WORLD CONQUEST THROUGH WORLD JEWISH GOVERNMENT
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm
OF THE LEARNED ELDERS

Visiting "The Protocols"

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface
Introduction
Who are the Elders?
Protocol I The Basic Doctrine
Protocol II Economic Wars
Protocol III Methods of Conquest
Protocol IV Materialism Replaces Religion
Protocol V Despotism and Modern Progress
Protocol VI Take-Over Technique
Protocol VII World-Wide Wars
Protocol VIII Provisional Government
Protocol IX Re-education
Protocol X Preparing for Power
Protocol XI The Totalitarian State
Protocol XII Control of the Press
Protocol XIII Distractions
Protocol XIV Assault on Religion
Protocol XV Ruthless Suppression
Protocol XVI Brainwashing
Protocol XVII Abuse of Authority
Protocol XVIII Arrest of Opponents
Protocol XIX Rulers and People
Protocol XX Financial Programme
Protocol XXI Loans and Credit
Protocol XXII Power of Gold
Protocol XXIII Instilling Obedience
Protocol XXIV Qualities of the Ruler


PREFACE
(Translated by Victor E. Marsden)

The author of this translation of the famous Protocols was himself a victim of the Revolution. He had lived for many years in Russia and was married to a Russian lady. Among his other activities in Russia he had been for a number of years a Russian Correspondent of the MORNING POST, a position which he occupied when the Revolution broke out, and his vivid descriptions of events in Russia will still be in the recollection of many of the readers of that Journal. Naturally he was singled out for the anger of the Soviet. On the day that Captain Cromie was murdered by Jews, Victor Marsden was arrested and thrown into the Peter-Paul Prison, expecting every day to have his name called out for execution. This, however, he escaped, and eventually he was allowed to return to England very much of a wreck in bodily health. However, he recovered under treatment and the devoted care of his wife and friends. One of the first things he undertook, as soon as he was able, was this translation of the Protocols. Mr. Marsden was eminently well qualified for the work. His intimate acquaintance with Russia, Russian life and the Russian language on the one hand, and his mastery of a terse literary English style on the other, placed him in a position of advantage which few others could claim. The consequence is that we have in his version an eminently readable work, and though the subject-matter is somewhat formless, Mr. Marsden's literary touch reveals the thread running through the twenty-four Protocols.

It may be said with truth that this work was carried out at the cost of Mr. Marsden's own life's blood. He told the writer of this Preface that he could not stand more than an hour at a time of his work on it in the British Museum, as the diabolical spirit of the matter which he was obliged to turn into English made him positively ill.

Mr. Marsden's connection with the MORNING POST was not severed by his return to England, and he was well enough to accept the post of special correspondent of that journal in the suite of H.R.H., the Prince of Wales on his Empire tour. From this he returned with the Prince, apparently in much better health, but within a few days of his landing he was taken suddenly ill, and died after a very brief illness.

May this work be his crowning monument! In it he has performed an immense service to the English-speaking world, and there can be little doubt that it will take its place in the first rank of the English versions of "THE PROTOCOLS of the Meetings of the LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION."

Of the Protocols themselves little need be said in the way of introduction. The book in which they are embodied was first published in the year 1897 by Philip Stepanov for private circulation among his intimate friends. The first time Nilus published them was in 1901 in a book called The Great Within the Small and reprinted in 1905. A copy of this is in the British Museum bearing the date of its reception, August 10, 1906. All copies that were known to exist in Russia were destroyed in the Kerensky regime, and under his successors the possession of a copy by anyone in Soviet land was a crime sufficient to ensure the owner's of being shot on sight. The fact is in itself sufficient proof of the genuineness of the Protocols. The Jewish journals, of course, say that they are a forgery, leaving it to be understood that Professor Nilus, who embodied them in a work of his own, had concocted them for his own purposes.

Mr. Henry Ford, in an interview published in the New York WORLD, February 17th, 1921, put the case for Nilus tersely and convincingly thus:

"The only statement I care to make about the PROTOCOLS is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. THEY FIT IT NOW."

Indeed they do!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xgdpKesTdE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7NiUMlvX3c

Bookburning,

A Book on Hold

09.11.2007 | Inside Higher Ed
By Scott Jaschik

Many university presses in the United States distribute books for publishers from other countries — and vice versa. The University of Michigan has recently discovered that such an arrangement can land a university in the middle of a controversy over a book neither written by one of its professors nor published by its press.

The University of Michigan Press last month halted distribution of Overcoming Zionism, which argues that the creation of Israel was a mistake and urges adoption of the “one state” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which Israelis and Palestinians would form a new country, without a Jewish character. The book was written by Joel Kovel, distinguished professor of social studies at Bard College. The publisher is Pluto Press, a British outfit that describes itself as having a left-wing focus and that publishes books by and for scholars in the social sciences. The University of Michigan Press is the American distributor for Pluto.

Michigan halted distribution last month after “serious questions” were raised about the book by “members of the university community,” according to Kelly Cunningham, a university spokeswoman. Cunningham said that the faculty committee that oversees the press has been reviewing the matter, as well as the relationship between the press and Pluto. An announcement will be forthcoming, perhaps this week, she said. Cunningham stressed that “the expression of diverse points of view on this and other issues is one of the most deeply held values is the university.”

There are signs that Michigan may be getting ready to resume distribution of the book. The author and a senior official at Pluto said that they had been informed that the review of the book had concluded and that distribution would resume. Phil Pochoda, director of the press, declined to comment. But when asked what would happen if someone called the press to try to order the book, he said that while it wouldn’t be shipped immediately, an order would be taken. Cunningham said that the university was not prepared to announce whether the book would again be distributed.

The controversy comes at a time of intense debate on many campuses in the United States about the Middle East and professors’ views about Israel.

Several pro-Israel blogs have been publishing criticism of Overcoming Zionism, calling it full of “hate speech,” and questioning why the University of Michigan would have any role in its distribution. The Michigan chapter of Stand With Us, a pro-Israel group, has issued a statement calling the book an “unscholarly propaganda text” and complaining that it could not get press officials to say why it was being distributed.

A blog sympathetic to Kovel — Dissident Veteran for Peace — has printed what it says is an e-mail from Pochoda, the press director, to Kovel, explaining why distribution was halted. Pochoda declined to comment on the e-mail, but Kovel said it was accurate. The e-mail reads: “Because it is a distributed title for Pluto Press, no one at UMP had read Overcoming Zionism prior to the Stand/With/Us diatribe. I and others read it after that assault, and had fully expected to gear up for, at least, a free speech defense. Though I had no trouble with the one-state solution your book proposes nor with a Zionist critique, per se ... I (and faculty members I asked to read the book, as well) were apalled [sic] by your reckless, viscious [sic], and unmodulated attack on Zionism and all Zionists.

“For us, the issue raised by the book is not free speech but hate speech. Perhaps such vituperative and aggressive rhetoric works for the barricades, but it cannot be countenanced or underwritten by the university or the university press, even in this peripheral, distributed capacity. Even worse for me, as a result of your book, the university is in the process of reassessing our relation as a whole to Pluto (and that has been a four year relationship that I have cherished, both personally and professionally). While that review goes on (and I am only marginally involved), we have ceased shipping Overcoming Zionism.“

In an interview, Kovel called his work “a very carefully reasoned book” and said it was “most certainly not hate speech.” He said that the ideas he supports are “not part of the American discourse, but are much discussed around the world.” To get a flavor of Kovel’s language in talking about Israel, this is a Q&A he did with Briarpatch Magazine about his new book (an interview Kovel said was reflective of his views).

He said things like this: “There are a lot of people who consider themselves to be on the left and also Zionists. It is a contradiction, however, to advocate the cause of universal justice while still supporting the Zionist project of conquest. This is an untenable position that must be ideologically and politically combated because it weakens both the overall struggles of the left and the struggle against Zionism.” And this: “I understand the desire to smash Zionism, for after all, Israel is an abomination and has caused endless suffering to innocent people. I believe, however, that humanity is capable of escaping these endless cycles of violence. The desire to lash out against those who have oppressed us is understandable, but it is a dead end.”

Anne Beech, managing director of Pluto Press, defended the book and its publication, saying “he’s a scholar of standing — not a ranting madman.”

In Britain, Beech said the book has received some criticism and some praise, but has not been the source of major controversy. “To be honest, the cultural differences between the U.K. and the U.S. are so profound that we’ve been astonished at the intemperate criticism of this book. You don’t have to accept the argument in full, but I would unreservedly support Joel ’s right to express his carefully thought out opinions,” she said.

She noted that she was at a conference over the weekend where some American scholars were on a panel discussing the pro-Israel lobby in the United States and they remarked about how it was “so nice to be able to discuss this issue without being shouted down,” as they said would have been the case in the United States. “I feel sorry for publishing colleagues and academics who have to contend with this manic pressure.”

The Center for Constitutional Rights, a nonprofit legal group, has also called on Michigan to resume distribution. In a letter sent last week to Mary Sue Coleman, the university’s president, the center questioned why a review “based upon the content of the writing” of Kovel’s book would take place when the press had agreed to distribute Pluto’s works. “We are sure you appreciate the gravity of such a decision for one of the most prestigious publishing houses in the country, particularly at this juncture in our history when outside pressures threaten a full and open discussion of one of the major foreign policy issues of our day.”

Laurie A. Brand, a professor of international relations at the University of Southern California who heads the academic freedom committee of the Middle East Studies Association, said she had not read Kovel’s book but had recently been informed that Michigan had suspended distribution. “It does sound very disturbing,” she said.

Whether the book is good or bad, she said, “let him publish it and let people talk about it,” and if people condemn it or ignore it or praise it, that would be their choice, Brand said. “But what we should not do is to try to prevent its arrival on the market.”

Jonathan Schwartz is a blogger who has been urging people to demand that Michigan stop distributing the book. A Michigan alumnus, Schwartz publishes Anti-Racist Blog: Exposing Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism on American College Campuses. In an interview, Schwartz rejected the idea that he was encouraging censorship. “I’m a free speech advocate. People can say whatever they want to, and I’m not saying that nobody should distribute it or that it should be banned from libraries,” he said.

“But for the University of Michigan to be associated with racist hate speech is not a good idea,” he said, adding that he would feel the same way about anti-black or anti-Asian books. He stressed that while Kovel had a right to be published, the university didn’t need to help him in any way.

“It seems like the university did not know what it was distributing,” Schwartz said. “I personally have my opinion about the book, but what’s most telling is the letter from the director of the university press. So why, if after reading it, would he distribute it? The university is not obligated to distribute a book like that. Look at the director’s own words.”

Thanks
Götz von Berlichingen


Harvard Crimson on Criticizing Israel

Israel and Censorship at Harvard

09.14.2007 | The Harvard Crimson
By J. LORAND MATORY

Since Vietnam, Israel has become the heartbeat of U.S. foreign policy and a litmus test of what can be debated—and even of who will be allowed to speak—on university campuses. This year, the Congress of the University and College Union—the British lecturers’ union—proposed a boycott of Israeli universities and academics for what it regards as their complicity in 40 years of Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. This boycott has its counterpart in a decades-old U.S. practice of threatening, defaming, or censoring scholars who dare to criticize Israel.

Two years ago at Harvard, a social scientist who was the most widely cited in his area of study but who had, in a popular book, criticized the U.S.-Israel alliance, became the subject of insinuations that he was anti-Semitic—insinuations that were likely fatal to his candidacy. In recent years, at least three professors—Oxford’s Tom Paulin, DePaul’s Norman Finkelstein, and Rutgers’ Robert Trivers—have been invited to speak at Harvard and then disinvited after complaints that they had spoken critically of Israel or disagreed sharply with Harvard Law School Professor Alan M. Dershowitz regarding Israel’s military conduct.

In a 2006 faculty meeting, Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature Ruth R. Wisse vocalized the underlying rationale of such censorship as few other professors have dared. Denying that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are separate phenomena, she declared anti-Zionism—that is, the rejection of the racially-based claim that Jewish people have a collective right to Palestine—the worst kind of anti-Semitism. For such defenders of Israel, any acknowledgment that Zionism in principle and in practice violates Palestinian rights is tantamount to an endorsement of the Holocaust.

But is it anti-Semitic to ask why the Palestinians should pay the price for the ghastly crime of the Germans? Why were the property rights of the German perpetrators sacrosanct and those of the guiltless Palestinians adjudged an acceptable casualty? In U.S. foreign policy, not all racial groups are guaranteed the same rights and protections. Otherwise, why does the U.S. rightly defend Jewish people’s claims on European bank accounts, property, and compensation for labor expropriated during the 1930s and 1940s, while quashing the rights of millions of Palestinians refugees to lands, houses, and goods stolen as a condition of Israel’s founding in the late 1940s? As a nation we seem unconscious of the hypocrisy. The convention that persecuted Europeans had the right to safe havens on lands stolen from non-Europeans was, by the mid-20th century, as outmoded as the Confederacy’s defense of slavery in the mid-19th.

However, what follows is the most important question for the health of the academic and moral community that we share here at Harvard: How can one engage in a critical and nonetheless loving conversation about Zionism with a community as gravely traumatized as the Jewish people? The question has become particularly difficult to answer since Harvard’s previous president publicly declared that petitions against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza were a form of anti-Semitism, comparable to vandalizing Jewish gravestones.

My aim here is not to preach but to insist upon my right, and others’, to a conversation full of respect and free of intimidation, one that presumes no monopolies on suffering, one in which all racism and anti-Semitism—whether against Semitic Jews, Semitic Christians, Semitic Druzes or Semitic Muslims—is equally impermissible. I am troubled that Dershowitz escaped former University President Lawrence H. Summers’ criticism when he endorsed Israel’s torture of Palestinian prisoners. And Wisse’s ghastly 1988 description of Palestinian refugees as “people who breed and bleed and advertise their misery” elicited no demand for retraction.

In my country, people tremble in the fear of losing their friends, jobs, advertising revenues, campaign contributions, and alumni donations if they question Zionism or Israeli policy—despite the billions of our tax dollars paid annually for Israel’s defense and sustenance. Even the Israeli military hosts freer debates about this issue than any U.S. university does. One result: Israel has now withdrawn from Gaza, an action that Summers slammed Harvard and MIT professors as anti-Semitic for even contemplating.

My position is difficult not just because I have colleagues and friends who disagree but because I have no Palestinian friends. For every five Jewish people I have loved, I hardly know one Arab. Indeed, I am troubled by the insouciance of the Arab and Muslim world in the face of unjust suffering by people who look like me. A region so publicly committed to its anti-racist religious tradition remains mute over the atrocities of the Arab and Islamic government of Sudan against Africans in Darfur and the south. Osama bin Laden and his cheerleaders treat as insignificant the deaths of hundreds of non-partisan Africans in the bombings of the U.S. embassies at Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.

Thus, my concerns about Zionism are motivated by neither pro-Arab nor anti-Jewish bias, but by the fear that those who dismiss all anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism—or, equally often, as Jewish self-hatred—risk creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. If Israel’s defenders convince the world that all legitimately Jewish people are Zionists and that Jewish people are uniform in their opinions about Israel and its policies, then the convinced will conclude that condemning Israel or its policies requires them to hate Jewish people.

Moreover, by intimidating those who are reasonable enough to separate their criticism of Israel from the criticism of Jewish people as a whole—as we must—discourses like Summers’ risk leaving the conversation to the people least able to engage tête-à-tête rather than gun-to-gun, bomb-to-bomb, and plane-to-tower. For that reason, I fear that the pronouncements of Summers—and our many colleagues who would stifle debate about Israel—are themselves “anti-Semitic in their effect, if not their intent.”