeared as an appendix in the third edition, in 1905, of a book called (in Russian) "The Great in the Small: Antichrist" considered as an imminent political possibility, by a Russian mystic named Sergei Nilus. The original manuscript, which has never been discovered, may well have been written in French (cf. Cohn, p 69) and translated into Russian.
Cohn says (p 67) "It was Nilus's version, not Butmi's, that was to become a force in world history. That did not even begin to happen in 1905 . . . It happened only when the book reappeared, somewhat revised and enlarged, under the title [in Russian] He is Near, At the Door . . . Here comes Antichrist and the reign of the Devil on earth. And it happened because of the moment: 1917."
Some say widespread attention to the Protocols began a little later, in 1918, after the defeat of Germany in World War I (cf. Herman Bernstein, The Truth About "The Protocols of Zion", 1935, p 50, quoting Count du Chayla, who knew Nilus personally).
In 1921, The Times of London published three articles written by the newspaper's Constantinople (now Istanbul) correspondent, Philip Graves, which showed that the Protocols had been extensively plagiarized from a book by a French lawyer and writer named Maurice Joly.
The book by Joly was called (in French) "Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu." It was published in Brussels (Belgium) in 1864 (with a Geneva imprint, although the edition I have seen is dated 1868 and has a Brussels imprint). Cohn notes (p 74-5): "In all, over 160 passages in the Protocols, totaling two-fifths of the entire text, are clearly based on passages in Joly; in nine of the chapters the borrowings amount to more than half the text, in some they amount to three-quarters, in one (Protocol VII) to almost the entire text. This should be enough to demonstrate that plagiarism occurred. [...]
There is one very notable difference between the Protocols as put forth by Nilus and the Dialogues as put forth by Joly. In the Dialogues there is no mention of Jews. These Dialogues were a political satire directed at the government of Napoleon III in France, during the Second Empire. Joly was given 15 months in prison by this government for his satirical effort. The author or authors of the Protocols, so far as they were plagiarized from the Dialogues, substituted Jews where Joly had (non-Jewish) members of the government of Napoleon III. [...]
The origins of the basic ideas of the Protocols can be traced back much further than the work of Joly. To examine this tangled skein, one can examine the following works:
Herman Bernstein, The Truth About "The Protocols of Zion," 1935
Norman Cohn, Warrant for Genocide, 1966-67
Goran Larsson, Fact or Fraud? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 1994
(a Christian point of view)
Richard S. Levy, A Lie and A Libel, 1995, which contains a translation of:
Binjamin Segel, Welt-Krieg,Weltverschwörung, Weltoberregierung, 1926
Web sites: (as of Jan 2000)
Abdul Hadi Palazzi, "Antizionism and Antisemitism in the
Contemporary Islamic Milieu"
https://web.archive.org/web/20060113121421/http://www.ummah.net/islamic_institute/racism.html
Leon Zeldis, FPS, 33º "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion:
Anti-Masonry and Anti-Semitism"
https://web.archive.org/web/20060113121421/http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/9991/protocols.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key passages from this archived internet article include:
The original manuscript, which has never been discovered, may well have been written in French (cf. Cohn, p 69)
Cohn notes (p 74-5): "In all, over 160 passages in the Protocols, totaling two-fifths of the entire text, are clearly based on passages in Joly; in nine of the chapters the borrowings amount to more than half the text, in some they amount to three-quarters, in one (Protocol VII) to almost the entire text. This should be enough to demonstrate that plagiarism occurred."
The author or authors of the Protocols, so far as they were plagiarized from the Dialogues, substituted Jews where Joly had (non-Jewish) members of the government of Napoleon III.
This is a favorite tactic of many of those whose believe in the authenticity of the Protocols. They argue on the basis of documents that might have existed, and actions that could have taken place, even though no evidence whatsoever is available that they existed or took place.
... practically certain that the Protocols were fabricated some time between 1894 and 1899
... good grounds for concluding that forgery of the Protocols
... the work is a forgery as well as a plagiarism.
... The 'Protocols' were concocted .... to influence and inflame a feeble-minded person
... obviously a clumsy piece of false antisemitic propaganda
... a clumsy plagiarism.
The original exposure of the plagiarism involved in the Protocols was made by Philip Graves in three articles published in 1921.
[The "Protocols"] authenticity has been frequently attacked and many arguments have been adduced for the theory that they are a forgery.
Shortly after [the Dialogues] publication [1865], Maurice Joly, a Paris lawyer and publicist, was arrested by the police of Napoleon III. and sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment.
"... and you will find irrefutable proof that the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Sion' is a plagiarism."
Mr. X. believes it must be rare, since, had it not been so, the "Protocols" would have speedily been recognized as a plagiarism by anyone who had read the original.
That the latter is a "fake" could not be maintained for an instant by anyone who had seen it.
... soon realized that the "Protocols" were to a very large extent as much a paraphrase of the Geneva original ...
The "Protocols" follow almost the same order as the Dialogues. Dialogues 1-17 generally correspond with "Protocols" 1-19.
There are scores of other parallels between the books. Fully 50 paragraphs of passages in the Protocols are simply paraphrases of passages in the Dialogues.
Example:
Geneva Dialogues, p. 141:---
"Like the God Vishnu, my press will have a hundred arms, and these arms will give their hands to all the different shades of opinion throughout the country."
Protocols, p. 43:--
"These newspapers, like the Indian god Vishnu, will be possessed of hundreds of hands, each of which will be feeling the pulse of varying public opinion."
Example:
... "for the least of which they would have beheaded twenty constitutional kings."
... "for the smallest of which they would have murdered twenty kings."
Such are Professor Nilus's rather contradictory accounts of the origin of the Protocols. Not a very convincing story!
... rather, they have done harm by persuading all sorts of mostly well-to-do people that every recent manifestation of discontent on the part of the poor is an unnatural phenomenon, a factitious agitation caused by a secret society of Jews.
The author of the "protocols" simply copied from the "Dialogues" a number of passages in which MACHIAVELLI is made to enunciate the doctrines and tactics of despotism as they were at that time practiced by NAPOLEON, and put them into the mouth of an imaginary Jewish Elder.
At any rate, the fact of the plagiarism has now been conclusively established, and the legend may be allowed to pass into oblivion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEAN SAYS:
Unfortunately being forgotten never happens. Because there will always be people who insist on continuing to Believe what they have from reading the material originally. Whether that is The Protocols or a new age Religion or some modern day news media hack, it makes no difference.
The other thing that makes no difference? No amount of evidence provided can convince some people otherwise. It's linked in with psychological problems such as Cognitive Dissonance - the desire to continue to believe outweighs all other knowledge and motivations.
So, don't push it, because it soon becomes like arguing with a drunk on the street. :-)
URL
https://web.archive.org/web/20060113121421/http://www.h-net.org/~antis/doc/graves/graves.a.html
It covers 6 webpages of info. It is true in my experience that proven examples of Plagiarism typically follow a number of patterns and similarities in both the style of the texts, the kind of transposing/editing they apply, and the behaviour of the perpetrator in how they assemble the material. All of which shows up in this reference provided by Gerry here.
When I first read, and reread the Protocols it was clear to me they were a fraud at face value. I can't recall now exactly why or what stood out, but none of the material made any rational sense to me they were what they presented themselves as being. It ideas and statements simply did not add up rationally, and importantly the text itself did not "follow" logically or coherently as if by the same author. I immediately smelled a Rat.
But I did NOT think of plagiarism at the time. And never researched the issue. I simply never believed the Protocols were legitimate, because at face value they made no rational sense to me.
These patterns showing Plagiarism I learnt about much later. They arise in all past known examples and the present in the news media today. Because it is shown (in this record) that everything is not taken from 'The Dialogues' I suggest the rest would have been Plagiarized / Lifted from several other existing works yet to be determined.
The entire Protocols would have been copied from several other works, combined and edited to fit the desired 'narrative'.
A Plagiarizer does not write their own material and then insert copied material to fit. They simply cannot do that. It is far too hard. A Plagiarizer does not start with a blank sheet of paper. A Plagiarizer always starts with "the borrowed material" and then they cut and paste it in the same order (here and there) and only then do they EDIT into a readable tome until it flows and says what they wanted to say.
So there ya go ... make of that what you will, but I highly recommend looking at the accumulated facts shown in all this prior material.
0 new messages