ISSN 1440-9828
                                                                    No 401  



Texas Terror, Code Blue! – Will Dr. Ron Paul Operate?

By Captain Eric H. May Military-Political Editor The Lone Star Iconoclast

Diagnosing the Disease

HOUSTON, June 29, 2008 When it comes to explaining our deteriorating national and international condition, hand it to Dr. Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican who represents several refinery towns just south of Houston, Texas.

He proved his skill Thursday with his address to the House of Representatives, five minutes of straight talk from a wise physician concerned about politics and geopolitics:

1. The economy is sluggish because it has gorged on inflated Iraq war money.

2. The petroleum market is feverish because of Iran war speculation.

3. The Iran war is likely because of the inaction of a craven Congress.

This was a perfect example of Ron Paul the revolutionary, who is willing to tell the truth about our modern-day King George:

This latest speech reminds me of a two-minute speech, which Paul delivered on January 11, 2007, at the beginning of the 110th Congress.  In it Paul warned that the Bush administration might stage an attack against the US, then blame it on Iran:

Recent events bear out Paul's worries:

1. The Jerusalem Post reported that the Iran war is a done deal. 

2. US ally Saudi Arabia began preparing for nuclear fallout from an Iran war. 

3. The Israeli Air Force began practicing its Iran war plan of attack.

4. John McCain's campaign said he'll benefit from a US terror attack.

Second Opinions

Various intelligence experts agree that the Houston area is a likely target for the much discussed "next 9/11" attack, which will solidify the homeland state and the global war.  The very nightmare that Paul has warned us about may rise out of the ashes of his own turf.  It's hard to see how he can sleep at night.

During the Republican primaries of neighboring district 22, Navy intelligence officer and Republican candidate Commander Brian Klock posted a billboard showing Houston and its refineries nuked by terrorists:  It bore the unnerving caption: "The Threat Is Real -- Ask Brian Klock."

Over the last two months, former Navy intelligence officer Wayne Madsen has published a series of investigative articles dealing with the suspicious gunning down of CIA insider Roland Carnaby by the Houston Police Department.  Madsen also believes that a Houston area nuke is likely, but writes that the Bush administration and its Israeli allies will carry it out, not terrorists.

Over the last two months, The Police News, published in Paul's district, has run four of my investigative articles about secret terror drills recently conducted at the BP refinery in Texas City.  The last was A False Flag Target Again? -- Ron Paul's Texas City

On Friday the 13th, former Congressman Dan Hamburg published a nationwide op-ed, State of Emergency, warning of a Bush administration staged attack on a US city, likely Houston, before it leaves office. 

Paging Dr. Paul

On March 3 The Lone Star Iconoclast presciently published an editorial about the terror danger to the US oil capital: Time to Investigate Houston Is Now

Given his tour de force diagnosis of the worldwide situation, it's stunning that Paul hasn't done anything to protect his home turf.  His district 14 is dense with Big Oil refineries that are labeled top terror targets by the Bush administration.  This is especially true of Texas City, which worried residents have grimly nicknamed Toxic City.

The Iconoclast has spent all of May and June trying to reach Paul as the one who should be most concerned with the lives and welfare of the citizens he represents.  For two solid months, though, his staff has have kept their man incommunicado.  Under the current circumstances, this is unconscionable.

The situation is clearly critical when expert opinion considers your district the most likely mass murder target in America.  It's time for Dr. Ron Paul to perform the operation so desperately needed both by his constituency and his country:  INVESTIGATION.

# # #

Captain May is a former Army military intelligence and public affairs officer, as well as a former NBC editorial writer.



Peter Myers:

Debate with John Birdman Bryant on the Protocols of Zion

1. Protocols of Zion Toolkit is “mealy-mouthed musing” - John Birdman Bryant

2. Reply to John Birdman Bryant - Peter Myers, July 6, 2008

3. Birdman: “your statements seem to admit the case which I was trying to make”

4. Reply to Birdman: “your summary is completely mistaken”

5. Birdman: “you don't really have an argument after all”

6. REPLY to John Birdman Bryant on the Protocols of Zion - Peter Myers, July 7, 2008


1. Protocols of Zion Toolkit is “mealy-mouthed musing” - John Birdman Bryant

From: "John Bryant"  Reply-To: 

Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:57:18 -0700

Dear Mr Myers:

A friend recommended that I look at your Protocols writing.  My personal prejudice -- or, rather, POST-judice -- is that the Protocols is largely the same as the Dialogue, and hence a 'forgery'  -- I say 'post-judice' because I had my wife, who majored in French in college, compare the Protocols with the Dialogue, and it was her conclusion that they were very similar.

As to your own work, located at , while I am not going to say that you don't have an argument, I will aver that the work is so disorganized that very few would bother to read it. (Maybe that is why nobody links to it, and not because they lack the courage, as you suggest.) I was looking for a clear concise statement of why you think you are right, as against the very clear fact that the Protocols are based on the Dialogue, but all I could see was some mealy-mouthed musing about seeing things in the historical context of the revolutions of 1830, 1848 and 1870.  When I see talk like that, I have a strong impulse to believe that the arguer has nothing convincing to say.  To this I would add that I am a well-known Jewish critic, so I have not the least inhibition about sticking it to the Foreskinners, as I call them.  But I can certainly not do it with your composition.  I therefore urge you to do a major rewrite, and then maybe it will be worth something -- either that, or maybe you will discover that you don't really have an argument after all.

-Birdman (


2. Reply to John Birdman Bryant - Peter Myers, July 6, 2008

Dear Birdman,

Thanks for your correspondence.

It is not true that no-one links to my site. On the contrary, my site is doing very well, by the measures that count. But for the last 3 years I have had little time to add to it.

My style is the opposite of yours. I use understatement (to you, “mealy-mouthed musing”), whereas you use overstatement to dramatically make a point.

The claim that the Protocols is a forgery is mainly based on parallel passages with Maurice Joly's book Dialogue aux Enfers entre Montesquieu at Machiavel (“Dialogues in Hell”), published in 1864.

When I first read Joly five years ago, my first impression was, like your wife’s, that the Protocols was plagiarised from it.

Herman Bernstein, whose edition of Joly I was reading, has a chapter displaying all the parallel passages side by side. I scanned the lot into my computer, and used an A3 monitor to display two A4 pages side by side, one being the Protocols and the other Joly. By this means, I carefully studied the parallel passages.

I put the whole text of Joly’s “Dialogues in Hell” on my website, some years ago, at All the parallel passages are set side by side, at

Can you give the URL of any other website which presents all the parallel passages?

Parallel passages are also found in the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament), and in the New Testament.

The best-known case of parallel passages is the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, where there are many passages which show a common origin.

In some cases, the words are virtually the same, in the same order and with the same meaning. In other cases, the meaning is different (sometimes even reversed) even though there is a similarity between two stories.

Scholars who have studied them do not believe that the Gospel authors copied directly from one another’s Gospels; but rather, that there was another document, now lost to us, which the Gospel authors had and copied from; they call it “Q”. In Google, do a search on Gospels Q.

If there is a conspiracy for One World Government, then for co-ordination purposes it would have to be written down at times, and then some persons would have written accounts of it.

The other explanation, from the forgery one, is that Joly himself may have copied from its text for his book; and that the author of the Protocols also used it, but varying the meaning.

The Protocols, on its own, cannot be used to establish that there is a world conspiracy. But if such a conspiracy be verified FROM OTHER SOURCES - such as H. G. Wells' book The Open Conspiracy and Benjamin Ginsberg's admissions and the 1946 Baruch Plan for World Government: ... then the Protocols can be re-examined in that light, and compared against the historical record.

That is the only way to evaluate it.

The Protocols predicts that, after a world war, there will be an attempt to form a world government, secretly orchestrated by Jewish financiers.

This happened at the Treaty of Versailles:

The Protocols also predicted a despotic government in the guise of socialism, once again secretly Jewish. This happened when Lenin & Trotsky set up the USSR:

For all the Czar's toughness, his regime was more lenient than Lenin's; when the Bolsheviks came to power they were much more inclined to execute serious opponents. When Lenin died, power passed to a triumvirate - Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Stalin - of which Stalin was the only non-Jew.

Zinoviev and Kamenev feared Trotsky, and allied against him; Stalin was the third and least important member of the triumvirate. But later, Stalin got sole power, and overthrew the Jewish leadership. Zinoviev and Kamenev joined Trotsky’s Opposition grouping, but too late. All three were executed (Trotsky when in Mexico).

Solzhenitsyn also depicted Jewish control at first, but their overthrow under Stalin:

The techniques of thought control espoused in the Protocols are as sinister as those depicted by George Orwell in 1984. Many people feel that we are approaching this condition today. It is reasonable to consider whether there might be any connection.

The Protocols could also be relevant in understanding the crisis in the Middle East and exploring possible solutions to it which might avert world war; wars in that area drag the great powers in.

Consider these four Indicators:

i. A major political event occurs in world history, inaugurating a regime (the USSR) aiming to engulf the world, carried out by organised Jews as documented by Bertrand Russell, and by Robert Wilton and others.

Even though some Jews opposed the new regime, that does not undo the fact that it was created by Jews.

ii. The Jewish role is hidden, denied, kept invisible. Many of the Jewish participants came from the West - therefore, some Western Jewish groups knew of the Jewish role, yet kept it hidden from non-Jews (e.g.

in the public media, partly owned by Jews). There have also been dissident Jewish groups which tried to warn of what was happening.

iii. Non-Jewish supporters of the Socialist movement are led to believe that the new regime is benevolent, and the inauguration of a utopia.

iv. In fact it is a despotic dystopia for the very people among whom it is carried out. Non-Jewish Socialists are deceived and manipulated.

Now this pattern of events was predicted in The Protocols of Zion; yet no other type of literature, e.g. the Socialist literature preceding the event, correctly predicted this conjunction of events. It is this kind of "coincidence" that keeps the Protocols relevant. Is there any other literature that made such a prediction?

If you know of other literature that correctly predicted this conjunction of events, please let me know.


3. Birdman: “your statements seem to admit the case which I was trying to make”

Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 05:38:31 -0700 Reply-To:

From: "John Bryant"

Dear Peter:

Thanks for writing.  I wasn't sure your address still worked, as the material I took it from is old.

I think you are mostly trying to convince me of things I am already convinced of.  My concern is somewhat different, and perhaps you will see that in studying the letter I just sent you a few minutes ago.  I would say, however, that your statements seem to admit the case which I was trying to make in that letter.



4. Reply to Birdman: “your summary is completely mistaken”

Dear Birdman,

You appear not to have read what I wrote. Your summary, “your statements seem to admit the case which I was trying to make” is completely mistaken. Your approach is that of a propagandist, not a scholar. That’s why you’re impatient with my attention to detail. I will be replying to your second letter soon. But before I do, I will send you and the other recipients of your email the next bulletin from my mailing list, which is on this topic.



5. Birdman: “you don't really have an argument after all”

  Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 05:21:53 -0700 Reply-To:

From: "John Bryant"  

To: "Wright Bill" , "Myers Peter", "Makow Henry ", "Lehrman Leland" , "Fenton Vic"  

Subject: Protocols: The Latest Controversy

Dear Friends, Romans, Countrymen:

The essay below may pique your interest, and your comments are invited and will be posted and responded to if not too long.  One of you, my good friend Leland Lehrman, has done some formidable work in this area, tho I plead guilty to not studying it as I might have, and I am sure he will be a severe critic.


PS: FYI, this essay was triggered by the reactions to my posting of the late Dr Gordon Stein's essay on the Protocols, found at

Some Common Sense About the Protocols

In 1903 a book was published in Russia which is now known as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, or just The Protocols.  It purports to be the Jewish master plan for takeover of the world, and a great many people in the present day believe that is exactly what it is.

The Protocols achieved serious attention the Western world in 1921, when reviews of it supposedly proving that it was a 'forgery' appeared in the British press.  In spite of these and many subsequent denunciations, this book has become one of the most widely-read books in the world.  Henry Ford, the legendary auto manufacturer who became convinced of a Jewish world conspiracy by talking with influential Jews who were passengers on the 'peace ship' which he had chartered in order to help end WW1, remarked that he knew not whether the Protocols was a forgery; he knew only that it had described the world situation accurately since the time it had been published.

Critics of The Protocols in the present day usually claim that it is a 'forgery', or more precisely, a book which has been plagiarized from a much earlier book by Maurice Joly entitled Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu ('The Dialogue').  My own view is that, while I believe that the Jewish establishment is indeed following a master plan to take over the world, and while that master plan may have many points in common with The Protocols, I believe that The Protocols did not originate as such a plan, and that it constitutes what I call an 'MLK plagiarism' of Joly's book, ie, compilation of plagiarized parts, sometimes modified, combined with some original material, much like MLK's doctoral thesis and many other things MLK supposedly authored.  I offer this public expression of my views for the simple reason that I believe it is a serious mistake, both moral and tactical, to accuse the Jews falsely, inasmuch as there are many high crimes and low misdemeanors which may be laid at the Jewish doorstep, but to make a false allegation is to throw the true and valid charges into question, since a false charge among the true will invite rejection of both true and false charges because the true charges are tainted by the false one according to the ancient criterion, "False in one thing; false in all.

In this sense, then, the promotion of The Protocols -- along with an equally strong demonstration of their falsity -- in fact gives aid and comfort to the Jewish conspirators, because it effectively paints the stupid goy believers as idiots and ignorants.

So why, then, do I think the Protocols are a 'forgery'?  To explain, I begin by noting that The Dialogue, published in 1864, was in fact a critique of the regime of Napoleon III.  Next, I assert that the Protocols was a plagiarism of the Dialogue, a book published almost 40 years earlier.  I say this, not merely on the basis that other critics of the Protocols have asserted the same, but also -- and most importantly -- on the basis that my wife, a 4-year full-academic-scholarship French major and Phi Beta Kappa graduate, compared the Joly text with that of the Protocols and concluded that the Protocols was a plagiarism of Joly.  With these points in mind, then, we see that if the Protocols were lifted from a book which was intended as a criticism of Emperor Napoleon III in the 1860s, as in fact it was, then it is absurd to think it is a 'Jewish master plan'.  That is, if the Protocols was really a pre-existing Jewish master plan, then why was it turned into a critique of Napoleon III?  This is something akin to taking a physics book and plagiarizing it to create an exercise manual

-- it just makes no sense.  To the contrary, the simplest explanation of the correspondence between the Dialogue and the Protocols is plagiarism, and under the criterion of Occam's Razor, or the Law of Parsimony, this explanation must be accepted unless there is additional data which does not fit this explanation.

The logic of the above argument must evidently stand or fall on whether one reckons that the Protocols was in fact plagiarized from the Dialogue.  To some extent this is a matter of judgment, and the argument will probably go on for some time -- mostly, of course, among those who do not speak both French and English -- until the Jews decide that the controversy has served their purpose sufficiently, and that therefore any remaining copies of Dialogue and the Protocols shall be burned in the public square by the hangman.

APPENDIX: Statements of Protocols supporters and Birdman responses

HENRY MAKOW, in his article PROTOCOLS FORGERY ARGUMENT IS FLAWED (on the Net) says the following:

In my opinion, the outlawing of Protocols on pain of death in Bolshevik Russia and its execration in the West today proves its authenticity.

Birdman response: It proves no such thing.  It merely shows that the mostly-Jewish Bolsheviks and the Western Jewsmedia didn't want criticism of Jews popping up anywhere.

VOLTAIRE/Bill the Hermit describes the above article as a 'point by point' refutation by Henry Makow that Joly and the Protocols substantially differ in tone and content.

Birdman comment: They do differ -- the Protocols is a scaled-down version of the Dialogue, reduced in size by about 50%.  And we will grant that there are differences in tone and content.  But that doesn't change any arguments we have made in this essay.

PETER MYERS thinks the Protocols are genuine, as I understand it, and has posted several items on this subject.  Here is what I wrote him:

A friend recommended that I look at your Protocols writing.  My personal prejudice -- or, rather, POST-judice -- is that the Protocols is largely the same as the Dialogue, and hence a 'forgery'  -- I say 'post-judice' because I had my wife, who majored in French in college, compare the Protocols with the Dialogue, and it was her conclusion that they were very similar.

As to your own work, located at , while I am not going to say that you don't have an argument, I will aver that the work is so disorganized that very few would bother to read it. (Maybe that is why nobody links to it, and not because they lack the courage, as you suggest.) I was looking for a clear concise statement of why you think you are right, as against the very clear fact that the Protocols are based on the Dialogue, but all I could see was some mealy-mouthed musing about seeing things in the historical context of the revolutions of 1830, 1848 and 1870.  When I see talk like that, I have a strong impulse to believe that the arguer has nothing convincing to say.  To this I would add that I am a well-known Jewish critic, so I have not the least inhibition about sticking it to the Foreskinners, as I call them.  But I can certainly not do it with your composition.  I therefore urge you to do a major rewrite, and then maybe it will be worth something -- either that, or maybe you will discover that you don't really have an argument after all.


6. REPLY to John Birdman Bryant on the Protocols of Zion - Peter Myers, July 7, 2008

Dear Birdman,

In major US and Israeli media, propagandists for Israel have likened Jimmy Carter’s book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to Mein Kampf and the Protocols of Zion.

Jimmy Carter's Kampf:

The Protocols of the Elder Carter:

These propagandists insist that if there is ANY Jewish conspiracy, then it is the same Jewish conspiracy the Protocols describes. But the Protocols is a forgery. Therefore, all these other books are also wrong. The argument that the Protocols is a forgery is thus used as a shield to fend off all scholarly argument that the Israel lobby dominates United States foreign policy on the Middle East.

Thus, an investigation of whether the Protocols has been proved a forgery is pivotal to the defence of Carter, Finkelstein, and Mearsheimer/Walt. Israel Zangwill, Herman Bernstein, and Norman Cohn (Jewish authors regarded as the authorities on the Protocols) argue that the Protocols was copied in the main from Maurice Joly’s book Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, published in 1864.

To counter the propagandists, it is not necessary to prove the Protocols genuine. It is only necessary to show that the above authorities have not considered certain important issues in their proof of forgery. The propagandists insist that the case is closed; all we need to do is show that the issue is still open.

I put the whole text of Joly’s “Dialogues in Hell” on my website at

I put the Protocols at

All the parallel passages are set side by side at

The last link above includes Bernstein’s analysis.

Zangwill’s material is at

And Cohn’s material is at

Presenting the arguments of Zangwill, Bernstein & Cohn in their own words, I am the only author of a study of the Protocols who presents both sides.

I was the first person to show that the parallel passages in Joly's Dialogues comprise 16.45% of the Protocols, by word-count.

This is substantial, but still less than one sixth of the total. What Cohn especially omits to mention, is the Protocols' extensive coverage of the world finance system, unmatched in the Dialogues. Even the parallel passages, however, are not the same: the meaning is often quite different, despite the similarity. I give details below.

My argument is that Joly did not create these parallel passages ex nihilo, but modified an existing revolutionary text (precursor of the Protocols), reworking parts of it to suit his attack on Napoleon III.

Differences between the Dialogues & the Protocols

1. Who are the Machiavellians?

In Joly, the conspirator is the monarch; in the Protocols, the conspirators are those trying to overthrow him. In the Dialogues, Napoleon III is the Machiavellian, preventing the people, led by the Revolutionaries of 1848, from installing a People's Democracy along the lines of the French Revolution.

In the Protocols, the shadowy leaders lurking behind the Revolutionaries are the Machiavellians. They are tricking the people into trusting their leadership, but when in power they will institute the Red Terror.

In the Dialogues, Napoleon (the Machiavellian) is resisting the Revolutionaries; in the Protocols, the Machiavellians are sponsoring these Marxists, anarchists, and utopian activists.

2. Joly is written "after the event", i.e. to satirise Napoleon's existing regime; the Protocols is written "in advance", anticipating a regime yet to come.

3. Joly's despot is one man; the Protocols' conspiracy has many participants.

4. Joly's despotism is localised to one country and one time; the Protocols' despotism extends widely, over many countries, regimes and decades.

5. The Protocols' conspirators envisages themselves running a World Government, and instituting a new type of regime, unknown to past history.

Compare this with Trotsky on World Federation: 'We are of course talking about a European socialist federation as a component of a future world federation ... ' (Dmitri Volkogonov,

Trotsky: The Eternal Revolutionary, tr. & ed. Harold Shukman, HarperCollinsPublishers, London 1996, p. 209).

6. Joly's despotism is achieved without violence: "violence plays no role" (p. 174); "I who have taken as final policy, not violence, but self-effacement" (p. 226); at p. 236 the despot says "sometimes of duplicity, sometimes of violence", but Napoleon III had no concentration camps or gulag, no death squads, no mass graves of victims executed by a bullet to the back of the head, no glorifying of violence.

By comparison, Protocol 1 says that the best results are obtained by violence & terrorization; also, "we must keep to the program of violence and make-believe"; Protocol 3 advocates "the violence of a bold despotism".

This is much closer to Trotsky's violence of the Kronstadt massacre, and his orders to use relatives as hostages, with the threat of executing them:

7. Napoleon (Joly's despot) is for religion; whereas the Protocols says its conspirators are against religion.

8. Timing & Future-orientation (Teleology)

Cohn admits that the Protocols was ignored until World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution, 20 or so years after it was written.

Cohn wrote in Warrant For Genocide: The Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Pelican, Harmondsworth, 1970):

“The myth of the Jewish world-conspiracy would have remained the monopoly of right-wing Russians and a few cranks in western Europe, and the Protocols would never have emerged from obscurity at all, if it had not been for the First World War and the Russian Revolution and their aftermath.” (pp. 14-15)

“The success of the Protocols before the war was in fact limited.

Zhevakhov tells how in 1913 Nilus complained to hlm: {quote} I cannot get the public to treat the Protocols seriously, with the attention they deserve. They are read, criticized, often ridlculed, but there are very few who attach importance to them and see in them a real threat to Christianity, a programme for the destruction of the Christian order and for the conquest of the whole world by the Jews. That nobody believes ... {endquote}” (pp. 124-5)

More at

If it were a forgery designed to stir up pogroms etc, one would think that the forgers had failed, since it had no effect for 20 years.

Given that these alleged forgers had been stirring up pogroms repeatedly, one would think that they would be better at it, than 20 years of failure implies.

It was only when World War I (1914-8), the Bolshevik Revolution (1917), the Balfour Declaration (1917) and the attempt to make the League of Nations a World Government at the Peace Conference of Versailles (1919) seemed to bear out predictions in the Protocols - predictions which are not in Joly's Dialogues - that the Protocols was taken seriously.

The same people who deny Jewish control of the Bolshevik Revolution (until Stalin stole their conspiracy), also deny the authenticity of the Protocols. Therefore, demonstrating this Jewish control is the first step in puncturing their argumnent:

9. Finance

The "forgery" hypothesis says that the Okhrana plagiarised the Dialogues of Maurice Joly. But the Protocols opposes the policy on government debt endorsed in the Dialogues.

Joly's despot says, "I will borrow" the funds for government expenditure (Dialogues, p. 209); borrow from the public (p. 215); but pay reduced interest (p. 217).

He speaks of the benefits of government debt (p. 214):

The Protocols acknowledges that government debt is a trap; that governments need not borrow the funds for their expenditure, but can create the money by fiat, as the banks do (but for which the banks charge interest, in effect a private tax). This was the way the finance system of the USSR operated.

Protocol 20 says: "with any form of taxation per head the State is bailing out the last coppers of the poor taxpayers in order to settle accounts with wealthy foreigners, from whom it has borrowed money instead of collecting these coppers for its own needs without the additional interest".

In other words, the interest on foreign loans must be paid by the taxpayers. Governments could avoid that interest burden by issuing the money themselves; after all, the banks themselves create it ex nihilo.

The lesson is, that we need a finance system akin to the Communist one.

Protocol 20 also says:

"The present issue of money in general does not correspond with the requirements per head, and cannot therefore satisfy all the needs of the workers. The issue of money ought to correspond with the growth of population and thereby children also must absolutely be reckoned as consumers of currency from the day of their birth."

This is the way a welfare system operates (child endowment, pensions etc); i.e., the government issues money to parents for the care of their children, either directly via "family allowance" payments, or via additional wages or reduced taxes for workers with dependents. Yet it's unlikely that in 1897 any state had this type of money-issue.

"... the gold standard has been the ruin of the States which adopted it ... With us the standard that must be introduced is the cost of working-man power, whether it be reckoned in paper or in wood. We shall make the issue of money in accordance with the normal requirements of each subject, adding to the quantity with every birth and subtracting with every death."

This accurately describes the sort of finance system the USSR had. I believe that, via such prescriptions, the Protocols contains not only the key to what is wrong with our finance system, but also the way to fix it.

The conspirators did not want such a solution to be implemented, until they controlled the state directly, not indirectly (through other people).

At the time the Protocols was written, Russia was getting deeply into foreign debt:

W. O. Henderson, The Industrialization of Europe 1870-1914 (Thames and Hudson, London 1969). {p. 87} Foreigners also helped to build Russia's early railway lines.

Much of the capital of the Great Russia Railway Company of 1857 was raised abroad. Three French banks were particularly active in providing money for the company and the necessary bridges, locomotives and rolling-stock were largely supplied by French firms.

However, Russia's industrial progress in the 1890s was to a great extent the achievement of Count Sergei Witte, Minister of Finance between 1892 and 1903. In the eleven years that he held office Witte pressed forward energetically with his plans to speed up the pace of industrialization.

Since he considered the construction of a greatly improved railway system the key to future economic progress, he had the railways of Russia nearly doubled in length: Moscow was linked with the ports of Archangel and Riga and the textile centre of Ivanovo-Vognesensk; St Petersburg gained direct access to the Ukraine, while Kiev was joined to the Donetz valley, and Rostov, on the Don, was linked with the oilfield of Baku. Witte's most spectacular railway was the Trans-Siberian line, of which well over 3,000 miles had been completed by 1899. Heavy government investment in railways fostered the expansion of the iron, steel and engineering industries; there was great activity in the Krivoi-Rog ironfield, the Donetz coal basin and the Baku oilfield; the industrial resources of Siberia and Central Asia {p. 88} began to be opened up, and even the remote Chinese provinces of Manchuria and Korea were subject to Russian economic penetration.

To finance an enormous programme of public works Witte relied heavily upon government borrowing from abroad and upon persuading foreign capitalists to invest in Russian industrial enterprises. In answer to his critics Witte insisted that in the past all underdeveloped countries had relied upon borrowed money to assist in financing the early phase of industrialization. But his financial policy undoubtedly placed heavy burdens upon the Russian taxpayers and consumers. Witte's critics complained that prices were rising, that grain was being exported even when there was a poor harvest and that 'Witte's system' could survive only so long as foreign - particularly French - investors were prepared to go on buying Russian State bonds and shares in new Russian joint-stock companies. They claimed that many of the new industries were being run by foreign entrepreneurs for the benefit of foreign investors, and that although some manufacturing regions (such as the Donetz valley) might appear to be flourishing, older industrial areas (such as the Urals) were declining. The critics also argued that if industry were to flourish there must be a heavy home demand for consumer goods.

Towards the end of his term of office Witte began to realize the need for overall State economic planning. With incomparable energy he extended his influence over the activities of one branch of the civil service after another. But in the Russia of his day he could never hope to gain decisive control over all aspects of economic life. Moreover, he came to see that the peasant problem lay at the root of Russia's difficulties in the 1890s. His recommendations for dealing with it fell upon deaf ears, though they foreshadowed the subsequent agrarian reforms of Stolypin. While Witte believed that an autocratic form of government was essential for Russia, he realized that Nicholas II lacked the understanding and will-power needed to carry out the crucial reforms. {endquote}

The Protocols was written around the same time as Witte was finance minister.

If the Protocols was created by the Okhrana (Secret Police), then this arm of government was warning of the danger of foreign debt, at the same time as the finance branch of the Russian government was endorsing Russia's getting deeply into that same foreign debt.

10. Cohn broadens the topic beyond the Protocols, to any material on Jews behaving in a conspiratorial way

Cohn could have agreed, like Benjamin Ginsberg (above), that Jews created the Bolshevik Revolution (not all Jews, but Jews), and that they largely control the US media and government. He could have said, "yes, but", as Israel Shahak does. That would have been an acceptable position.

Instead, Cohn broadens the topic beyond the Protocols of Zion, to any material on Jews behaving in a conspiratorial way:

"Stalin in his last years produced a new version of the conspiracy-myth, in which Jews figured as agents of an imperialist plot to destroy the Soviet Union and assassinate its leaders; this was used to secure the execution of Rudolf Slansky and his Jewish colleagues on the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Communist party in 1952, and it also formed the basis for the story of the 'doctors' plot' in 1953." (Warrant For Genocide, p. 15).

Stalin was murdered soon after:

After Stalin, the contest between Zionists and anti-Zionists continued in the USSR. A document called "The Catechism of the Jews in the [former] Soviet Union", circulated in the last decades of the USSR, and was published there in a newspaper in 1990. A copy is at; another copy is at

Cohn wrote,

"New forgeries were also produced to supplement the Protocols and bring them up to date. The most celebrated of these was a document said to have been found on a Jewish Bolshevik commander in the Red Army, of the name of Zunder." (Warrant For Genocide, p. 130).

He rejects not only the Protocols, but any claim of Jews acting in a conspiratorial way, treating this as tantamount to the Protocols.

In thus overstating his case, he makes refutation easier. It can be refuted by any direct evidence, e.g. of Jewish domination of the US media.

Can one disclose such information in public, without being ignored, vilified, subjected to argumentum ad hominem? Then this also provides evidence of who is in power: those you cannot criticize, are those in control.

Cohn's book, and books arguing a similar viewpoint, can be sold in bookshops. Can one get a book arguing that the Protocols is genuine into the bookshops? Why?

11. What Cohn implicitly rules out of the debate:

(a) He does not examine the Jewish domination in the early USSR, except cursorily, or the association between Jews and Revolution admitted by J.

L. Talmon.

(b) Cohn does not examine Jewish promotion of World Government at the Peace Conference of Versailles (1919), or in the Baruch Plan for World Government (1946).

(c) He does not relate the Protocols' Jewish utopia to the Balfour Declaration, (Britain's "contract with Jewry" in order to win the First World War), or why the British Government might have thought that an alliance with Zionists would get the US into the war.

(d) He does not relate the above points to the ideas and sense of mission of the Jewish religion, i.e. to intention and program. This omission is the more striking because Cohn has written (disparagingly) about nearly every kind of modern millenialism except the Jewish kind.

(e) He does not relate the above points to the Jewish tradition of Marranism. In particular, he does not relate Marranism to the Letter of the Jews of Arles and the Reply of the Jews of Constantinople

(f) He does not examine the politics of France before, during and after the reign of Napoleon III, against which Joly pitched his Dialogues

(g) He does not examine the parallels between Joly's Dialogues and Jacob Venedey's earlier book Machiavel, Montesquieu, Rousseau

(h) He does not examine the praise of Machiavelli, and appeal to Machiavelli, by Revolutionary writers and activists, such as Rousseau and Babeuf

(i) After saying that the Tsar dismissed the Protocols as a forgery, Cohn does not explain why the Tsarina had a copy of the Protocols with her at the time of her death.

More at

and  at at

Peter --

Peter Myers, 381 Goodwood Rd, Childers 4660, Australia ph +61 7 41262296  Mirror:



From: Dagobert Ducker 
Sent: Monday, 28 July 2008 4:17 PM
Subject: Peter Myers: Debate with J B Bryant on "Protocols"


I read the article

"Peter Myers: Debate with John Birdman Bryant on the Protocols of Zion"

in the Adelaide Institute newsletter No. 401 of August 2008, published on following web-site:

I noted in this debate that it is stated, that the Protocols are a forgery, because parts of them are so parallel with the book "Dialogs in Hell", which suggests plagiarism.

Yet plagiarism is not forgery. Some books are sometimes the foundations of inspirations for writers to create new books.

May be "Dialogs in Hell" was the inspirational book to create a new book for a different purpose and because some text fitted into the new idea, this text was plagiarized. But as nobody claims to be the writer (there are only the unknown, fictitious or secret Elders of Zion) of the protocols , how can we speak about plagiarism? 

In such an instance no one would talk about a forgery. Had they called the new book "Dialogs in Hell" instead of "The Protocols" , well then it had been a forgery, because it had not been anymore the original "Dialogs in Hell". Remember you can only forge the original. When they spoke about forgery, I believed always  there was once the Original "Protocols" and someone went and changed the Original and putting the blame on the Jews in the fakes and destroyed the Original "Protocols".

But a lot of people talk about forgery and in reality they mean invention. Were the "Protocols" a new invention for the purpose to level some false evil allegations onto the Jews? But how can this be possible, when the "Protocols" had described the world situation accurately since the time it had been published (according to Henry Ford).

Ex-Jesuit Priest Dr. Alberto Reviera suggested the Protocols were written by Pro-Catholic Jews on Vatican-Instructions. See it on:

Does this fit the statement that Rothschild is the " Guardian of the Treasury of the Vatican " as seen on:



German government co-funded offending forum , 07/06/2008

The German government confirmed that it co-funded a conference where a former Iranian foreign minister said the "Zionist project" should be canceled. Jens Plotner, a spokesman for German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, told the Jerusalem Post that three ministries and the office of Chancellor Angela Merkel supported the Third Transatlantic Conference held last month by the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt.

In addition, Plotner said the institute had proposed Muhammad Javad Larijani as a speaker "four months before the event" at a meeting at which the foreign, economics and research ministries and the Chancellor's Office were represented. Plotner said the grant came from a fund for "civil society projects." According to the institute's Web site, the event also was sponsored by the Friedrich-Ebert Foundation.

Along with his allusion to Israel, Larijani also said that "denial of the Holocaust in the Muslim world has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. And [Iranian] President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has never denied the Holocaust." In fact, Ahmadinejad invited well-known Holocaust deniers to a conference in Tehran in 2006.

A firestorm of protest erupted after Larijani's statements became public, including calls that the government fire the officials who financed the conference and invited Larijani, as well as for a lawsuit against Larijani. The Central Council of Jews said the government's failure to respond to Larijani's remarks raised questions about the depth of German solidarity with Israel.


Fight against Arab Holocaust denial . Thursday, June 26, 2008, 02:06 PM GM

Holocaust denial is flourishing in the Arab world. It's one of the 21st-century's fastest-growing forms of counterknowledge - but Western liberals are wary of drawing attention to it for fear of upsetting Muslims.

Now, at last, someone has grasped the nettle. As Will Heaven reports at, the historian Deborah Lipstadt is planning to translate parts of her website Holocaust Denial on Trial into Arabic.

Meanwhile, the historian Robert Satloff is trying to "win over Arab hearts and minds" with his book Among the Righteous, which includes accounts of Muslims who saved the lives of Jews during the Second World War. They include Si Kaddour Benghabrit, rector of the Great Mosque of Paris, who saved up to 100 Jews by giving them certificates of Muslim identity.

We shall see how much impact these efforts make. I'm not optimistic - but anything is better than the dreadful example set by a few state schools in this country, which avoid teaching the subject for fear of provoking teenage Holocaust-deniers in the classroom.


How free are you? Saturday, June 28, 2008

Friday is July 4, Independence Day. Aspenites and visitors will celebrate at the annual parade, gasp at the fireworks and no doubt have a whole lot of fun eating, drinking and merrymaking. We hope also they’ll stop for a few minutes, at least, and think about what Independence Day really means. It’s easy to take our American freedoms for granted, but frequent news dispatches from places like Iraq, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Iran and China should remind us of just how fortunate we are in this country.

Of course, we can’t do anything and everything that we want in the Roaring Fork Valley, and many locals have raised compelling questions about perceived limits to our freedoms. So, on the occasion of July 4, we decided to ask a cross-section of locals from all walks of life this question: Do you feel free? Obviously we didn’t think of all the right people to contact for this project, but we did try to gauge various kinds of freedom, and probe for different definitions of freedom. Some people preferred to be interviewed, while some decided to write it in their own words. Here’s what 14 respondents had to say.

Steve Campbell - - fringe political activist, free speech advocate and Glenwood Springs resident. An obvious display of thought control

Aspen Times: Do you feel free to express yourself in the Roaring Fork Valley?

Campbell: Yes. However, those who would be on the receiving end of that expression have for various reasons been at times denied that communication.

Aspen Times: You had a specific experience where you tried to share an alternative historical perspective on Grassroots Television. Your effort to show a video sparked a controversy. Recap that event and what it said to you about freedom of speech.

Campbell: I asked Grassroots TV to air a video called  Judea Declares War on Germany: A Critical Look at World War II.  After the board of directors was informed by Executive Director John Masters of my intent, and after a meeting where community members voiced their opinions, and after weeks of letters to the editor, columnists views and an editorial response from the newspaper, the board made a decision against allowing me to air the video, going against their written policy guidelines and mission statement.

What that showed me was that Grassroots TV is controlled by people who do not honor freedom of speech and expression, and are certainly not interested in pursuing truth, however uncomfortable it may be. Their attempt to paint the video as obscene and hateful was a smoke screen to justify its censorship, but to the informed it was an obvious display of thought control.

George Orwell summed it up quite nicely:  Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

To have that poisonous element operating here in our valley is contrary to everything that this country was founded upon and the sooner positive changes can be made at Grassroots TV, the better for all of us.

Aspen Times: In general, do you think we live freely in the valley?

Campbell: That is a huge question and one best answered by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe:  None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.

Scott Condon


Top | Home

©-free 2008 Adelaide Institute