The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. A free ebook, available in HTML, PDF, EPUB, and MOBI formats.

Die Protokolle der Weisen von Zion (pdf)

Die Protokolle der Weisen von Zion und die jüdische Weltpolitik von Alfred Rosenberg (pdf)

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, also known as Secrets of the Sages of Zion, Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion or simply The Protocols, is a widely-distributed document, which describes a purported plan for world domination by International Jewry. The document surfaced in Russia, where it is said to have arrived via France and was published by Sergei Nilus during the early 20th century—it has since been translated into numerous other languages and is read widely across the world.

180px-Protocols

The document is alleged to have been secret minutes–also called protocols–from the First Zionist Congress held at Basel, Switzerland in August 1897. Much brouhaha has been made by organised Jewry and their allies claiming that the document is a “fraud”. However, the most famous public figures who have promoted knowledge of it; such as Henry Ford, have stated they are not interested in whether they were authored from a satirical or esoteric perspective, but rather urge a critical review of historical events that have unfolded, held up against the Protocols.

Contents

According to the Protocols, non-Jews are mentally inferior to Jews and can’t run their nations properly. Therefore, the Protocols advocate the abolishment of the governments of all non-Jewish nations and their replacement with a single world government. This will take a long time and involve much bloodshed, but “the price is worth it”[1] according to the Protocols. The protocols propose the following things Jewry will need to do to achieve its plans for world domination:

  • Place Jewish agents and helpers everywhere.
  • Take control of the media and use it in propaganda for our plans.
  • Start fights between different races, classes and religions.
  • Use bribery, threats and blackmail.
  • Use Freemason Lodges to attract potential public officials.
  • Appeal to successful people’s pride.
  • Appoint puppet leaders who can be controlled by blackmail.
  • Replace royal rule with socialist rule, then communism, then despotism.
  • Abolish all rights and freedoms, except the right of force by Jews.
  • Sacrifice people when necessary.
  • Eliminate religion; replace it with science and materialism.
  • Control the education system to spread deception and destroy intellect.
  • Rewrite history to the benefit of Jewry.
  • Create entertaining distractions.
  • Corrupt minds with filth and perversion.
  • Encourage people to spy on one another.
  • Keep the masses in poverty and perpetual labor.
  • Take possession of all wealth, property and (especially) gold.
  • Use gold to manipulate the markets, cause depressions etc.
  • Introduce a progressive tax on wealth.
  • Replace sound investment with speculation.
  • Make long-term interest-bearing loans to governments.
  • Give bad advice to governments and everyone else.

Implementation of the above, according to the Protocols, will cause the non-Jews to become so angry with their governments (because Jews will blame them for the resulting mess) that they will gladly have Jews take over. The Jewish secret leaders (i.e the Elders of Zion) will then appoint a Jew to be king of the world, hoping that the remaining non-Jews will bow down and sing his praises.

Number Protocol Number Protocol
I The Basic Doctrine, Gold, Might is Right, We are Despots, We Shall End Liberty XIII Distractions, We Decieve Workers
II Economic Wars, Destructive Education XIV Assault on Religion, We Shall Forbid Christ
III Methods of Conquest, Poverty Our Weapon, We Support Communism, Jews Will Be Safe XV Ruthless Suppression, Secret Societies, Gentiles are Stupid, Gentiles are Cattle, We Demand Submission, We Shall Be Cruel, We Shall Change History
IV Materialism Replaces Religion, We Shall Destroy God XVI Brainwashing
V Despotism and Modern Progress, Masses Led by Lies, Monopoly Capital XVII Abuse of Authority, We Shall Destroy the Clergy
VI Take-Over Technique, We Shall Enslave Gentiles XVIII Arrest of Opponents, Government by Fear
VII World-Wide Wars, Universal War XIX Rulers and People
VIII Provisional Government XX Financial Programme, We Shall Destroy Capital, We Cause Depressions, Gentile States Bankrupt, Tyranny of Usury
IX Re-Education, Jewish Super-State, Christian Youth Destroyed XXI Loans and Credit
X Preparing for Power, Our Goal – World Power, Poison of Liberalism, We Name Presidents, We Shall Destroy XXII Power of Gold
XI The Totalitarian State, We Are Wolves XXIII Instilling Obedience
XII Control of the Press, We Control the Press, Free Press Destroyed, Only Lies Printed XXIV Qualities of the Ruler, King of the Jews

Controversies over origins and release

Protocols of the Elders of Zion 1992 Russia.jpg

Its origins are somewhat an enigma inasmuch as it is believed to be from Jewish and possibly Masonic sources. Some have claimed The Protocols were retrieved from a Masonic archive in France, and to have reached Russia where they were first published.

Another account has Justine Glinka acquiring the text in Paris in 1884 from Joseph Schorst, a Jewish Freemason. (She may have translated it from French to Russian.) In 1885 she is said to have passed it on to General Orgevskii who then passed it onto General Cherevin. After being banished to her estate in Orel, she then passed the text onto Alexis Sukhotin. He shared it with two of his acquaintances. Philip Stephanov, who may have published it but not for wide distribution and later to Sergei Nilus.

In France it was claimed there was private circulation of the Protocols in 1897, under the backdrop of the Dreyfus affair.

Russia

The first printed mention of the Protocols in Russia was in 1902, by Mikhail Menshikov in the “Новое Время” newspaper. The first known publishing took place in 1903 in continuation in the “Знамя” newspaper, from issue No. 190 through No. 197 and in issue No. 200.

Serge Nilus

They were also published in 1905 by Sergei Nilus (Сергей Нилус, СергѢй Нилусъ before the Reform of Russian orthography in 1918) in his book Великое бъ маломъ и антихристъ (“The Great within the Small and the Antichrist”), with the claim that they were from the 1897 Zionist conference. In 1917 Alexander Kerensky, the Prime Minister of the Russian Provisional Government, had copies of the book destroyed, but a copy remained within the British Library, deposited there 1906.

The Protocols are claimed by their protagonists to be the minutes or notes of a series of meetings by some influential element of Masonic Jews setting out a programme for world domination. Antagonists state on the other hand that these 24 “protocols” are a “forgery”, and specifically that they were plagiarised from a satire written against Napoleon III by French polemicist Maurice Joly.

The Protocols are one of the most translated and read volumes in literary history. They continue to have a significant distribution in the Islamic states and a revival of interest in Eastern Europe and Russia. Several years ago, a Russian court ruled them a “forgery” in a charge of racial incitement against the Russian nationalist organization Pamyat, to which the leader responded that The Protocols have been in fulfilment in Russian since 1917 (i. e. since the revolutionary overthrow of the Czar).

A Czarist Forgery?

First publication in one

Those who object that The Protocols are an obvious forgery state that this was undertaken by the Czarist secret police in France for the purpose of fomenting anti-Semitism, and in particular for influencing Czar Nicholas II against any moves towards modernisation and industrialisation by identifying such policies as alien – Jewish – inspired. They allude to several alleged witnesses as to the fraudulent origins of The Protocols and state that not only are there no such “elders of Zion” but that the aims written of in The Protocols can never have been a part of Judaism.

The entirety of the case against The Protocols’ rests on the contention that they are a “forgery” of the Czarist secret Police, the Okhrana, for the purpose of fomenting anti-Semitism, especially at a time when Jews were identified with the growing revolutionary movement in Russia.

When Victor Marsden, Russian correspondent for The London Morning Post, (one of two British correspondents in Russia at the time of the Bolshevik revolution) first translated The Protocols into English in 1920, they were widely accepted as genuine by a large segment of eminent diplomats and statesmen. The London Times, typical of the respectable sources initially impressed by The Protocols, asked:

“What are these Protocols? Are they authentic? If so, what malevolent assembly concocted these plans, and gloated over their exposition? Have we, by straining every fibre of our national body, escaped a ‘Pax Germanica’ only to fall into a ‘Pax Judaic’?”

The Times called for “an impartial investigation.” The Morning Post, Marsden’s newspaper, carried twenty-three articles dealing with The Protocols and the role of Jews in world affairs, and also called for an investigation. Lord Sydenham, a particularly avid promoter of The Protocols, writing in The Spectator remarked like many others as to the way “prophecies” (sic) in The Protocols were being “now literally fulfilled…” and also called for an investigation into the origins.

Very soon however British Jewish lobbies acted. In 1921 the same London Times which had been one of the first to ask whether the strategy of The Protocols was leading to a global ‘Pax Judaica’ was claiming to have definitively proven The Protocols to be bogus. Lucien Wolf and Israel Zangwill were quick off the mark to denounce The Protocols as such.

Norman Cohn, whose book Warrant for Genocide is regarded as one of the most definitive refutations of The Protocols, states:

“A year later, on 18 August 1921, The Times devoted a resounding editorial to admitting its error. It had just published, in its issues of 16, 17, and 18 August, a lengthy despatch from its correspondent in Constantinople, Philip Graves, revealing that the Protocols were largely copied from a pamphlet directed against Napoleon III and dated 1865. Philip Graces wrote as follows: ‘I must confess that when the discovery was communicated to me I was at first incredulous. Mr X, who brought me the evidence, was convinced. ‘Read this book through,’ he said, ‘and you will find irrefutable proof that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a plagiarism.’ Mr X, who does not wish his real name to be known, is a Russian landowner with English connexions. Orthodox by religion, he is in political opinion a Constitutional Monarchist. He came here as a refugee after the final failure of the White cause in South Russia. He had long been interested in the Jewish question as far as it concerned Russia, had studied the Protocols, and during the period of Denikin’s ascendancy had made investigations with the object of discovering whether any occult ‘Masonic’ organization, such as the Protocols speak of, existed in Southern Russia. The only such organization was a Monarchist one. The discovery of the key to the problems of the Protocols came to him by chance. A few months ago he bought a number of old books from a former officer of the Okhrana who had fled to Constantinople. Among these books was a small volume in French, lacking the title page, with dimensions 5 1/2 by 3 1/2 inches. It had been cheaply rebound. On the leather back are printed in Latin capitals the word Joli. The preface, entitled ‘Simple Advertisement’, is dated Geneva, 15 October 1864. … Both the paper and the type are characteristic of the sixties and seventies of the last century. These details are given in the hope that they may lead to the discovery of the title of the book… Mr X believes it must be rare, since, had it not been so, the ‘Protocols’ would have speedily been recognized as plagiarism by anyone who had read the original. That the latter is a ‘fake’ could not be maintained for an instant by anyone who had seen it. Its original possessor, the old Okhrana officer, did not remember where he obtained it, and attached no importance to it. Mr X, glancing at it one day, was struck by a resemblance between a passage which had caught his eye and a phrase in the French edition of the Protocols. He followed up the clue, and soon realized that the Protocols were to a very large extent … a paraphrase of the Geneva original … Before receiving the book from Mr X I was, as I have said, incredulous. I did not believe that Serge Nilus’s Protocols were authentic. … But I could not have believed, had I not seen, that the writer who supplied Nilus with his originals was a careless and shameless plagiarist. The Geneva book is a very thinly veiled attack on the despotism of Napoleon III in the form of a series of 25 dialogues. … The speakers are Montesquieu and Machiavelli ..…”…

Princess Radziwill’s Bogus Testimony

The testimony of Princess Catherine Radziwill has been used to prove the fraudulent Czarist origins of The Protocols that had been reported as above by The Times.

According to Radziwill, The Protocols had been contrived to convince Nicholas II that the Jews were involved in a plot to overthrow the throne. Princess Radziwill asserts that Gen. Orgewsky, chief of the Okhrana, secret police, had sent agents to Paris to manufacture a document that would incite hatred of the Jews. Pyotr Rachkovsky, head of the foreign branch of the Okhrana (1884-1902) was in charge of the job, assisted by two others, Manassiewitch-Manouioff and Mathieu Golovinsky.

Radziwill had known the Golovinsky family in Russia. She states that Golovinsky had visited her one day and had shown her and several of her friends a manuscript on which he had been working, the purpose of which was to prove the existence of a Jewish conspiracy. Radziwill had not realised he was an agent of the Okhrana. She recalls the manuscript was hand-written in French, on cheap yellowish paper, and on the first page was a large blue ink spot.

Radziwill emphasises that she was speaking of the years 1904-1905 while she was living on the Champs Elysées in Paris. An American friend she cites as having been present, Mrs Hurlbut, supported Radziwill’s claim in an interview with the American Hebrew in 1921. She affirmed with Radziwill that, having read the manuscript, this was the same as that of The Protocols.

Radziwill also made a statement to the Jewish Tribune in the USA out of “a sense of duty”. However, there soon followed questions regarding the testimony of Radziwill. M Vladimir Bourtzew, editor of The Common Cause, whilst condemning The Protocols, wondered as to the accuracy of Radziwill’s and Hurlbut’s memories. Bourtzew was able to show that Ratchowsky was not in Paris in 1904-05, as he had been recalled in advance of the Russo-Japanese War, which broke out in February 1904. In fact he had been recalled from Paris as early as 1900.

Monsignor Jouin investigated Radziwill’s claims and found that she had not been registered as a resident or even as a visitor to Paris during those years, as required by law.

Additionally, Sergei Nilus, the publisher of The Protocols in Russia had already received the document in 1901, which makes the much referenced Rachkovsky forgery claim redundant . The Protocols were published in 1901 in a work by Nilus called The Great Within the Small. Moreover, according to the testimony of Philip Stepanov, a copy of The Protocols was given to him in 1895 by his neighbour Maj. Alexis Sukhotin, Marshall of the town of Orel, who had been given his copy by Mlle Justine Glinka. The latter, the daughter of a Russian general had been in France since 1884, working for Gen. Orgevskii, secretary to the Minister of the Interior.

In wishing to refute the later allegation that The Protocols were formulated at the 1897 First Zionist Congress in Basle, Herman Bernstein, an early debunker of The Protocols, himself cites Stepanov’s sworn statement, the hand-written original being reproduced in Mrs Leslie Fry’s book Waters Flowing Eastward. Bernstein states of the Stepanov affidavit: “…This account of the history of the Protocols in Russia is accompanied by a facsimile affidavit made in 1927 by Philip Stepanov, one of the two friends to whom Sukhotin first showed the Protocols in Russia. Stepanov’s telltale affidavit, translated from the Russian, reads as follows: “In 1895 my neighbouring estate owner in the province of Tula, retired Major Alexey Nikolayevitch Sukhotin, gave me a handwritten copy of the ‘Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion.’ He told me that a lady of his acquaintance (he did not mention her name), residing in Paris, had found them at the home of a friend of hers (probably of Jewish origin), and before leaving Paris, had translated them secretly, without his knowledge, and had brought one copy of that translation to Russia, and had given that copy to him, Sukhotin. “At first I mimeographed one hundred copies of the Protocols, but that edition was difficult to read, and I resolved to have it printed somewhere, without mentioning the time, the city and the printer; I was helped in this by Arcady Ippolitovitch Kelepkovsky, who at that time was Privy Councillor with Grand Duke Sergey Alexandrovitch; he had these documents printed at the Provincial Printing Press; that was in 1897. S. A. Nilus reprinted these Protocols in full in his book, with his own commentaries. “Philip Petrovitch Stepanov, former Procurator of the Moscow Synod Office; Chamberlain, Privy Councillor, and at the time of the publication of that edition, Chief of the district railway service of the Moscow-Kursk railway (in Orel). “This is the signature of a member of the colony of Russian refugees at Stary and Novy Futog. “Witnessed by me, Stary Futog, April 17, 1927. “Chairman of the Administration of the Colony, “Prince Vladimir Galitzin.” (Seal)

Bernstein therefore accepts the testimony of Stepanov as reliable in stating that The Protocols were in existence not only prior to the First Zionist Congress in 1897, but prior to the time Radziwill was claiming Okhrana agents were ‘forging’ The Protocols in Paris.

Although Radziwill’s testimony had already been shown to be unreliable, she was called as a witness at the 1935 Berne Trial, during which Swiss Jewish organisations attempted to prosecute two Swiss right-wingers for circulating The Protocols. Radziwill was exposed in court as an unreliable witness.

Du Chayla: Another Dubious Character

While Cohn and his predecessor Herman Bernstein emphasised the alleged shortcomings and eccentricities of Nilus et al, the witnesses against The Protocols are cited without similar attention given to their backgrounds. We have considered the background of a key witness, Princess Radziwill. The debunkers of The Protocols are obliged to resort to another flawed character to support Radziwill’s testimony, a Frenchman named Count A M du Chayla. Bernstein lauds the Count’s military record in presenting him as a noble and reliable character whilst smearing Nilus. We shall first see what Bernstein cites from the Count and then consider what a Russian of the Count’s acquaintance has to say about his background: To quote Bernstein:

“Count A. M. du Chayla, a Frenchman who had lived in Russia for many years, gave interesting and important testimony at the 1934 trial in Bern, Switzerland, regarding the “Protocols” and Sergius Nilus, whom he knew intimately. (Bernstein footnote: Count du Chayla revealed the Russian origin of the “Protocols” in 1921, in Posledniya Novosty, the Russian newspaper published in Paris. The first authentic information concerning the mysterious Nilus, the Russian sponsor of the “Protocols,” was given by Count du Chayla in 1921. He is the author of several studies on Russian theology and culture. During the war he was commander of a detachment of Don Cossacks and was decorated for heroism. In 1909 M. du Chayla spent nine months at the monastery at Optina Poustina as a close neighbor and intimate friend of Nilus, who frequently spoke to him of the Protocols and showed him the original document and the commentaries which he was preparing for it. M. du Chayla also gathered further information concerning Nilus from people who had known him intimately). “When he was introduced to Nilus the third day after his arrival at Optina Poustina, du Chayla found Nilus to be “a man of about 45, a true Russian type, big and broad, with a grey beard and deep blue eyes.” Nilus came from a family of Swiss émigrés who had come to Russia in the reign of Peter I, and boasted of being a direct descendant of a special executioner under Ivan the Terrible. A brother of his was a judge in Moscow, who regarded Nilus as a madman. Nilus was well educated, had been graduated from the Law Academy in Moscow, and knew perfectly French, German and English. He had been appointed judge in Trans-Caucasia but his eccentricities and capricious temperament forced him to abandon that post. “M. du Chayla made the sensational disclosure that Nilus was at one time about to become the confessor of the Czar and the Royal family of Russia but was prevented by his enemies and forced to leave in disgrace. In 1918, Nilus lived in Kiev at the convent known as “Protection of the Holy Virgin.” In the winter of 1918-1919, he escaped to Germany and lived in Berlin. “Du Chayla frequently visited Nilus at his villa near the monastery where Nilus was living on the pension that his wife was receiving from the Imperial Court. In the course of a discussion on religion, Nilus read some extracts from the text and from his commentaries, and was greatly incensed at the Frenchman’s failure to be impressed with the document and proceeded to show him a manuscript, which he claimed was the original draft of the sessions of the Wise Men of Zion. Du Chayla noticed on the front page a large ink spot. The text was French, and was in several handwritings and in different inks. “Nilus explained this by asserting that different people had filled the post of secretary at the secret sessions of the Wise Men of Zion. He did not seem to be certain, however, about this detail, for at another time he told du Chayla that the manuscript was not the original but a copy. Nilus introduced du Chayla to a certain Mme. K. who was living with them at the villa. This Mme. K., whose name du Chayla did not divulge; had been in intimate relations with Nilus in Paris and, after Nilus had married, came to live with him and his wife. Mme. Nilus was a submissive woman who did not object to this arrangement. “Nilus told du Chayla that this Mme. K. while in Paris had met a certain General Rachkovsky who had given her the manuscript of the Protocols which he said he had removed from the secret archives of the Freemasons. This Rachkovsky was head of the branch of the Russian political police which watched Russian political offenders who had escaped to France. Du Chayla once asked Nilus whether he did not think that he was following a false trail in accepting as gospel truth the manuscript of Rachkovsky, whose unreliability had been so frequently demonstrated. Nilus answered, “Did not the ass of Balaam utter prophecy? Cannot God transform the bones of a dog into sacred miracles? If He can do these things, He can also make the announcement of truth come from the mouth of a liar.” “To convince du Chayla further, Nilus showed him a mass of miscellaneous household utensils, insignia of technical societies, diplomatic emblems, etc., which Nilus kept in a small chest. “On each of these objects,” says du Chayla, “his inflamed imagination showed him the mark of the Antichrist in the form of a triangle or a pair of crossed triangles. It was enough for any object to have on it a figure resembling somewhat a triangle for Nilus to see in it the seal of the Wise Men of Zion.” ….

Mrs Tatiana Fermor, a Russian émigré, writing from Paris in 1921, had a different view of du Chayla, which is not recorded by Cohn or Bernstein. Referring to du Chayla’s article on The Protocols written in Poslednii Novosti, she states: “If the value of a document be based on the credit of the person by whom it is produced, one must also analyse the character of him who discredits it.”

Fermor states that she was introduced to du Chayla at a convent near her estate in White Russia. Du Chayla was studying the Orthodox religion and the Russian language. The Procurator of the Holy Synod at St Petersburg had invited him to the Russian monastery of Optina Poustine, to agitate against Catholicism. The Count demonstrated himself to be an Orthodox zealot by removing religious sculptures and smashing them as being “too Catholic.” He was also noted for his anti-Semitism, stating to Fermor, “one must have a good pogrom in Russia.” Mrs Fermor was therefore perplexed when she read of du Chayla presenting himself in 1921 as a friend of the Jews who was condemning The Protocols for inciting anti-Semitism among the White Russian armies. Du Chayla predicted that the Jews would take over Russia, as they had taken over France, should they be granted full civil rights.

Mrs Fermor followed du Chayla’s career in Russia and was amazed by his rapid rise in politics and ecclesiastics. He ingratiated himself to the most Orthodox of the Bishops and was noted for his anti-foreigner and pro-monarchist sentiments. He was a supporter of the Pan-Slavist Party and was arrested for espionage in Austria.

After his return to Russia he directed a campaign against Poles and Finns. As he was always in need of money, Mrs Fermor recommended him to the president for the affairs of Finland, who employed him for anti-Finnish propaganda in the foreign press. During the war he was head of a field hospital and received funds from Rasputin. During the Bolshevik Revolution he apparently changed sides and was an agent provocateur inciting the Cossacks against the White Army. In 1919 he was tried by court martial and convicted of seditious activities in the pay of the Soviets. The sentence was published throughout the Crimea.

Resurrection of the Golovinsky Authorship

The allegation of Golovinsky as the “forger” has been resurrected with the discovery by a Russian literary historian of the Golovinsky file in the recently opened Russian archives, Golovinsky’s supposedly showing his role. The claim that Mikhail Lepekhine was able to confirm the forger’s identity has been widely publicised, firstly with an article in L’Express, and subsequently picked up by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and run by Time and numerous other periodicals. The article in L’Express appearing in 1999 begins: “It is the most famous – and the most tragic – forgery of the 20th century and the foundation of the antisemitic myth of the “World Jewish Conspiracy.” Now the text of The Protocols of Learned Elders of Zion has yielded its last secret: a Russian historian, Mikhail Lepekhine, has proved the identity of its author thanks to files kept by the former Soviet Union. Now we can understand why it was necessary to wait so long to reveal the epilogue: Mathieu Golovinski, the forger, who carried out his work in Paris at the beginning of the century, and who was the representative in France of the Czar’s political police, became a prominent Bolshevik after the Russian Revolution of 1917. The discovery of this sinister historical footnote makes it possible to fill in the last gaps in the history of an imposture which, after having done so much harm in Europe, still flourishes in many parts of the world.”

Lepekhine discovered the Golovinsky file that had lain dormant in the Soviet archives, supposedly because the former Czarist agent had become a leading Soviet functionary before his death in 1920. Lepekhine states that Golovinsky worked on The Protocols in Paris in ca. 1900-01, and they were first published partially in 1903 and in their final form in 1905. After relating without question the testimony of the discredited du Chayla and the expose of The Protocols by The London Times in 1921 as a plagiarism from French satirist and polemicist Maurice Joly, the article relates the circumstances by which the Golovinsky file was discovered: “It was in the files of the Frenchman Henri Bint, who was for thirty-seven years an agent of the Russian police services in Paris, that Mikhail Lépekhine found that Mathieu Golovinski was the mysterious author of the forgery. In 1917 in Paris, Bint met with Serge Svatikov, the envoy of the new Russian government of Kerenski, who was charged with dismantling the Czarist secret service and “debriefing” – and sometimes recalling – its agents. Bint explained to him that Mathieu Golovinski was the author of the Protocols and that he himself was in charge of remunerating the forger. The last ambassador of the Czar, Basile Maklakov, absconded with the files of the Russian embassy and, in 1925, gave them to the American Hoover Foundation. Meanwhile, Serge Svatikov bought Henri Bint’s personal files. When he broke with the new Bolshevik leadership in Russia, Svatikov deposited the Bint files in Prague, in a private foundation called the “Russian Files Abroad.” In 1946, the Soviets seized the foundation and moved the files to Moscow, archiving them with the files of State of the Federation of Russia…. “Golovinski’s secret was thus preserved until the fall of Communism and the opening of the Soviets’ files in 1992….”

There are questions that arise from this: · Firstly, was Bint trying to ingratiate himself with the new Kerenski regime, or was the regime trying to discredit the origins of The Protocols? The document was regarded with outrage by the Kerenski regime (which was largely of Masonic composition) . In January 1917 Nilus had prepared a second edition of The Protocols, but before it could be released the March Revolution had triumphed, and Kerenski ordered the edition destroyed. . · Secondly, the fact that Golovinsky (like du Chayla) changed sides and worked for the Bolsheviks, does not explain why his identity as the alleged “forger” would remain concealed, especially during the Stalinist era. The article cites the post-Czarist career of Golovinsky, as uncovered by Lepekhine: “The fall of Czarism could not shake so good a swimmer in muddy waters as Golovinski. By 1917, he was appointed to the Petrograd (St. |Petersburg) Soviet, and Dr. Golovinski was celebrated by the revolutionists as the first of the few Russian doctors to have approved the Bolshevik coup d’État! The career of this “red doctor” was subsequently dazzling: he became a member of the People’s Commissariat on health policy and the military-medical College and, as such, became an influential figure in shaping public health policy. He took part in the founding of the Pioneers (an organization of youth brigades), advised Trotsky on the structure of military teaching, and in 1918 founded and directed the Institute of Physical Culture, the seedbed of future Soviet athletic champions. Though he became prominent in the new Soviet regime, he did not benefit long from his new powers and died in 1920 just as his Protocols started to enjoy a great success owing to its English, French and German |translations.”

So far from the Stalinist regime having an interest in hiding the identity of Golovinsky as the forger of The Protocols, it would accord with Stalin’s interests to have exposed Golovinsky since he had been closely associated with Stalin’s arch-rival Trotsky, an association which was sufficient cause for execution. · Thirdly, and most importantly, we have previously seen from the sworn statement of Philip Stepanov in 1927, that he had been given a copy of The Protocols in 1895 and had them printed in 1897. · Fourthly, there are internal indications that The Protocols date well prior to 1900-01. For e.g. a reference to “the Panama scandal” of 1888 which caused a furore in France during the 1890s (the scandal only becoming public knowledge in 1892). There is NO mention of the “Dreyfus Affair” which brought France to the brink of civil war and ranged from 1894 to 1906, the entirety of the period during within which The Protocols were supposedly being forged in Paris by Okhrana agents. For anti-Semites NOT to mention – indeed emphasise – the “Dreyfus Affair’ while it was swirling around them as a cause célèbre by both pro- and anti-Semites, is implausible. Also had The Protocols been contrived by Golovinsky ca. 1900 or at least sometime after 1896, it seems reasonable that anti-Semites would draw widely on references to Zionism, the First Zionist Congress taking place in 1897. However, there are no references to Zionism at all in The Protocols, nor to any proto-Zionist ideology. The initial opinion of Nilus et al that The Protocols were not derived from the Zionist movement, but from a Jewish faction of Masonry, seems more likely. · Fifthly, as for the archives of the secret police deposited at the Hoover Institute (or the personal papers of Golovinsky’s superior), nothing has been found.

The Czar & The Protocols

Cohn writes of the failure of The Protocols to draw much attention until after the 1917 Revolution and that this was due to their repudiation by the Czar: “It must be borne in mind that in these matters everything depended on the attitude of the Tsar himself – and in the end the Tsar, however besotted by the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy had to recognize the Protocols as spurious. How this came about is described in a statement from General K. I. Globachev, one-time commandant of the St Petersburg division the Okhrana, which Burtsev produced at the Berne trial. Globachev describes how, after many unsuccessful attempts the Protocols were at last brought to the Tsar’s notice in the revolutionary year 1905. ‘Reading the Protocols’, he continues, ‘made a very deep impression on Nicholas II, who made them his handbook for politics.’ Typical in this respect are the marginal annotations, which Nicholas II made on the copy of the Protocols which had been submitted to him: “‘What depth of thought! – What foresight! – What precision in the realisation of the programme! – our year 1905 has gone as though managed by the Elders. – There can be no doubt as to their authenticity. – Everywhere one sees the directing and destroying hand of Judaism.’ “And so on. Keenly interested in the ‘discovery’ of the Protocols, Nicholas II gave his attention to the foreign branch of the Russian secret police and handed out a great number of rewards, decorations, and gratuities. … The leaders of the Union of the Russian People, like Shmakov, Markov II, etc. addressed a request to the Ministry of the Interior, asking for authorization to use the Protocols on a large scale in the struggle against militant Judaism, and for subsidies for the purpose. But the Minister of the Interior, Stolypin … entrusted two officers of the corps of gendarmes, Martynov and Vassilyev, with a secret inquiry into the origin of the Protocols. This inquiry revealed clearly the spuriousness of the Protocols. The results of the inquiry were presented by Stolypin to Nicholas II, who was completely bowled over. And this is the resolution of Nicholas II on the report concerning the employment of the Protocols for antisemitic propaganda: ‘Drop the Protocols. One cannot defend a pure cause by dirty methods.”

What is not stated is that Interior Minister Stolypin, who commissioned the enquiry to determine that The Protocols were a forgery, was an opponent of the Union of the Russian People The Black Hundred as it was commonly termed). Walter Laqueur, a Jewish academic and leading authority on Russia and fascism, states that The Black Hundred was regarded by Stolypin as “a cause of unrest and instability and acted decisively when they threatened unrest.” How better to discredit The Black Hundred and stifle its bid for Government subsidies than to declare The Protocols a fraud?

According to another Zionist academic, J. L. Talmon: “Three years later the Tsar and all his family were helpless prisoners guarded by a Jew and a few Latvian assistants. ‘There was grim although probably quite accidental retribution’ – says W. H. Chamberlain in his monumental Russian Revolution – ‘in the fact that the chief executioner of Tsar Nicholas II and his family in the Ekaterinburg cellar was a Jew’, Jacob Yurovsky … As if to heighten the symbolism of that dreadful end of one of the most powerful Royal dynasties in history at the hands of an obscure Jew, soldiers of the counter-revolutionary army seized Ekaterinburg a short time after, and found in the murdered Tsarina’s room a copy of The Protocols of Zion … ”

Cohn writes: “Some months before her murder at Yekaterinberg the deposed Empress had received from a friend, Zinaida Sergeyevna Tolstaya, a copy of Nilus’ book containing the Protocols. … The Empress took Nilus’ book with her to her last home …A week after the murder of the imperial family … the remains of the Tsar, the Tsarina, and their children, dismembered and incinerated, were discovered at the bottom of a disused mine-shaft … … the examining magistrate found three books belonging to the Empress: the first volume of War and Peace, the Bible in Russian, and The Great in the Small by Nilus.”

If The Protocols were a forgery produced by the Czar’s own secret police, why would the Czarina have kept a personal copy even in her own room, one of three books she took to her death?

Catholicism & Orthodoxy

There is another important question regarding the alleged forgery by Okhrana agents, which is contained within the text. This is the question of the Catholic Church mentioned several times in The Protocols: “[…] In this respect the Jesuits alone might have compared with us, but we have contrived to discredit them in the eyes of the unthinking mob as an overt organisation, while we ourselves all the while have kept our secret organisation in the shade. However, it is probably all the same to the world who is its sovereign lord, whether the head of Catholicism, or our despot of the blood of Zion! But to us, the Chosen People, it is very far from being a matter of indifference.”

Discussing the concept of the divinity of kingship as upholding stability, Prot. XV states: “[…] Such was until recent times, the Russian autocracy, the one and only serious foe we had in the world, without counting the Papacy.”

The Czar was indeed considered by many Jews the principal enemy at that time. As for the Papacy, there has been much written on the conflict between the Church and Judaism, which often culminated in the burning of the Talmud, the Jewish scriptures. Likewise the antagonism between the Church and Masonry has been historically volatile.

If The Protocols were forged by Czarist agents who wished to maintain Russia’s political and religious traditions, one would not expect to see any such reference to the Catholic Church. On the contrary, it would have been in the interests of Czarist traditionalists to concoct an association between the Church and the “elders of Zion”. To refer to the Czar and the Church in the same breath as twin obstacles to the “learned elders” is surely unthinkable for a Czarist traditionalist. We are told by Cohn et al, that Nilus was at one time expected to become the Czar’s confessor, and that the Okhrana aimed to use him to deliver The Protocols to the Czar. Simultaneously, it is emphasised that Nilus was a fanatical Orthodox mystic.

Jewish academic Walter Laqueur, states: “Orthodox attitudes toward Rome had always been hostile to a certain extent; some [Orthodox] church leaders regarded Catholicism as an unwelcome competitor…. Others considered Catholicism a danger greater even than atheism…. A believing Catholic could not be a true son of the fatherland, for his loyalty was to a foreign authority…”

Yet whoever formulated The Protocols states that the Czar and the Pope are equally antithetical to their aims.

Grand Duchess Elizabeth & the Masons

According to Israel Zangwill, one of the first to try and discredit The Protocols, the document had been published in Nilus’ book The Great in the Small in order to discredit Philippe de Lyon, a “mystic” who had gained influence over the Czar and Czarina, to the chagrin of Grand Duchess Elizabeth. . While Zangwill alludes to du Chayla’s testimony, and mentions the count’s service with the Cossack’s in 1918 he does not mention du Chayla’s condemnation as a traitor working for the Bolsheviks. Baigent et al, in attempting to develop their conspiracy theory in regard to the alleged but questionably existent Prior de Sion, claim that the Grand Duchess was trying to install her own favourites at the Czar’s court, and that Philippe de Lyon was the rival of her friend Nilus as the Czar’s spiritual adviser.

The innuendos against the Grand Duchess are disgraceful while dubious characters such as Radziwill and du Chayla are upheld as virtuous. The American, Rheta Childe Dorr interviewed Elizabeth shortly after the Kerensky revolution had overthrown the Czar. She states of the Grand Duchess: “…The Grand Duke Serge was assassinated, blown to pieces by a bomb, almost before the eyes of his wife, by a revolutionist on February 4 old style, 1905. He was killed when going to join the Grand Duchess in one of the churches of the Kremlin in Moscow. She rushed out and saw his mutilated remains lying in the snow. The Grand Duchess Serge had long been known as a noble and saintly woman, and her conduct following the horrible death of her husband perfectly illustrates her character. She besought the Czar to commute the death sentence passed upon the assassin, and when he refused she went to the prison where the wretched man waited his death, gained admission to his cell, and almost to the end prayed with him and comforted him. No children had ever been born to her, and after the event which cut the last tie that bound her to the life of royal pomp and glitter she retired from society and gave herself up to religion. As soon as possible she became a nun. Her private fortune, to the last ruble, investments, palaces, furniture, art treasures, jewels, motor cars, sables and other fine raiment were turned into cash and the money used to build a convent and to found an order of which she became the lady abbess…”

Dorr relates that when the revolutionary mob stormed the convent and sought to jail Elizabeth as a “class enemy”, she calmly confronted them, insisted on first going to the chapel to pray, then told the mob she was ready to leave with them. Such was her courage that nobody came forward.

In July 1918 she was buried alive in a mineshaft whilst tending to the wounds of those around her. Nothing of her character fits the portrayal of her as the unscrupulous conspirator of political intrigue at the royal.

Papus and Philippe de Lyon

Elizabeth’s concern at the influence of Philippe de Lyon would have been justified. Philippe was a protégé of Dr Gerard Encausse, commonly known by his esoteric name “Papus”, who was an important Freemason with the same Lodge as Cremieux and Joly.

Papus, a Gentile, was a 33rd Degree Mason who became Grand Master of Memphis-Mizraim Masonry; i.e. he was a successor to Cremieux and the head of the Masonic rite to which The Protocols are directly attributed. Papus was also the founder of revived Martinist Freemasonry, and Grand Master of the Martinist Supreme Council. Lodges were established in Russia, Britain, USA , South America and the Orient.

Martinism was originally founded in 1754 by Martines de Pasquales, a Spanish Jew who had been an agent for Weishaupt’s Illuminati. The association between Martinism and Memphis-Mizraim Freemasonry is indicated by a present-day paper by an Ontario-based Martinist Order, on the history of Martinism, stating of the period ca. 1930s:

“It had an outer circle in the “Collège d’Occultisme” in Paris, and an anti-chamber to the Order, the 2 lodges of Memphis-Mizraim, “La Jerusalem Égyptienne” and “L’Âge Nouveau”, provided the Masonic qualifications required for Martinist membership who had to progressively take degrees in Memphis-Mizraim as successive prerequisites to admittance to the Martinist degrees of Initiate and then Superior Unknown.”

According to the eminent Jewish historian Bernard Lazare, Martinez de Pasquales was a cabalistic mystic who was an initiate of Order of the Illuminati of Adam Weishaupt, founding branches in France. Lazare considers a direct link between Martinez, Cagliostro and other Masons and the French revolutionaries, ‘for the purposes of undermining Christianity’. While Cohn et al base much of their contention that The Protocols were plagiarised from Joly’s satire, there are also many direct parallels between passages of The Protocols and the documents of the Illuminati, while also keeping in mind the association between Joly himself and Crémieux, a matter never mentioned by The Protocols debunkers.

Manuilov – Agent of Masonry or Okhrana?

Philippe de Lyon arrived in Russia in 1899 to establish a Martinist Lodge at the imperial court. He was introduced to the court by Rasputin’s adviser, a “renegade Jew”, Manassevich Manuilov, who was an agent of the Okhrana. What is strange about this is that in the testimony of Radziwill, cited by Bernstein, Cohn, Zangwill, et al, this same Manuilov is claimed to have worked with Golovisnki in Paris in “forging” The Protocols. What is to be made of these contradictions? Why was Manuilov introducing top Masons into the Czar’s Court? What of the coincidence that The Protocols are claimed by their defenders to have been lifted from the Mizraim Lodge in Paris, the same Masonic rite to which Papus and Philippe belonged? In whose interests then was Manuilov really serving? Masonry? The Okhrana? There are questions which cause a major hole in the arguments of those who claim The Protocols to be a clumsy forgery.

Protocols and Nilus discredited by Masonic Advisers

Papus went to St Petersburg on several occasions between 1900-1906. It was during his time, when the Czar was under the influence of both Papus and his protégé Philippe, that he scorned Nilus and rebuked The Protocols as a fraud. At the same time, his Interior Minister Stolypin commissioned an investigation which rejected the document as fraudulent. Nilus was sent from the court in disgrace, and his reputation and character have been the subjected of slander ever since. We have seen previously that Stolypin had his own agenda. However, whatever the evidence against The Protocols that was touted to the Czar by both Stolypin and the Masons, Nicholas towards the end of his life re-read Nilus’ book The Great in the Small, where The Protocols are included as an appendix and remarked on their prophetic nature.

Conclusion

The case against The Protocols is far from being answered, despite the assertions of the past ninety years. There are direct connections between Joly and Crémieux, a leader of Martinist, Mizraim, Scottish Rite and Grand Orient Freemasonry and the Alliance Israelite Univesrelle, which might offer an alternative explanation as to why there are parallels between the satirical work of Joly, The Protocols, and the doctrines of the Illuminati, with there also being the contention that it was from the archives Mizraim Masonry in Paris that The Protocols had been stolen.

The allegations as to Okhrana agents being in Paris forging The Protocols do not hold up to examination. The time frame makes it likely that The Protocols existed earlier than ca. 1900. Not only is there contrary testimony by Stepanov who read and even published The Protocols earlier than Nilus, but also internal evidence within The Protocols suggests an earlier time of existence, ca. 1892, given that there is reference to the Panama Scandal, but no reference to the Dreyfus Affair, and no reference to the 1897 Zionist Congress. The Protocols being a forgery emanating from Okhrana agents to promote a traditionalist agenda also seems unlikely given the references to Catholicism and the Czar being the major impediments to The Protocols agenda.

The Protocols are not a Zionist program in this writer’s opinion, not only because they was written apparently prior to the First Zionist Congress in 1897, but because there is no mention of proto-Zionist doctrines that were beginning to manifest around this time, prior to Hertzl. Nor do The Protocols seem to be promoting Orthodox Judaism, for their doctrine is more cosmopolitan and internationalist and seems to suggest Reform Judaism of the type being promoted by certain Rationalist Jews around Masonry, which had arisen the century before around Moses Mendelsohn, and in alliance with the gentile Freemason Lessing for example. Nilus himself had the initial impression that The Protocols was not a Zionist program but derived from within Masonry and this attitude seems to be the more likely.

Julius Evola on the truth value of the Protocols

The question of ‘authenticity’ is … subordinate to a double test of superior character, which is, let us repeat again : 1) the proof by the facts ; 2) the proof by the nature of the Jewish spirit.Having given these clarifications, it is now possible to move on to the content of the ‘Protocols’.

They contain the plan for an occult war, whose objective is the utter destruction, in the non-Jewish peoples, of all tradition, class, aristocracy, and hierarchy, and of all moral, religious, or supra-material values. With this aim in view, an occult international organisation, directed by real leaders clearly conscious of their goals and of the methods to be followed to achieve them, would appear for a long time to have been exercising, and continuing to exercise, a unitary invisible action, which constitutes the source of the main forms of corruption of Western civilisation and society : liberalism, individualism, egalitarianism, free thought, anti-religious Enlightenment, and various additions which, following on from these, bring about the revolt of the masses and communism itself.

It is important to note that the absolute falsity of all these ideologies is expressly recognised : they are stated to have been created and propagated only as instruments of destruction and, in relation to Communism, the ‘Protocols’ go so far as to declare : “If we have been able to bring them to such a pitch of stupid blindness is it not a proof, and an amazingly clear proof, of the degree to which the mind of the GOYIM is undeveloped in comparison with our mind? This it is, mainly, which guarantees our success.” (Protocol XV).

Not only they talk about political ideologies which will have to be instilled without anyone being allowed to grasp their true meaning and their goal, but they talk also of a “science” created with the purpose of general demoralisation, and significant references are made to the scientistic superstition of ‘Progress’, to Darwinism, to Marxist and historicist sociology, and so on. “Goyim are no longer able to think, in the field of science, without our help”, while, once again, the falseness of all those theories is acknowledged (I, II, III, XIII).

In the third place, we find discussion of a specifically cultural action : to dominate the principal centres of official teaching ; to control, through the monopoly of the popular press, public opinion ; to spread in the so-called leading countries an unhinged and equivocal literature (XIV) ; to provoke, therefore, as a counterpart of social defeatism, a moral defeatism, to be increased by an attack upon religious values and their representatives, to be carried out, not head-on and openly, but by stirring up criticism, mistrust, and discreditable rumours regarding the clergy (XVI, IV).

The ‘mercantilisation’ of life is indicated as being one of the principal means of destruction ; hence, also, the necessity of having a crowd of ‘economists’ as conscious or unconscious instruments of the secret chiefs. Once the spiritual values which were at the root of the former authority have been destroyed and replaced by mathematical calculations and material needs, all the peoples of the world must be brought to a universal war, in which it is assumed each will follow its own interests, and all will remain unaware of the common enemy (IV) ; finally, it is proposed to encourage the ideas of the various competing groups, and, instead of attacking them, to use them to realise the overall plan, so that a capacity for providing support for the most diverse conceptions, from the aristocratic and the totalitarian to the anarchist or socialist ones, is recognised, provided that the effects contribute to the common goal (V, XII). The necessity of destroying family life and its influence on spiritual education is also recognised (X), as is that of rendering the masses stupid by means of sport and distractions of all kinds, and stirring up their passionate and irrational tendencies to the point at which they lose any faculty of discrimination (XIII).

This is the first phase of the occult war : its goal is to create an enormous proletariat, to reduce the peoples to a mush of beings without tradition or inner strength. Then there is proposed a further action, on the basis of the power of gold. The secret chiefs will control gold globally, and, by means of it, all the peoples already deracinated, along with their apparent, more or less demagogic, leaders. While, on one hand, the destruction will proceed through ideological poisons, revolts, revolutions and conflicts of all sorts, the masters of gold will stir up crises of domestic economy everywhere, with the purpose of driving humanity to such a state of prostration, despair, and utter mistrust towards any ideal or system that it becomes a passive object in the hands of the invisible dominators, who will then manifest themselves, and impose themselves as absolute world-wide rulers. The King of Israel will be at their head, and the ancient promise of the Regnum of the ‘Chosen People’ will be achieved.

This is the essence of the ‘Protocols’. The more general problem which is connected to it has various aspects.

Translations into other languages

They were translated into German in January 1920 by Gottfried Zur Beck. They were translated into English by Victor Marsden in 1920, although this had been preceded by another translation by George Shanks. Under the lead title, The Protocols and World Revolution, the text was published in Boston, in 1920, by the prestigious publishing house of Small, Maynard & Company.

A newer translation was made into English by White Russian émigré Peter Afansieff after his arrival in San Francisco, California in 1922.

Editions of the Protocols

  • 1905 – First published by Professor Sergius A. Nilus in Tsarskoye Sʲelo (Царское Село, 26 kilometers south of Saint Petersburg) in 1905, in the second edition of a book entitled Великое бъ маломъ и антихристъ (The Great Within the Small and the Antichrist).
  • January 1917 – A second edition is published by Nilus with revisions and documentations. However after the revolution in March 1917, Alexander Kerensky the leader of the new Russian Provisional Government orders the book to be destroyed. A few copies survive and are republished years later in other European countries and the United States.
  • 1919 – A German edition is published by Gottfreid zum Beek
  • 1920 – An English edition is published by The Britons.
  • 1920 – La Revue Internationale des Sociétés Secrètes (France) by Monseigneur Jouin
  • 1920 – The Protocols and World Revolution is published by Small, Maynard & Co. (Boston 1920)
  • 1921 – An American edition is published by The Beckwith Company (New York 1921)
  • 1921 – L’auteur des protocols: Achad ha-Am et le sionisme (French), 32 pages, publisher: La Vieille-France by L. Fry

Claims of a Hoax

In 1921 Lucien Wolf, a Jewish writer, claimed that the Protocols plagarized a pamphlet from 1864 “Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu” written by Maurice Joly. These claims were repeated in the newspaper The Times in August. Later it had been suggested that Matvei Golovinski wrote the Protocols.

The Protocols in National-Socialist Germany

The German leader Adolf Hitler believed the Protocols to be genuine. He also mentions the Protocols in his work Mein Kampf:

The best proof that they are authenticis the fact that what the majority of Jews do unconsciously is consciously exposed. And that is what matters. It is completely indifferent from what Jewish brain these disclosures originate; the important thing is that with positively terrifying certainty they reveal the nature and activity of the Jewish people and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. The best criticism applied to them, however, is reality. Anyone who examines the historical development of the last hundred years from the standpoint of this book will at once understand the screaming of the Jewish press. For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken. [2]

Contents

Although the Protocols were viciously refuted by many on the left and Jewish radicals, and the authenticity of these texts are still hotly debated, part of the reason they gained such acceptance was that they agreed with many ideas that people already had about the Jews and that they contained the truth. Even if The Protocols were fake, it in no way means that the majority of jews do not use the techniques as described in the book. They obviously do.

References

  1. This is a quote from Madeleine Albright when she was asked about the death of half a million Iraqi children
  2. Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf: Volume One – A Reckoning, Chapter XI: Nation and Race

Source: Metapedia

5 thoughts on “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

  1. Россия испытала на себе все приемы моральньго и телесного варварства,
    предуказанные тайной программой “Сионских Протоколов”. И если до
    революции 1917 года на Западе еще было возможно сомневаться в подлинности этой
    еврейской программы, то теперь, после того, как программа эта была
    осуществлена до последних мелочей, и это осуществление привело к
    явному порабощению великой России под власть еврейского
    Интернационала, – всякие сомнения стали невозможны.
    После падения России и торжества большевиков “Сионские Протоколы”
    привлекли всеобщее внимание. Кстати, А. Розенберг воочию видел все ужасы творившиеся в России еврейскими большевиками.

    Liked by 1 person

    • It is said that it is false and a hoax, but if you see the history and the present day, and then realizes that the first print is dating from 1902. In any case I do not doubt its authenticity.

      Like

  2. С каждым днём приходишь к выводу, что это правда, а не подделка. Поганая глобализация, богомерзкая толерантность, современная всемирная садомизация – реализация протоколов сионских мудрецов. Хочешь, не хочешь поверишь в реальность протоколов сионских мудрецов, т. к. большинство их реализуется.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s