[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
A book dealing specifically with the authenticity of The Protocols is
“Secrets of the Synagogue of Satan” by Don Bell.
Discussed are several documents which, in essence, say what The Protocols say, although written prior to it, one as far back as 1492. Some have portions almost identical(verbatum) to portions of the Protocols.
It can be bought from The Christian Defense League, Box 9166, Mandeville, LA 70470-9166, Phone: 601 749 8565 or 985 626 4963.
My understanding is that Maurice Joly (a Jew whose real name was Joseph Levy) was a Freemason who had access to the protocols manifesto through connections at the Grand Orient Freemasonic lodge, to which he belonged. Levy borrowed very lightly from the document, incorporating odd phrases from the Protocols into his “Dialogues…” book, which was published prior to the public exposure of the Protocols.
I could be wrong, it’s just what i have read, but it certainly makes sense given what we know of humanity’s eternal enemy, their modus operandi and the control they enjoy globally today.
I think you know you’re wrong. “… what I have read.” Read where? Talk like this is just plain irresponsible.
“Karl Radl” wrote something about the claim that Maurice Joly was a Jew.
Firstly we have the allegation; made by Lord Alfred Douglas in ‘Plain English’ in 1921, that Maurice Joly was; in fact, a jew who was born with the name: ‘Moses Joel’. (143) Douglas cited various unnamed sources for his assertion, but never told or wrote to anyone; to my knowledge, about who or what these were. A similar claim was made at the Bern Trial by one of the German luminaries on the Protocols; Colonel Ulrich Fleischhauer (of ‘Weltdienst’ fame), who asserted that Maurice Joly was originally called ‘Joseph Levy’ but once again produced no actual evidence of this claim. http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot.com/2012/06/protocols-of-zion-facts-myths-and-lies_11.html
These various claims about Joly’s being a Jew, all occurring in 1921 (when the plagiarism of parts of the Protocols from his Dialogue in Hell was first exposed) or later, seem to have sprung from the urge to salvage some validity for the Protocols. While “Karl Radl” seems to go a bit overboard with skepticism at times, if none of the allegations of Joly’s being a Jew are traceable to a solid source then it has to be dismissed. Napoleon III, whom Joly was attacking, was after all a great instrument of the Jews.
Jews continue to spew lies to sow doubt about the authenticity of the Protocols. The Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion are authentic, as the following great book explains while exposing the jews’ manipulation of an actual court trial on this very question: Jewish World Conspiracy, published in 1938 by Karl Bergmeister. I consider it proof.(link opens as a pdf file)
[See next post for link]
Let’s try that link again. I’ll use html coding:
the Karl Bergmeister book.
Apologies Carolyn. No harm intended. I will refrain from commenting in future and continue my research.
You don’t need to refrain from commenting, James, but allow others to comment in return. I think it’s important to point out when people don’t back up what they say with anything except “I read somewhere.” This is a part of educating ourselves, which we should all want to do. I appreciate the link to the publication the other James (Laffrey) sent. I’m sure you will find it interesting also.
Jews continue to spew lies to sow doubt about the authenticity of the Protocols.
There’s plenty of truth “to sow doubt about the authenticity of the Protocols.”
Nilus himself said that he could not say with certainty who wrote it. Ford’s The International Jew echoes this reservation initially, although it then unfortunately builds a castle in the air based on what seems to be a perception of authenticity. So I guess these early promulgators of the Protocols were sowing doubt.
From 1921 on it was much more than a doubt, because as we have discussed in this series, Protocols contains passages plagiarized from earlier literature. Dr. William Pierce did not regard Protocols as authentic because of the completely frank malevolence expressed. I think we’ve also highlighted some details about the Protocols in our discussion here that make its authenticity look prima facie dubious. If you ask document-expert and Anne-Frank-Diary-critic Professor Robert Faurisson he will tell you that the Protocols are an obvious fraud. Is he supposed to be a Jew now because he says that? Am I supposed to be a Jew now?
It’s not only Jews that pay attention to details and point out contradictions and says, “We can’t use that because it’s not credible.” Not everybody that offers criticism is your sworn enemy.
Honestly I wish you people that insist on the authenticity of the Protocols would occasionally look at something other than wacko alternative sources. Sometimes the information in mainstream sources is good. You don’t even have to make a great effort to get the facts on the Protocols. Try Wikipedia. The information that debunks the Protocols is verifiable.
Hadding – Instead of bringing up the names of Pierce and Faurisson (your two favorite resources) and expecting people to accept what you say they said, why not go through this book by Karl Bergmeister and point out the places where it’s false or irrational. That would be more helpful.
James Laffrey said that “the Jews” were trying “to sow doubt about the authenticity of the Protocols.” Pierce was not a Jew. Faurisson was not a Jew.
It’s not “the Jews.” It’s everybody that isn’t a crackpot.
Thanks but I have way more than enough stuff to read already without revisiting an utterly dead issue.
I’m sure I will. Thank you.
The content presented at this web site thewhitenetwork-archive.com is the sole property of the program host and/or writer and The White Network. All rights reserved.
Before copying or re-posting anything from this site, please refer to our Copyright and Re-posting Policy.
Before commenting, please refer to our Comment Policy.