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.
Thanks Carolyn and Hadding for another episode of “The International Jew” Study Hour”. Once again the difference of opinion between you two regarding the authenticity of the Protocols came up via a comment Carolyn made to that effect. Carolyn is inclined to believe the Protocols are ‘authentic’ while Hadding is not.
I think a resolution to this issue is to view the Protocols as ‘semi-authentic’.
By that, I mean that the Protocols are not likely the genuine writings of jews, but rather, the account of people who well understood what the jew’s plans are and how they are being carried out.
In other words, arguing about the ‘authenticity’ of the Protocols is a red herring, a distraction (except for historical accuracy, etc.). The authors of the Protocols are simple telling us, ‘This is how the jews are scheming against non-jews’.
Henry Ford, I think, is of this opinion.
It’s a bit like some Raymond Chandler novel where Phillip Marlowe receives a a document describing past and intended future murders. Is it from the murderer or from someone familiar with the murderer?
What matters most, particularly from a future victims point of view, is whether the document is accurate so far.
I recall the comment I think you are referring to, Katana, but not that it conveyed what you say. You are not being accurate yourself here. Why not just give your opinion without ascribing opinions to others they don’t have? I have never said I believed the Protocols are ‘authentic.’ I have disagreed with Hadding’s stated opinion that they are “worthless.” I think they are very valuable and should be studied.
I’ve stated clearly several times that whether they were written by Jews as ascribed to by Nilus and others or not, or even whether they are solely plagiarisms from the works of non-Jews, they describe the authentic condition of our societies as they existed then, and even more so today. And we know that it is international Jewish networks that are behind it. We know that Jews have taken over all the institutions, etc. they said in the Protocols they would take over.
Nor have I noticed that Hadding and I were ever “arguing” about the authenticity of the Protocols on the program, or creating a red herring. We have discussed it, and rightly so since it is a big topic of concern in the general atmosphere surrounding The Protocols. I read the booklet recommended by James Laffrey on Oct. 2 (comment to Episode 13): The Jewish World Conspiracy by Karl Bergmeister … did you? I was not convinced that this document is authentic, e.g. what it claims to be; while it sounded pretty good, it didn’t prove anything.
The next time you comment on what an individual “believes,” you should really quote exactly what was said, and in finding the exact words, in the context they were stated, you may often realize your impression was inaccurate, leading you to drop the whole thing. I would really like to know if I said any words to the effect that I believed for certain that the documents themselves were ‘authentic’ rather than the message being authentic. There are 16 programs in which to search for it!
You also said:
What makes you think they are not written by Jews?
Katana – I listened to last night’s program again and around the 50 min. mark, I said to Hadding, “You don’t believe in The Protocols.” I didn’t say I did believe in them, just that he didn’t … in the sense that they are worthy of study and discussion.
I agree with you that the argument about their authenticity is a red herring. I suggested as much in past programs. I even recounted briefly an idea I had that perhaps ill-intentioned Jews wrote it, purposely using the Maurice Joly material and other plagiarisms for the distinct purpose of creating this controversy and using it to discredit the ideas in The Protocols. Before this time, and since, nationalist-minded and thinking people have been aware of and commented on Jewish activity and behavior that was clearly detrimental to their “Gentile” hosts. The Protocols could be a kind of psy-op to enable them to liken all criticism of Jews to these “forged” documents.
Hadding didn’t like that idea at all because he dislikes complicated conspiracy theories, and I know it is pure speculation. It is a possibility, though. Anything is possible, which is why we will probably never really know, especially because the people alive at that time are now dead.
Some of Protocols fits what Jews actually do but some of it is misleading. For example, I do not believe that there was ever any plan of organized Jewry to establish a Jewish autocrat. (This claim probably comes entirely from Maurice Joly’s Dialogue in Hell, since his target was an autocrat, Napoleon III.) With autocracy comes responsibility. In a liberal democratic system there is no central authority responsible for the wellbeing of the people and Jews are freest to do as they like with very little prospect of being stopped, unless the liberal democratic system itself comes to an end. Liberalism and pluralism are the conditions that the Jews prefer. The only exception might be if it were a question of either a Jewish or a non-Jewish autocrat, which is arguably the situation of 1917 Russia.
Carolyn, I think you have misunderstood my comment. I wrote:
‘Once again the difference of opinion between you two regarding the authenticity of the Protocols came up via a comment Carolyn made to that effect. Carolyn is inclined to believe the Protocols are ‘authentic’ while Hadding is not.’
Note the word ‘inclined’ and the quote marks around the word, authentic. I wasn’t saying you believed the Protocols to be fully authentic/genuine.
I’ve listened to all the 16 episodes and the overall impression I’ve got is this difference of opinion on the authenticity of the Protocols between the two of you that pops up in most episodes, usually in off the cuff comments. It’s not what I would call ‘argument’ and haven’t described it as such.
Anyway, my point was that the importance of the Protocols does not hinge or depend on who wrote them but rather in their roadmap value.
Keep up with the spirited free wheeling discussion in these episodes. It what makes them interesting.
My dear katana, I certainly did not misunderstand your comment. When you write:
It doesn’t make any difference if you use the word “inclined” or put the word “authentic” in single quote marks – that only raised more confusion as to what you meant. What you meant was to misstate my position so that you could make a contrast with your own solution of ‘semi-authentic.’ As I said before, why not just give your opinion/solution without misstating my position? I quoted the comment I made to Hadding (which you did not): “You don’t believe in the Protocols” … which was in the context of discussing their meaning/impact/usefulness, not their origin.
I can also say that there is very little “difference of opinion” between Hadding and me about their origin, as neither of us has any clue as to what their origin is. I think we’ve made that clear. I’m not talking about what it was taken from, in part, but who actually wrote it and put it out. I think, though, that that is a worthwhile question. If there are any experts on the Protocols out there, I would sure like to hear from them.
You now say:
But then, you wrote:
You did indeed imply that Hadding and I were arguing about this, which means an argument to me. I think “authenticity” and/or ‘authenticity’ should be clearly defined.
Still, glad you are enjoying the program.
“By that, I mean that the Protocols are not likely the genuine writings of jews, but rather, the account of people who well understood what the jew’s plans are and how they are being carried out.”
I have long maintained that “1984” was likewise a fictional account of a very real plan, one that can be seen at work today. Eric Blair was invited to join the Fabian Socialist Society. The Fabian’s were created by Sidney and Beatrix Potter, but I suspect they were funded by Rothschild money. The famous author George Bernard Shaw was spokesman for the group, so obviously they courted authors to write positively about their plans for global socialism.
At some point, Blair must have been present when they revealed their future plans to reduce the entire global population to a continual state of war, along with all its privations. Historically, the most profit and power had been gained from war. Thus the plan was to create a tri-regional planet where a globally dominant power would be challenged by another state rising to ascendancy. The recently defeated third state would then be allowed to recover during the war between these powers. The information sources would be totally controlled and manipulated to provide the illusion of an ever-present enemy.
Amid the ongoing anti-Islamic frenzy, who today recalls the threat of the former Soviet Union, a threat that led to fifty years of cold war war military buildup and nuclear weapons development. Having achieved its purpose to advance weapons technology, Big Brother collapsed communism and then wrote it out of the threat category, replacing it with the new threat, Islamic terrorism.
Blair was a socialist/communist until after the war when he visited the Soviet Union where he saw first hand the realities of Communism. The disillusioned communist/socialist then wrote his book reveling this plan for three major regions enmeshed in a continual state of war. Note the book was published in 1948, long before the Trilateral Commission came into existence. Carrol Quigley also wrote about alternative plans to control populations by means of other disasters including invasion by aliens from outer space. However it was ultimately decided that conventional war was the greatest motivator for populations. Presently we find Blair’s “Oceania” (North America) preparing for a war with “East Asia” (China/Russia).
The one point that has continually puzzled me is the apparently universal law that these monstrous cretins must always reveal their plans to the greater masses of people who will suffer from them. Movies like “They Live”, “Terminator” and “The Matrix” are a few cinematic examples of this revealing of present and future realities humanity must suffer. Apparently, we are but a giant Petri Dish experiment for the psychopathic powers ruling this world.
There were some “roadmaps” before Protocols, e.g. la France Juive by Édouard Drumont. Those earlier roadmaps were based on observation.
The specious value of Protocols derives from its claim to present a comprehensive Jewish plan from the horse’s mouth. The anonymous compiler however, in creating such a total picture of calculated malevolent conspiracy, included claims about the Jews that he couldn’t really know, some of which are inaccurate. Roughly stated, it goes too far, and that renders anyone who relies on it fit for caricature.
It is easy to see why some people were disposed to accept Protocols as genuine, but one can also see that there are hints of inauthenticity (e.g. the inverted expression of Catholic concerns, and the plan for a “Jewish autocrat”) in the text that would have raised doubt if men had been more careful.
We certainly have better roadmaps than Protocols today.
Carolyn
October 13, 2012 at 11:21 am
>It doesn’t make any difference if you use the word “inclined” or put the word “authentic” in single quote marks – that only raised more confusion as to what you meant.
Well, you’ve just contradicted yourself there. They made a difference to you and made you confused about my meaning.
>What you meant was to misstate my position so that you could make a contrast with your own solution of ‘semi-authentic.’
So you are accusing me of deliberately misstating your position to make a point? Nice one Carolyn. Your sensitivity on this sort of thing is affecting your judgement.
>As I said before, why not just give your opinion/solution without misstating my position?
Why don’t you do the same then? You have been busy with your comments here misrepresenting me.
Summarizing someone’s position is quite normal in a discussion. If it is mistaken then it can be corrected.
> I quoted the comment I made to Hadding (which you did not): “You don’t believe in the Protocols” … which was in the context of discussing their meaning/impact/usefulness, not their origin.
I didn’t quote anyone because I thought it was self evident if you have listened to the Program. I also didn’t think I would be cross examined in an accusatory manner.
>You now say:
It’s not what I would call ‘argument’ and haven’t described it as such.
But then, you wrote:
In other words, arguing about the ‘authenticity’ of the Protocols is a red herring,
You did indeed imply that Hadding and I were arguing about this, which means an argument to me. I think “authenticity” and/or ‘authenticity’ should be clearly defined.
Carolyn, this lawyerball style of discussion is not a good use of our time. I wrote what I did in good faith with no intention to misstate anyone.
Katana – I did not contradict myself; you did misstate my position to make a point (I didn’t use the word “deliberately” and that is a loaded word); “summarizing someone’s opinion” is normal if you use their own words; I am not cross examining you in an accusatory manner, I am insisting on accuracy; “lawyerball style of discussion” is appropriate and even sometimes necessary in order to parse out the actual words and meanings that pass between people.
Denial is the root problem we face among all humanity, imo, but it’s also hard-wired in us as a reaction to sudden knowledge we are unprepared to process at the moment. I’ve experienced denial of that type (as opposed to the long-term chronic type) several times and it is fascinating to look back on, to see how one’s mind comes up with “answers” that are far-fetched and don’t connect, but satisfy one in the moment. Our minds are very helpful to our psychological needs, suggesting that our mind is often the servant of our emotions, or maybe is over-ridden when we are in emotional turmoil. I’m talking about really over-whelming realities and/or feelings. So Denial serves a necessary purpose, but like everything, it has a damaging side too. This will be the subject of my HH program tomorrow night.
To all – I received a correspondence about “The International Jew” Study Hour program. It was quite long, but it contained this that I want to pass on to you (my bolding). It’s very interesting although I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to read it all.
Peter Myers offers the most thorough refutation (that I have seen) of the “forgery” claim. It is available in three parts at these links:
http://mailstar.net/toolkit.html
http://mailstar.net/toolkit2.html
http://mailstar.net/toolkit3.html
He includes the entire text of Herman Bernstein’s The History of a Lie and Joly’s Dialogue on his website, along with a staggering wealth of other resources. Speaking of Norman Cohn’s claim, from Warrant for Genocide, that two fifths of the text of the Protocols is “clearly based on passages in Joly,” Myers has this to say:
“Cohn’s arithmetic is incorrect. The word-count of the parallel-passages from the Protocols, as listed by Bernstein (at bernstein.zip), is 4,361, while the word-count of the Protocols is 26,496. That is, the parallel passages comprise 16.45% of the Protocols; this is substantial, but still less than one sixth of the total. What Cohn especially omits to mention, is the Protocols’ extensive coverage of the world finance system.
“Even the parallel passages, however, are not the same: the meaning is often quite different, despite the similarity.”
http://mailstar.net/toolkit.html
“Only” 16.45% is a hell of a lot. That isn’t a refutation of anything.
“Arab propaganda, more than ever, will orchestrate the myths of the Jew draining the blood from children or poisoning wells and will invoke the obvious fake comprised by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”
— Robert Faurisson, 8 October 2001
http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2001/10/imaginary-holocaust-may-lead-to-real.html
Carolyn, during WW 2 there was one spy who completely evaded the Brits. I call him the Druid and he is the ONLY spy I think was equal to me. Personally I think the guy was a legend.
I met Dusko Popov once. I thought he was a great spy also but not on the same level as the Druid.
Okay Carolyn, you have won me over.
Let’s forget our little spat and move forward towards our common goal.
Aren’t you nice, katana! I was feeling a little bad about my perhaps over-sensitivity to what you wrote. Now maybe we two can gang up on Hadding. Haha, just kidding, just kidding. 🙂