The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
Plagiarism at its Best

by Josť Delacruz, November 2003

The content of this page about denial of the Holocaust was created in November 2003 by Jose De La Cruz at UCSB in an introductory lecture course on the Nazi Holocaust (link to course homepage, about the author and bibliography).

In May 2018 Timur Kadirov translated this page into Russian: Протоколы Сионских Мудрецов - Плагиат в лучшем виде. Using google to retranslate the Russian version, I think it is generally accurate, but I noticed that several phrases are missing, e.g. -are a false documentation that has no credibility and its purpose is to spread antisemitism throughout the world. -This conversation ends with the twenty-fifth and final dialogue, similar to the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. -servile in the face of force, -Goyim states -> government states.

antisemitic caricatureantisemitic caricatureThe Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a magnet for controversy. This publication helped to spread the disease of antisemitism throughout the world. The protocols are a document that purports to represent the ideas of a secret society of Jewish elders and was published by Sergyei Nilus in Russia in 1905. These ideas are a blueprint for conquering the world. History can show the impact that this document has had on the human race. Adolf Hitler was influenced by the protocols, which therefore help to explain why Hitler believed that Jews were planning to conquer the world. Subsequently, Hitler was responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews throughout Europe. Although at first glance the protocols seem legitimate and original, it has been proven that they are a mere forgery of a prior document and hold no concrete evidence of an original author. In sum, the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are a false documentation that has no credibility and its purpose is to spread antisemitism throughout the world.

A French lawyer named Maurice Joly published an anonymous book in 1864 in which he attacked Napoleon III. This publication is known as "Dialogues in Hell." According to Joly, "I meditated for a year on a book which would show the terrible inroads that the imperial legislation had made on all branches of the administration and the gaps which it had opened by completely wiping out all public liberties" (Bernstein 15). Joly decided to have living persons or the dead converse on contemporary politics. The two characters for his conversation would be Montesquieu and Machiavelli. Machiavelli, like Napoleon III, represents the policies of force and Montesquieu represents the policies of justice. As the conversation between the two characters concludes, Machiavelli's ideas of an able and ruthless dictatorship become less and less supported and therefore weaker in defense. This conversation ends with the twenty-fifth and final dialogue, similar to the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

The relationship between "Dialogues in Hell" and the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is very close. The relationship between the two publications was first made public on August 16, 17, and 18 of 1921 by the London Times. The protocols plagiarized the work of Maurice Joly's "Dialogues in Hell." The phrasing of the Protocols and the Dialogues is almost identical. Parallels can be seen between the dialogue of Joly's work and the protocols. For example, the following table compares passages from both texts:

"Dialogues in Hell:"
'you do not know the unfathomable cowardice of humanity'servile in the face of force, pitiless in the face of weakness, implacable before blunders, indulgent before crimes, incapable of supporting the contrariness of a liberal regime, and patient to the point of martyrdom before all the violence of bold despotism, breaking thrones in its moments of anger, and giving itself masters whom it pardons for violations the least of which would have caused it to decapitate twenty constitutional kings.

"Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion:"
The unfathomable meanness of the Goyim (non-Jewish) peoples, crawling before force, merciless to weakness, without pity for mistakes and indulgent toward crimes, not willing to endure the contradictions of a free order, enduring to martyrdom before the violence of a bold despotism--this is what aids our independence. From contemporary premier-dictators they tolerate and endure abuses, for the least of which they would have beheaded twenty kings.

As one can see, the latter is clearly a re-worded version of the first. A more general parallel can be seen between the following excerpts:

Just what is your annually voted budget? Nothing but a provisional regulation, an estimate of the principal financial developments. The situation is never definite until after the completion of expenditures made necessary during the course of the year. In your budgets one finds I know not how many types of appropriations which correspond to all possible eventually: complementary. Supplementary, extraordinary, temporary, exceptional appropriations. And each one of these appropriations by itself forms a distinct budget, the one which is voted at the beginning of the year, comes to a total amount of, let us say, 800 millions. When half of the year is gone, the financial facts already no longer correspond to the first estimates; so what is called a rectifying budget is presented to the chambers and this budget adds 100 millions, 150 millions to the original figure. Then comes the supplementary budget: it adds 50 or 60 millions; finally comes the liquidation budget which adds 15, 20, or 30 millions. In short, in the general reckoning, the total of the difference amounts to one-third of the estimated expenditures. It is upon this last figure that the legislative vote of the Chamber falls as a form of confirmation. In this way, at the end of ten years the budget may have been doubled and tripled.

We shall indicate the necessity of reforms as a consequence of the disorderly muddle to which the financial disorders of the Goyim have fallen. The first lack of order which we shall show lies in the fact that they begin with designating the simple budget, which grows from year to year for the following reasons: this budget is stretched until the middle of the year; then they demand a corrective budget, which is spent in three months, after which they ask a supplementary budget, and all this ends with a liquidation budget. And as the budget of the year following is framed according to the sum of the general total, the yearly departure from the norm amounts to 50 percent a year, so that the yearly budget is tripled within ten years. Thanks to such methods, which are permitted by the carelessness of the Goyim states, their treasuries have been emptied.

By comparing the Protocols and the Dialogues, it becomes evident that there are parallels between the two works. Equally important, Joly's work was published before the Protocols. In fact, professor of criminal law at the University of Basel, Dr. Arthur Baumgarten, confirmed that 176 passages of the Protocols were based on Joly's "Dialogues in Hell" while he served as an expert witness in the Bern trials in 1934-35. [hm: what were these?]

NilusNILUS. According to Nilus, the Protocols were read at secret sessions held during the Zionist Congress at Basel. In "An Appraisal of the Protocols of Zion" by John S. Curtiss, Curtiss points out that the bible is only mentioned once in the Protocols. Apparently, those familiar with Jewish habits of thought would find this suspicious. Equally important, the Old Testament is quoted in Latin. The main language spoken at the Basel Congress was German. Also, the Catholic Church uses the Latin translation of the bible. So why would the Protocols which were supposedly written by Jews contain Latin quotations? A Hebrew translated bible would have been better suited for the Protocols if they had been written by a Jewish author.


In addition to the ones stated above, the Protocols have other inconsistencies that rise suspicion to its credibility. The French revolution is more evidence of the inconsistency. The third Protocol states, "Remember the French Revolution, to which we gave the name 'Great'; the secrets of its preparation are well known to us, for it was wholly the work of our hands." According to Curtiss, "No intelligent and sincere Jew would have made this claim, for he would know that at the time of the French Revolution the handful of Jews in France did not enjoy political rights and had little or no part in the Revolution." The leaders of the French Revolution were Frenchmen. Consequently, the purpose of this protocol is to stir up antisemitism. In addition to the third Protocol, the first Protocol states, "In all corners of the earth the words "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whose legions bore our banners with enthusiasm." The phrase "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" did not originate with Jews. On the other hand, Antoine Francois Momoro, a Frenchman, originated the phrase.

In a time of chaos and anarchy, possessions or properties can become difficult to maintain. According to the Protocols, Jews already own the majority of the world's gold and property. Nevertheless, the Protocols call for the creation of chaos and confusion in the world. This would allow Jewish leaders to seize power. Chaos would make it difficult for Jews to maintain control of their property and could potentially result in great losses. Therefore, Chaos is a step backwards.

Comparing Joly's "Dialogues in Hell," an attack on Napoleon III, and the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," which contains the procedure of a Jewish conspiracy for world domination, shows that the latter was paraphrased and plagiarized from "Dialogues in Hell." In addition, the major inconsistencies of the Protocols prove to be confusing and suspicious. This leaves no credibility to the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" and proves that it is just a tool to spread the disease of antisemitism.

Protocols project main page

about the author, bibliography, and links

back to top [page updated 6/23/2018 by H. Marcuse]