|May 27th, 2013||#1|
The Epitome of Evil
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Unseen University of New York
William Guy Carr and the Protocols of Zion
William Guy Carr and the Protocols of Zion
William Guy Carr is a figure who will be well-known to many of my readers. He was the author of sixteen books/booklets, which dealt primarily with two separate (although occasionally intertwined) themes: the British Navy and the Illuminati. Having read all of these books/booklets over the last few months I have become rather well-acquainted with Carr's character and his ideas.
Unfortunately I do not particularly find either to be very creditable. Carr himself often comes across; particularly in his 'The Red Fog over America', 'The Conspiracy to Destroy All Existing Governments and Religions' and 'Satan: Prince of this World', as being what skeptics sometimes tern a PCT: Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist. I don't usually like to use such an obviously pejorative term for someone who is; nominally at least, on my side of general political fence, but Carr was; to put it bluntly, an absolute head case.
Though-out his works; but particularly in 'The Red Fog over America' which is his second volume of pseudo-autobiography, Carr routinely interprets events in his life; particularly when he perceives that people should have listened to or when something negatively affects him, as being part of a conscious plot by; what he terms, the WRM ('World Revolutionary Movement') against him personally as their implacable enemy.
Now putting aside Carr's rather weird character and ideas; which I will deal with in a longer separate article, I would like to focus this more concise one on Carr's ideas on the Protocols of Zion in part because they are unusual. Now before we cover this we do need to state quite unequivocally that Carr was not in any way, shape or form anti-jewish let alone anti-Semitic. Those who accuse him of such; notably Political Research Associates, (1) are not only flat out wrong in doing so, but either are completely incompetent (as they cannot have read Carr's most famous books let alone his less well-known ones) or malicious and quite possibly both.
To briefly evidence the point let me quote Carr on this matter:
'Many Clergymen, news commentators, editors, politicians, etc. blame Communists and Jews as being the root of ALL evil. This is not so. Lucifer is the ROOT of ALL Evil.' (2) [Capitalization in original]
'History proves they [the Illuminati] had a fiendish reason for putting the guilt of the death of Christ on the Jewish people. History proves that they intended to use the hate engendered amongst the Jewish people as the result of persecution, to serve their vile purposes, and further their secret totalitarian ambitions.' (3)
Clearly Carr was not anti-jewish and could not be an anti-Semite; as some of those who claim to have studied his works seem to want to believe, although he did take some of his ideas from anti-Semitic sources, but made them neutral or; more commonly, somewhat positive in their representation of the jews as being 'forced' into doing bad things by the evil hand of the 'Satanic Illuminati' (which interestingly prefigure David Icke's claims about the jews being controlled by evil elites to make everyone hate them with Carr being the obvious non-cited source).
I will naturally deal with that particular claim in my longer article in relation to his views on the jews and anti-Semitism. It is however enough for our purposes to focus on Carr's attitude to the Protocols of Zion, which he spends several pages addressing in 'The Red Fog over America' and also uses extensively (although far less obviously) in 'Pawns in the Game'.
The interesting thing about this is that Carr's ideas are almost entirely based on a reading of the Protocols of Zion (what Carr terms the 'Long Range Plan'), but yet Carr himself believed that the Protocols of Zion had nothing to do with the jews. (4) That they were in fact a Masonic document that was obtained vis-a-vis the Grand Orient lodge in Paris by a woman of 'easy virtue', which Sergei Nilus had acquired in 1900. (5)
Carr claims that this is the story that Nilus had personally told anonymous 'friends of his', but this is rather unlikely given that this is nothing more than the recycled Philip Stepanov testimony, which suggests that the French original came from Justine Glinka through Sukhotin to Stepanov and Nilus. (6) That would mean that Carr's 'friends' would have to be either Sukhotin or Stepanov: both of which are extremely unlikely candidates for such a friendship. (7)
This means that Carr is either making up this claim or was gullible enough to believe the boasting of friends and acquaintances without a bit of checking (which he constantly advocates and describes himself as doing). It suggests that Carr was hardly the dedicated and careful researcher he believed himself to be and relied heavily on hearsay and gossip to pad out his case (which can easily be seen in the huge number of references in his books to 'friends' and 'informants' who allegedly told him things).
Now by 1901 Carr tells us the Protocols had fallen into the hands of Nilus (which is derived directly from the Stepanov testimony again), which is odd given that the Protocols include a quite obvious reference; had Carr cared to look, to events in 1901 (specifically the assassination of President McKinley) which means that the documents couldn't have come from Paris in 1900 as he believed.
Actually the Protocols were first published in Russian in 1903; with an allusion to them in late 1902, and Nilus doesn't get involved in the story until 1905. This more or less undercuts Carr's whole case about the Protocols as his key piece of evidence is the time-line based on the Stepanov testimony, but leaving out the; even by that time, considerable literature (on both anti and pro sides) on the dating and origin of the Protocols.
This confirms the impression the reader frequently gets when digesting what Carr has to say. His ideas are not based on a careful study of the facts or the literature, but rather on a slight engagement with the literature and padded out with a lot of positions almost conceived ex nihilo: largely stemming from a persecution complex combined with a deep and sincere Christian faith that seems to have perceived the devil as being more real than God (with the tacit assumption that Carr uses that he was a living saint of some kind).
Now getting back to the topic at hand: Carr also claimed; as I have already suggested, that Nilus was in error and the Protocols are not a jewish document, but rather a Masonic one. (8) Further Carr suggests; basing his argument on Nesta Webster's theory about the Illuminati gaining control of a large part of Freemasonry (Carr doesn't even seem to notice the fine distinctions and caveats that Webster uses), because the Protocols are a purely Masonic document: this means they are an Illuminati document. (9)
Carr bases his case on the erroneous assumption that the text; which remember he was after all consulting in English translation, had come down to him without any alternations: let alone any significant re-writing of it. However Carr's lack of engagement with the literature of the time on the Protocols of Zions shows in this absolute trust in the integrity of the text: as even a broad reading of the major pro-Protocols arguments of the time (such as Fry's 'Waters Flowing Eastwards') would have informed him of the need for care due to the lack of version or editorial control between editions.
This lead Carr into assuming that the frequent mentions of Freemasons; as being central elements within the conspiracy outlined by the Protocols text as passed down from Nilus, were from the originators of the text. This is incorrect as Nilus made two sets of sweeping changes to the text: he removed the Old Testament references and added the role of the Freemasons into it. (10)
It is ironic indeed that Carr suggests Nilus was wrong to argue that the Protocols text was composed by jews and it was instead composed by Freemasons given that Nilus himself removed a large part of the overt traces of jewishness from the text and inserted the Freemasons into the narrative. Incidentally we should also note that an anonymous friend; who had been or was in military intelligence according to Carr, had allegedly concluded the same thing. (11)
Carr here is engaging in the fallacy of authority by suggesting that because an individual had been; or was, in military intelligence: then they would be better able to discern the truthfulness, providence and origin of a given document when compared to independent researchers.
I suspect; but cannot prove, that Carr's continually resorting to unnamed and anonymous 'friends' to bolster his case by their spurious authority is a literary device that he is using to cover the fact that he has no actual evidence to support his theories other than to suggest that those in 'higher authority' agree with his conclusions.
The destruction of Carr's assumptions about the integrity and origin of the text more or less implode Carr's whole argument precisely because if the Protocols are not a Masonic document; which they are clearly not, but rather a jewish one then it renders his ideas about a grand Illuminati conspiracy; as enunciated in both 'Pawns in the Game' and 'The Red Fog over America', groundless because the Protocols being a Masonic document is the central pillar around which they are built.
This naturally doesn't mean that individual narratives by Carr about such and such an event are false or implausible, but rather that his grand theory is untenable, but yet segments of it might be salvageable if we were but to combine them into a new intellectual theory as to their place in the greater scheme of things.
Carr also lists fourteen points which he; and his anonymous friend currently or formerly in military intelligence, believe 'proves' the Protocols are an Illuminati plan not a jewish one. (12) I will deal with these in a separate article, because in large part they are either tautological, not relevant to the Protocols or eliminated once we realize that the references to Freemasons were added by Nilus in 1905 and that the original Protocols text from 1903 includes no such references. However they do require a more lengthy discussion than I wish to give here to prevent this article from becoming rather longer than is immediately warranted by the subject.
This then; to summarize, means that Carr's arguments about an Illuminati plan fall apart because he has based them on a literal reading of the Protocols of Zion as an Illuminati document and when we remove the Protocols from contention as an Illuminati document; as I have done above, then Carr's ideas fall out of the sky like dead birds in hunting season.
(1) http://www.publiceye.org/apocalyptic...vils_1-01.html [Last Accessed: 27/05/2013]
(2) William Guy Carr, 1962, 'The Red Fog over America', 3rd Edition, Britons: London, p. 240
(3) William Guy Carr, 1958, 'Pawns in the Game', 3rd Edition, Federation of Christian Laymen: Ontario, p. 15
(4) Carr, 'Red Fog', Op. Cit., p. 5
(5) Ibid, p. 2
(6) Cf. Cesare de Michelis, 2004, 'The Non-Existent Manuscript: A Study of the Protocols of the Sages of Zion', 1st Edition, University of Nebraska Press: Lincoln, pp. 23-25
(7) I have pointed out; by proxy, the general problems in the following article: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...d-lies_31.html
(8) Carr, 'Red Fog', Op. Cit., p. 2
(9) Ibid, p. 3
(10) I have discussed this in the following article: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...-and-lies.html
(11) Carr, 'Red Fog', Op. Cit., pp. 2; 6
(12) Ibid, pp. 3-22
This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...s-of-zion.html