What a load of nonsense is being introduced to revive the insanely mad Pierre Plantard. He was nothing but a poor third-rate confidence trickster who could only ever succeed by having other authors write his books for him. First it was Gérard de Sède who later fell-out with him, calling him “once a reasonable man, now completely mad,” then he tried to manipulate Jean-Luc Chaumeil without success (Plantard’s name was not on his book contract), then Plantard was completely unsuccessful with “Pierre Jarnac” (Michel Vallet), who refused to have anything to do with him – and it was Michel Vallet who first found out about the issues of “Vaincre” 1990-1992 that were lodged in the Bibliothèque nationale – and the turnaround history of the Priory of Sion with a brand new Grand Master List and alternative historical pedigree – and indeed it was this very material that made Louis Vazart, once one of Plantard’s biggest disciples, drop Plantard and everything to do with his projects at Stenay. We only know too well that Plantard soon got himself into trouble with Thierry Jean-Pierre when he tried to claim, without any success, that Roger-Patrice Pelat had been a “Grand Master of the Priory of Sion” – Plantard went into hiding soon after this episode in his life!

Why is “Isaac Ben Jacob” doing this rubbish? Are the “values” of our conspiracy theorists dropping even lower than they ever have been before?

IT REALLY IS MOST DESPICABLE THAT “ISAAC BEN JACOB” CANNOT SEE “ANYTHING WRONG” WITH PIERRE PLANTARD, BEARING IN MIND ALL THE EVIDENCE ABOUT THE ROGUE.

“Isaac Ben Jacob” wrote on FaceBook on 22 July 2026:

“Is research on Pierre Plantard and his psychoanalysis progressing? The results are, in truth, impressive. For the first time in the history of the Priory of Sion and the literature devoted to it, the true sources of his knowledge, as well as his authentic intellectual and doctrinal lineage, are being brought to light. It is particularly amusing – and instructive – to note that a number of individuals on the internet are already denigrating this work, about which they know nothing, even though they themselves have never produced the slightest serious academic study on the subject. The contrast between the virulence of their judgments and the vacuity of their contribution is, it must be admitted, quite delicious. It is high time to do what previous generations haven't even considered: to reveal, based on extraordinary and solidly sourced documentation, the true sources of his work.”