Drew J wrote:
To call them a forgery is not a slip of the tongue. They were written by Tsarist secret police to warn the world of what the Rothschilds had planned. That's all. Any comparison of them to Weishaupt's documents or even Joly's Dialogues in Hell is misguided as Henry Makow has shown.http://www.henrymakow.com/000298.html
Yep. It's important IMHO to note the choice of words. It was never admitted to be a hoax but a forgery. A forgery is a copy intended for deception but not necessarily a hoax.
It's an even more bizarre story than we're led to think, that Makow link explains it well too. You won't find this fact in the current Wikipedia article (it's briefly mention in Joly's article), but Dialogue in Hell
was not mass published. Joly was imprisoned for publishing it, the book was banned and all copies were confiscated.
When Philip Graves worked for The Times as a foreign correspondent in Constantinople, there were no surviving copies of Dialogue in Hell
in print. Nobody had access to it to prove Graves' story and his story was that an anonymous Russian an exile handed him a copy of the book in Constantinople. Lord Northcliffe (Alfred Harmsworth) was an owner of The Times
and was also the one responsible for (ironically) bringing Western attention to The Protocols to begin with via The Times. He was a press magnate who used the paper to manipulate public opinion with his own personal opinions. He was responsible for anti-Boer attitudes for example. So he wasn't perfect. His Wikipedia article mentions his "megalomania contributed to a nervous breakdown shortly before his death" which the Makow article expands upon and it's related to this Protocols thing.
The short version of the story is either he sent or personally visited (I forget which) Palestine and found that it wasn't the land without people like the rhetoric claimed. It was full of Arabs and he was going to have an article published about it in The Times but he was cockblocked by an editor. Which I think he fired but then the editor was reinstated and Northcliffe/Harmsworth was declared insane. To recap, in 1920 Northcliffe published the first Western info regarding The Protocols. A year later Philip Graves published "proof" in the same newspaper that The Protocols were a forgery of Dialogue in Hell, a book that nobody had a copy of at the time except 'coincidentally' an anonymous exiled Russian who gave it to Graves in Constantinople. A year later Northcliffe (or possibly somebody sent by Northcliffe) visits Palestine and is horrified to find the propaganda is false and civilized Arabs already live there. An editor refuses to publish a story about it, is fired, get's his job back and is somehow able to get Northcliffe declared insane and he dies a little bit afterwards (at 57) not long after complaining about being poisoned. Subsequently Dialogue in Hell is finally published for the public who have no idea if the text has been tampered with to support the forgery claim and it's author is long dead.
This is a truly bizarre and unbelievable history of the Protocols' reveal as a forgery. I read a book where The Protocols are compared with the similarities in Dialogue in Hell and there were a lot. Yet when I obtained a separate version of Dialogue in Hell, many of them were missing although there were obvious similarities such as the ones noted in the Wiki article on The Protocols. Regardless of the origin of The Protocols whether by the Russian secret police or somebody else unknown, what happened at The Times and the shady history of Dialogue in Hell is awfully suspicious when analyzed critically. I'm not convinced Dialogue in Hell we have access to is the one written by Joly nor should anybody blindingly trust The Times at their words considering those strange events.
I've also researched all of those various Weishaupt claims to their source, although I ignorantly use to believe them. Weishaupt or one of his buddies may have been riding on a horse alongside another member who was struck by lightning but there is no conspiracy there. The person did not have any secret documents or anything that resembled an outline of a new world order or The Protocols. Weishaupt himself mentioned in conspiracy circles is kind of ridiculous and probably a straw man because when you research the guy, he is pretty likable. Another thing that I researched to the source was Albert Pike's 'three world wars' outline. Basically, it's a bullshit story. He wrote nothing of the sort and what is attributed to him is from a modern book about him quoted out of context from the modern author's opinion. I just started researching all this stuff to the source when possible, it's not hard to do and few bother to do it. For example, Menachem Begin's "Master Race" comment turned out to be from a notorious anti-gentile Rabbi although Begin did refer to Palestinians as beasts on two legs.
Sorry not trying to derail the thread. It's actually kind of relevant because no matter what the source material for the Protocols were, there must have been a genuine source because the 'powers that be' have carried them out exactly to this day. It's scary. Nobody gives them their due weight because it hurts a certain chosen group's feelings but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take them seriously.