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.

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.

the Karl Bergmeister book.

[See next post for link]

Sincerely,
James Laffrey
UnEqualPartyUSA

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.