Chapter 18: The Most Hidden Book

Aside from the Bible, what is the world’s most suppressed book?

I doubt if that question has a provable answer, but one candidate is The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Many efforts have been made to ban its sale. In the old Soviet Union, owning a copy was punishable by death.

I always heard the Protocols were a forgery. Supposedly, the Czar’s secret police, the Okhrana, fabricated them to justify persecution of Jews. I assumed this was the case, and if someone mentioned the Protocols, I would say, “They were a forgery — everyone knows that!”

But since so many other events turned out differently from what the Establishment press claimed, I eventually asked myself: “Is it just possible the Protocols are true, and are suppressed to prevent us from reading them? Maybe I’ll actually look at them, what the hey?” So I began reading the Protocols, and was immediately surprised by a passage on the first pages:

For them let that play the principal part which we have persuaded them to accept as the dictates of science (theory). It is with this object in view that we are constantly, by means of our press, arousing a blind confidence in these theories, which our specialists of the goyim will puff themselves up with their knowledges and without any logical verification of them will put into effect all the information available from science, which our agentur specialists have cunningly pieced together for the purpose of educating their minds in the direction we want. Do not suppose for a moment that these statements are empty words: think carefully of the successes we arranged for Darwinism …. (Protocols 2:2-3)

As author of two books exposing Darwinism’s myths, I was stunned by this reference. I understood Darwinism’s relationship to atheism and social destruction, having witnessed it firsthand in the 1960s. But how did the Czar’s police make that link? And if their goal was to persecute Jews, why bring Charles Darwin into the picture? — he wasn’t, to my knowledge, a significant figure in 1900 Russia.

Furthermore, the statement about “arranging the successes of Darwinism” intrigued me, because Darwin lived as a gentleman on a huge estate with up to eight servants. Yet he received no wages from employment, and earned only about 10,000 pounds from his books during his lifetime. Darwin did receive an inheritance from his father, but not enough to maintain such a grand standard of living.

Very few books have discussed Darwin’s finances, and only one did in detail: Darwin Revalued (1955) by Sir Arthur Keith. This rare book disclosed that Darwin made a fortune through investments. Reviewing Darwin’s ledgers, Keith reported:

I note that in some of his earlier dealings there were small losses, but in all his later investments there were only gains, some of them on quite a big scale.

Only gains? Even Warren Buffett will tell you he’s occasionally made a bad investment. But not Darwin. To what may we attribute this success? Here’s how Keith chose to explain it:

The more we come to know of the man Charles Darwin, the more the wonder grows that he could carry on so many diverse activities. We have been accustomed to think of him as a naturalist brooding over the problem of life in plants, in animals, and in humanity at large, but now we find a man leading a secluded life near a remote village in the country and carrying on a successful business as a financier. No doubt The Times helped him; after lunch was the occasion given to it. His biographer tells us: “After his lunch, he read the newspaper, lying on a sofa in the drawing-room. I think the paper was the only unscientific matter which he read to himself.”

Thus we may infer that, after assimilating day by day the trend of affairs in the news columns, he did not forget to look at any movements in the stocks which interested him. He had his stock-broker on the Exchange and his lawyer in London to do business for him.

So we’re to believe that Darwin, after studying bird eggs all morning, would lie on the sofa, browse the Times financial section, and say, “I think I shall invest in this one.” And somehow he picked only winners. Also, at 22, Darwin’s eldest son William was made a partner in the prestigious Southampton and Hampshire Bank, though neither he nor the Darwin family had any background in banking.

Could Darwin’s triumphant investing have resulted, not from fortuitous newspaper picks, but careful guidance by financial powers? Might this also explain his son’s good fortune in landing a bank partnership? I can’t prove it, but as a creationist I don’t put much stock in “chance.”

But to return to the Protocols. I had never read a message so evil. They are often called a “clumsy forgery,” but I was personally struck by how they laid out, in sophisticated detail, the very plan for global conquest unfolding today, which Truth Is a Lonely Warrior describes, including: world government; banking; the use of socialism, communism, revolution and Masonry; the attempted destruction of Christianity; and establishment of the Antichrist on his throne.

Let’s take examples from the Protocols. By the way, selective quotations can easily distort a book. I want to stress that I haven’t strained to find a handful of quotes supporting the thesis that the Protocols might be true, while eliminating quotes contradicting that thesis. I encourage you to read the entire Protocols for yourself.

Regarding world government they state, for example:

By all these means, we shall so wear down the “goyim” that they will be compelled to offer us international power of a nature that by its position will enable us without any violence gradually to absorb all the state forces of the world and to form a super-government. (Protocol 5:11)

We will not give them peace until they openly acknowledge our international super-government, and with submissiveness. (Protocol 9:4)

Earlier we discussed revolution, and the destruction of kings and nobility, in order to reduce us to an army of pawns.

In the times when the peoples looked upon kings on their thrones as on a pure manifestation of the will of God, they submitted without a murmur to the despotic power of kings: but from the day when we insinuated into their minds the conception of their own rights they began to regard the occupants of thrones as mere ordinary mortals. The holy unction of the Lord’s Anointed has fallen from the heads of kings in the eyes of the people, and when we also robbed them of their faith in God the might of power was flung upon the streets …. (Protocol 5:3)

In all corners of the earth the words “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these words were canker-worms at work boring into the well-being of the goyim, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity and destroying all the foundations of the goya states. As you will see later, this helped us to our triumph: it gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands the master card — the destruction of the privileges, or in other words of the very existence of the aristocracy of the goyim, that class which was the only defense peoples and countries had against us. (Protocol 1:26)

Regarding revolution and establishment of the Antichrist:

We appear on the scene as alleged saviors of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces — Socialists, Anarchists, Communists…. By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way. When the hour strikes for our sovereign lord of all the world to be crowned it is these same hands which will sweep away everything that might be a hindrance thereto. (Protocols 3:7-9)

Revolution would destroy the property of wealthy enemies, but never that of the plotters themselves:

These mobs will rush delightedly to shed the blood of those whom, in the simplicity of their ignorance, they have envied from their cradles, and whose property they will then be able to loot. “Ours” they will not touch, because the moment of attack will be known to us and we shall take measures to protect our own. (Protocols 3:11-12)

And again on the coming Antichrist:

We have been leading the peoples from one disenchantment to another, so that in the end they should turn also from us in favor of that king-despot of the blood of Zion, whom we are preparing for the world. (Protocol 3:15)

And yet again, with shades of Orwell’s “Big Brother”:

Our government will have the appearance of a patriarchal paternal guardianship on the part of our ruler. Our own nation and our subjects will discern in his person a father caring for their every need, their every act, their every inter-relation as subjects with one another, as well as their relations to their ruler. They will then be so thoroughly imbued with the thought that it is impossible for them to dispense with this wardship and guidance, if they wish to live in peace and quiet, that they will acknowledge the autocracy of our ruler with a devotion bordering on “apotheosis” [glorification as a god] …. (Protocol 15:20)

The Protocols discuss the exploitation of “voting, which we have made the instrument which well set us on the throne of the world.” (Protocol 10:5). And long before Presidents like Lyndon Johnson and George Bush were sending troops to fight undeclared wars, and “executive orders” began to override the U.S. Constitution, the Protocols boasted:

In the near future we shall establish the responsibility of presidents …. we shall arrange elections in favor of such presidents as have in their past some dark, undiscovered stain — then they will be trustworthy agents for the accomplishment of our plans …. We shall invest in the president with the right of declaring a state of war. We shall justify this last right on the ground that the president as chief of the whole army must have it at his disposal …. The president will, at our discetion, interpret the sense of such of the existing laws as admit of various interpretation; he will further annul them when we indicate to him the necessity to do so, besides this, he will have the right to propose temporary laws, and even new departures in the government constitutional working, the pretext both for the one and the other being the requirements for the supreme welfare of the State. (Protocols 10:11, 13, 16)

Regarding Christianity’s destruction through a “divide and conquer” strategy:

We have long past taken care to discredit the priesthood of the goyim, and thereby to ruin their mission on earth which in these days might still be a great hindrance to us. Day by day its influence on the peoples of the world is falling lower. Freedom of conscience has been declared everywhere, so that now only years divide us from the moment of the complete wrecking of that Christian religion: as to other religions we shall have still less difficulty in dealing with them, but it would be premature to speak of this now …. we shall not overtly lay a finger on existing churches, but we shall fight against them by criticism calculated to produce schism. (Protocols 17:2, 5)

Truth Is a Lonely Warrior has discussed pervasive control of the media. The Protocols declare:

We must compel the governments of the goyim to take action in the direction favored by our widely conceived plan, already approaching the desired consummation, by what we shall represent as public opinion, secretly promoted by us through the means of that so-called Great Power — the press, which, with a few exceptions that may be disregarded, is already entirely in our hands. (Protocols 7:5)

Not a single announcement will reach the public without our control. Even now this is already being attained inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them. (Protocol 12:5)

And if there are any who are desirous of writing against us, they will not find any person eager to print their productions. Before accepting any production for publication in print, the publisher or printer will have to apply to the authorities for permission to do so. Thus we shall know beforehand of all tricks preparing against us and shall nullify them by getting ahead with explanations of the subject treated of. (Protocol 12:7)

There would even be a false opposition press that

will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards. All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions — aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical …. Those fools who think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion. (Protocols 12:11-12)

I suggest that both William F. Buckley’s National Review (aimed at white-collar conservatives) and Rush Limbaugh (aimed at blue-collar conservatives) fall into this “false opposition” category. Buckley was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the super-secretive Skull and Bones, and it has long been rumored that he founded National Review with funding from the CIA (for whom he indisputably worked). Like Limbaugh, Buckley ridiculed “conspiracy theories,” while giving conservatives the comfortable assurance that they had representation within the media.

Just as in Orwell’s 1984, history would be altered:

We shall erase from the memory of men all facts of previous centuries which are undesirable to us, and leave only those which depict all the errors of the government of the goyim. (Protocol 16:4)

As in common in totalitarian countries, citizens would spy on each other:

One-third of our subjects will keep the rest under observation …. It will then be no disgrace to be a spy and informer, but a merit …. (Protocol 17:7)

We have discussed the inflationary policies by which the Illuminati control the money supply, destroying our standard of living.

We shall raise the rate of wages which, however, will not bring any advantage to the workers, for, at the same time, we shall produce a rise in prices of the first necessaries of life …. (Protocol 6:7)

We have also discussed the strategy of controlling governments through loans:

Loans hang like a sword of Damocles over the heads of rulers, who, instead of taking from their subjects by a temporary tax, come begging with outstretched palms to our bankers …. If a loan bears a charge of 5 percent, then in twenty years the State vainly pays away in interest a sum equal to the loan borrowed, in forty years it is paying a double sum, in sixty — treble, and all the while the debt remains an unpaid debt …. when we brought up the necessary persons in order to transfer loans into the external sphere, all the wealth of the States flowed into our cash-boxes and all the goyim began to pay us the tribute of subjects …. (Protocols 20:29, 30, 32)

The Protocols further state:

In order that the masses may not guess what they are about we further distract them with amusements, games, pastimes, passions, peoples palaces. Soon we shall begin through the press to propose competitions in art, in sport of all kinds. (Protocol 13:3)

The Protocols were first published in Russia in 1903. The Olympics had been revived in 1896; meanwhile, spectator sports with professional leagues were born. The first World Series was played in 1903; 1917 marked the National Hockey League’s founding and 1922 the National Football League’s. Today we have cable TV with 200+ stations; husbands spending an entire day watching football; kids glued to video games. If the Protocols are a mere fake, how did the Czar’s police foresee a world dominated by amusements?

The Establishment’s Explanation

But what about the claim that the Protocols were forgeries? After the Czar’s fall, all known copies in Russia were destroyed. Owning it there was a capital offense. The Protocols first appeared in English in 1920 after Victor Marsden, a British journalist who had suffered imprisonment under the Bolsheviks, returned to England and translated a copy at the British Museum. He died within a year.

Reaction to the England translation was swift and furious. In 1921, Philip Graves, Constantinople correspondent for the London Times, published a series of articles in that paper claiming the Protocols were a forgery. He said that, in Constantinople, he had been approached by a mysterious “Mr. X,” whom he never identified. According to Graves, Mr. X said he was a Russian émigré and he bore proof that the Protocols were a forgery. They had been plagiarized from a satirical novel, The Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, published in 1864 by Frenchman Maurice Joly. “Mr. X” supplied Graves with a copy.

In his articles, Graves produced about a dozen quotations from Dialogue and contrasted them with similar passages in the Protocols. Although the excerpts were not identical, the resemblance was undeniable. Since then, it has been widely proclaimed that Graves refuted the Protocols as a hoax.

However, because Joly’s book was rare, few people could read it to verify Graves’s own allegations. Australian researcher Peter Myers, who has extensively analyzed the two works, reports that only 16.45% of the Protocols have a correlation with Joly’s work — this leaves over 83 percent unaccounted for ( see http://mailstar.net/toolkit.html ).

The premise of Graves’s forgery argument was this: If two books resemble each other, the second one must have been plagiarized from the first.

However, other explanations exist. For example, both may have relied upon the same sources.

The Bible’s three “Synoptic” gospels — Matthew, Mark, and Luke — have some passages which are strikingly similar; in cases almost verbatim. Yet I’m aware of no Christians who insist that two of the three were therefore “forgeries.” Instead, Biblical scholars believe the authors shared some sources(s) — one often proposed is a hypothetical now-lost manuscript called Q.

A similar relationship may explain the resemblance between the Protocols and Joly’s Dialogue. According to William Guy Carr and other analysts, the Protocols originated in the 18th century, and were eventually expanded with modifications. A revolutionary, Joly wrote the Dialogue as a satire against Napoleon III, whom he hoped would be overthrown. Most French revolutionaries were Freemasons. Was Joly exposed to secret documents at a Grand Orient Freemasonic lodge? If so, he might have incorporated some of what he read into his satire. In that case, one could more accurately say Joly’s novel was forged from the Protocols (an early version) rather than vice versa.

The Protocols cannot be proven authentic; however, they predicted world events with demonstrable accuracy. Who wrote them? Henry Makow makes a case for the Rothschilds, especially Lionel Rothschild (1808-1879). The Protocols reveal keen understanding of international banking’s workings, which should have exceeded the capacities of the Czar’s police. And who were the Elders of Zion? Czarist general Count Cherep-Spiridovich believed they were the Committee of 300. The Protocols are obviously the work of a small inner circle, and could not possibly be attributed to a broad group, such as the Jewish race.

Considerable debate exists over why the Protocols became public. They were originally published by Russian professor Sergei Nilus, who said they were obtained through a cartel member’s lover: she’d been shocked to discover them among his effects. But some people doubt that the Illuminati would have been so careless with their documents.

A few believe that, foreseeing exposure, the cartel deliberately let its plans slip — but with a Jewish spin to distract from their true nature. We know the conspiracy is ultimately satanic, not Jewish.

Another theory: they wanted to stir anti-Semitism within Russia to help trigger revolution, as well as drive Khazarian Jews into Palestine; but when the Protocols accidentally leaked to England, the document had to be ruthlessly suppressed.

I personally don’t rule out that this was “in your face” — we’re so confident of victory that we can reveal our plan and you won’t be able to do a thing about it. It seems in Satan’s prideful nature to boast, so that his evil ingenuity might be admired.

In other to best draw their own conclusions, I suggest that people read the Protocols. They may be the closest thing to Satan’s plan you can find.