Thursday, November 13, 2025
Elder of Ziyon
You think the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fantasy believed only by fringe-right groypers and neo-Nazis? Think again.
The lie that Jews exert secret control over the world is just as much a part of “straight” news reporting—written by journalists who would swear on their careers that they are not antisemitic—as it is among white supremacists. The language is different, the tone is polite, and the accusations are dressed up in professional prose, but the structure of the myth is identical.
The recent “Paramount blacklist” story is a case study.
It began with a long, 3,000-word profile in Variety about David Ellison’s first months at the head of Paramount Global. The article had nothing to do with blacklists, Gaza, or Israel activism. Buried deep in the piece was a single anonymous, unsourced sentence:
And sources say Paramount maintains a list of talent it will not work with because they are deemed to be ‘overtly antisemitic’ as well as ‘xenophobic’ and ‘homophobic.’ Whether the boycott signatories are on that list is unclear.
That’s it. No list, no names, no documents, no connection to Israel, no proof. . No indication that the rumor even had substance. It was a stray aside in a story about merger strategy.
But within 24 hours, the single vague line had mutated into a viral accusation that Ellison—an openly pro-Israel executive—is purging actors who signed the anti-Israel industry letter. Outlets ran breathless summaries claiming or implying that Paramount was targeting “pro-Palestinian” talent, even though Variety said nothing of the sort. Examples:
Every one of these pieces took the same anonymous whisper and filled in the gaps using imagination, not evidence. And their imagination came straight from the Protocols.
The “list” became Ellison’s list. “Overtly antisemitic” quietly morphed into “anti-Israel.” And the idea that Paramount was targeting pledge signatories floated through headlines as if it had been confirmed.
There is a reason for this. Not one of these reporters bothered to check with Paramount before publishing. Nobody asked a spokesperson. Nobody requested clarification. Nobody demanded evidence. The most basic expectation from journalists - to ask for a comment from the person being accused - never happened.
Why? Because the narrative was too perfect—too aligned with the latent fantasy that “Zionists” secretly control Hollywood—that the rumor was simply too good to check.
By the time Variety added a careful clarification three days later—an update stating that there is no “itemized list” at all, only a general policy of not hiring people who publicly engage in hate—the story had already been cemented across the English-speaking world.
The irony is glaring. Even the original sentence made it clear that Paramount’s alleged red lines were for individuals who are “overtly antisemitic,” “xenophobic,” or “homophobic.” If a liberal, non-Jewish-owned studio had said the exact same thing, no one would have blinked.
Every employer in America avoids hiring people who might become PR disasters by posting slurs or conspiracy theories. Companies cannot always fire someone for off-hours behavior, but they absolutely can decline to hire people who might embarrass them. But that is not how the story was interpreted.
Reporters instantly—and without evidence—decided that “overtly antisemitic” was code for “criticizes Israel.”
To reach that conclusion, you have to believe that Jews speak in hidden meanings and dog whistles, that Jewish-owned institutions never say what they really mean, and that any Jewish claim—whether about antisemitism or workplace discrimination—is camouflage for a deeper agenda.
That is not journalism. That is mind-reading.
Worse, it is the exact same framework used to interpret Israel’s actions in Gaza.
The “genocide” accusation depends entirely on this mental model. When Israeli leaders make explicit statements about humanitarian corridors, evacuation notices, or efforts to avoid civilian harm, critics insist that the real intention is mass murder. When Israel provides the most sustained humanitarian aid of any warring party in modern history, including food, water, fuel, and medical transfers, the same critics dismiss it as a trick. It is assumed that Israel’s “true” goal can be divined through intuition, even when objective evidence contradicts it.
And that intuition just happens to coincide with a Russian antisemitic hoax.
The “pinkwashing” accusation follows the same structure. When Israel protects LGBTQ minorities, enshrines their rights in law, and features them openly in its cultural life, anti-Israel activists claim that this is deceptive propaganda meant to distract from supposed crimes. In this worldview, the more Israel behaves decently, the more sinister it must be. Jews are lying and scheming -and that is the only way to interpret what they do.
This is not political analysis. This is the Protocols with better graphic design.
The belief that Jews have secret motives, hidden control, and a unique talent for deception is the unspoken scaffolding holding these stories together. It explains why an anonymous sentence about a blacklist of antisemites was immediately reinterpreted as proof of a Zionist purge. It explains why counter-evidence is ignored, why Jewish denials are treated as confirmation, and why any attempt by Jews to define antisemitism is portrayed as a power grab.
The truth is uncomfortable but unavoidable: the logic of the Elders of Zion never disappeared. It migrated from fringe pamphlets into mainstream reporting, NGO narratives, and the rhetoric of national leaders who would recoil at the suggestion that they harbor any prejudice at all.
The Protocols have become the default frame for how to think about Jews in the far Right, progressive Left and much of mainstream media.
The vocabulary has changed. The habits of thought have not.
|
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
 |
Buy
