Facebook Twitter Gplus RSS

“The International Jew” Study Hour – Episode 18

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
29 Comments  comments 

29 Responses

  1. Carolyn I agree with you. It doesn’t make us look foolish. It didn’t make Henry Ford look foolish.
    Hadding sounded like he was angry about something else? I don’t know where he was coming from.

  2. Jeff – I hope Hadding replies to you, but one place he is coming from is that he’s said it’s so clear in his mind that The Protocols are a forgery (a word he accepts) that he doesn’t have interest in any argument in their favor … or can’t take them seriously. In other words, it bores him. He has said his mind is made up to the extent that it’s a dead issue for him.

    It sure doesn’t hurt that two men whom he looks up to – William Pierce and Robert Faurisson – both had the opinion that they weren’t authentic.

  3. Konrad Rhodes

    Carolyn I have to admit I got really irked hearing you say that whites are not the smartest for not figuring out debt free currency. What about the Tally stick system of Henry I of England? Twelfth Century. It would take a long time to explain why and how the economics of modern Europe operated but needless to say intrigue, greed, and other vices played a big role. The Secret of Oz documentary and the The Money Masters documentary, both by Bill Still are really good at explaining the history of money in Western Civilization. I know that you don’t mean any harm but I get so sick of hearing White Nationalists refer to most whites as “the dumb goyim” who are tricked and not smart enough etc. Well do you want us to just all become Jews? Haggling, lying, cheating, stealing, paranoid, sneeky, developing every manner of treachery. We are a naturally honest, fair, and straight to the face, eye-to-eye kind of people for the most part. We should not think we are dumb because we are caught off guard by deceptive ways that are just un-imaginable to us because we would never think of being so immoral in such a slimey, weaseling way. Frankly I still can’t get over how underhanded they and their helpers are. Look at what we know and then think about all we don’t know.
    Whites are superior and this is why Jews are always doing their best to swindle us. I really love samurai swords and admire the Japanese and Chinese but they are not a progressive and creative and innovative people. They have to spy on us constantly. They are good at memorization and following directions but coming up with better and newer methods and means they seldom do. This is why Japan was basically locked in a Feudal culture until the 19th century when they copied European styles and govt. Samurai swords are a great example. Whites had moved past swords long ago while the Japanese continued to refine and hone down to make the best swords in the world. They can do great things with what they are given but creativity is just not in them the way it is in us.
    To beat the dead horse, I honestly would not want my kids to ever learn about lying, cheating, etc. if they didn’t have to to understand why we are where we are. But that is not stupidity it is superior morality. No healthy normal human beings would dedicate themselves to lying and cheating and parasitically living off others. Even if I had millions of dollars I’d still make my own coffee and drive my own car and do house and yard work.
    Basically would Whites be the people they are if they naturally understood and knew about the depths and complexity and depravity of Jewish deceit? Just thinking about some of the things Jews do and have done makes me sick and have to clear my head.
    But, again, I know you didn’t mean anything by that but please take pride and rest assured we are the race of Titans. Stronger than all in intellect and physical strength. We hold the world records in strength.

  4. Carolyn,
    I feel the same way about it that Henry Ford did.

    Mr. Henry Ford, in an interview published in the New York WORLD, February 17th, 1921, put the case for Nilus tersely and convincingly thus:

    The only statement I care to make about the PROTOCOLS is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time.

    Now they are 80 years old, and they have fit what is happening to the letter.
    So if they are fake then what is up with that?

  5. Konrad Rhodes,
    I like what you said, but I have to wonder?
    If we can’t out think them, then how will we beat them?
    As long as they are able to mesmerize the masses with TV they have control of the young people that we want to pull over to our side.
    I was just reading a comment on my Facebook page, and a very attractive blond haired blue eyed Arian woman was commenting about a black guy, and she was saying “this brother is cool” This brother what ever….
    And it makes me angry that her mind has been captured by the Jews in excepting blacks as equals. But if I made a comment about it, automatically I’m the racist bad guy…
    It’s really messed up.

  6. Konrad Rhodes

    Jeff, I don’t think most Aryan women are really as stupid as that though there are certainly enough to be annoyingly noticeable. When I look at young white men I see why so many white women think the way they do: so many white young men want to be Black! To be more specific they want to be the dirty little “N-word”. Now put yourself in a white young woman’s place. All these white boys want to be something they can never be. Why? It automatically leads some women to just assume this is because Blacks are inherently more manly and stronger and better. I don’t deny the Jewish media affect but I have talked to my wife about this and I can tell you what she and her friends have said which is that they have never really found black men attractive at all. They are big lipped, erratic, loud, rude, coarse, etc. As far as talking to these women enamored with blacks I think at best you can only change the subject or inject simple but overwhelming statistics such as the huge number white women raped by blacks every year. Or maybe, hey, what do you think about the black flash mob phenomenon? If they don’t know, as they probably won’t, maybe just tell them about these troops of 20-40 blacks looting, hollering, and beating any whites in the area. Unfortunately some White women are lost and I can’t help wonder who raised them. My 5 brothers & sisters never would’ve dated outside their race. Just mentioning such a thing would bring up an automatic feeling of revulsion and disgust. White men, find a good white woman and have kids, as many as you can. Not to get on my soap box but finding a good mate and making children is the most important and immediate goal for a young White National Socialist. I can tell you that having 5 siblings, 2 sisters and 3 brothers, has been a blessing and has provided a support network that is simply priceless. Single white women with mulatto kids should be enough of a warning to young white women but unfortunately we are going to have to just out breed them as best we can. That sounds a bit crude but it is just reality.

  7. The only statement I care to make about the PROTOCOLS is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time.

    Now they are 80 years old, and they have fit what is happening to the letter.

    I can understand that for people who have read only the Protocols, what it says might seem amazingly perspicacious, but 2200 years earlier you could have gotten some of the same insights from Plato’s Republic. For me, Protocols is not so amazing, and I also see ways in which it does not fit what has happened.

  8. I can understand that for people who have read only the Protocols,

    No one here has read only The Protocols, I am quite sure. And are you referring to Henry Ford, and his editors? And to Adolf Hitler, who was impressed with The Protocols? They were even incorporated into Third Reich propaganda.

    2200 years earlier you could have gotten some of the same insights from Plato’s Republic.

    2200 years earlier the situation we are concerned with in Europe (ie. destruction of the white genetic pool) did not exist so you could not have gotten that from Plato’s Republic. You only say one could get “some” of the same insights from the Republic; you don’t say which ones, and you are never specific about these other sources you say are available where one can get essentially the same thing. Tell us exactly what are the “same insights” in Plato’s Republic.

  9. Henry Ford abandoned Protocols by 1927 and Hitler had almost nothing to say about it.

    You’re really damaging Hitler’s reputation by insisting that Protocols was important for him. That’s how Konrad Heiden’s Hitler biography, Der Fuehrer, begins, by claiming that Protocols was crucial to Hitler’s thinking. Yet there is only a single noncommittal sentence in Mein Kampf that mentions Protocols. Since Hitler explains that his ideas about Jews and politics in general derived from experience and observation, not from a pamphlet, I see no basis for the assertion that this fraud influenced him to any great degree.

  10. I would also point out that the ADL etc. make a big fuss when somebody uses Protocols not because they feel threatened by it, but because it offers a big opportunity for characterizing anti-Semitism as ignorant, and for fundraising.

    I think that the ADL would probably like every White Nationalist to hold up a copy of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion in his hand and endorse it at every opportunity if possible.

  11. You’re really damaging Hitler’s reputation by insisting that Protocols was important for him

    You are damaging your reputation by refusing to answer legitimate questions about topics you bring up — re: “one can get some of the same insights from Plato’s Republic.” Please give some specific examples that apply to our current situation.

    I didn’t say The Protocols were “crucial to Hitler’s thinking,” as Heiden did, did I? I said The Protocols impressed Hitler … enough to mention it in Mein Kampf. That’s a pretty big deal.

    And what the ADL thinks and does should be of no concern to Truth.

  12. I would also point out that the ADL etc….

    I think that the ADL would probably like …

    Alfred Rosenberg wrote in 1937 (what I didn’t have an opportunity to say on last night’s program): The Track of the Jew … p. 133 We see the tragicomic drama that the government of a nation of 70 million (Germany then) is eagerly concerned to take into consideration the wishes of a tiny nation that lives amongst it, and not vice-versa …

  13. Yet there is only a single noncommittal sentence in Mein Kampf that mentions Protocols. – Hadding

    Here is the “sentence” in Ralph Mannheim’s translation of Mein Kampf [taken from Wikipedia]:

    . . . To what extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic. What many Jews may do unconsciously is here consciously exposed. And that is what matters. It is completely indifferent from what Jewish brain these disclosures originate; the important thing is that with positively terrifying certainty they reveal the nature and activity of the Jewish people and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. The best criticism applied to them, however, is reality. Anyone who examines the historical development of the last hundred years from the standpoint of this book will at once understand the screaming of the Jewish press. For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken (307-308).

    And here is the full paragraph translated by James Murphy:

    How much the whole existence of this people is based on a permanent falsehood is proved in a unique way by ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,‘ which are so violently repudiated by the Jews. With groans and moans, the Frankfurter Zeitung repeats again and again that these are forgeries. This alone is evidence in favor of their authenticity. What many Jews unconsciously wish to do is here clearly set forth. It is not necessary to ask out of what Jewish brain these revelations sprang; but what is of vital interest is that they disclose, with an almost terrifying precision, the mentality and methods of action characteristic of the Jewish people and these writings expound in all their various directions the final aims towards which the Jews are striving. The study of real happenings, however, is the best way of judging the authenticity of those documents. If the historical developments which have taken place in the last few centuries be studied in the light of this book we shall understand why the Jewish Press incessantly repudiates and denounces it. For the Jewish peril will be stamped out the moment the general public come into possession of that book and understand it.
    In order to get to know the Jew properly it is necessary to study the road which he has been following among the other peoples during the last few centuries. (p 174)

    Re the last sentence, read The Track of the Jew Through the Ages by Alfred Rosenberg, 1937, Historical Review Press, UK. http://www.historicalreviewpress.com/the-track-of-the-jew-through-the-ages-578-p.asp [Rosenberg's original version of this was published in 1920 in Munich when he was only 26 years old.]

    Note: My bolding throughout.

  14. Joshua

    I have enjoyed listening to this series of podcasts tremendously. The thought occurs to me that Hadding has been previously briefed to take the stand that the Protocols are fake, whilst Carolyn has taken the opposite position. If so, very cunning of you both! At the end of the day, poor Hadding finds himself in an impossible situation having to argue the inarguable. There are two factors not mentioned (or not noticed by me) in this debate which clinches it for me, but no doubt not sufficient proof to satisfy Hadding!
    1. The way in which the Protocols came into Nilus’ possession. Here the Protocols were said to have been stolen from the archives of the Mizraim Lodge in Paris by a Jew named Joseph Schorst and handed to a Miss Glinka who was an agent of the Tsar, in exchange for 2500 French Francs (probably quite a large sum of money). The author was reputed to be Cremieux the Grand Master of the Lodge who was already dead at the time of the theft. Soon afterwards according to the records of the Paris Prefecture, Schorst was assassinated in Egypt.
    2. The 1935 Swiss trial engineered by Jews with a biased judge where the Protocols were deemed to be fake, followed by the appeal 2 years later which pronounced the first trial a travesty of justice. The media declared the former, “casus provatus”, with a great fanfare but was completely silent after the latter. (Reminiscent of the Zundel trial in 1985 and 1988.)
    It is all set out in an excellent booklet called, “The Protocols of the Ruffle-Crested Kikes of Zion” by “Professor” Banjo Billy, “Kikenverminologist”. (Can be googled and copied). A good read and funny.
    http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/Protocols_of_the_Ruffle_Crested_Kikes_of_Zion.pdf

  15. Joshua – I understand why you would suspect a minor conspiracy in order to add to the interest of our “International Jew” Study Hour program, but we’re just not that organized about the planning of it. When we began the series, Hadding actually suggested we skip the chapters about The Protocols, as he thought they made Henry Ford look bad. I replied, “Absolutely not! We have to read every word of it.” I was looking forward to those chapters, as to what they might reveal. So Hadding is sincere, and is tolerating it for my sake, and the sake of the program. Hadding is a good guy.

    I, on the other had, have become more convinced, and just last night read carefully PART II (especially ‘How the Protocols Came to Russia’) from the Liberty Bell reprint dated 1934. It gives basically what you condensed in your item #1, and puts it into a new perspective for me. I’m looking forward to reading Billy Banjo’s pdf book before I proceed further, so thanks for linking it. I had seen it before, but you know how it goes … it wasn’t a priority then.

  16. Henry Ford abandoned Protocols by 1927…

    Hadding, I am shocked that you would make such a statement. As we know, Ford was forced to allow a general retraction be issued in his name (or face ruin), written by his secretary, to whom he said, “I don’t want to know what you write” because it was so distasteful to him.

    This forced “retraction” was dated June 30, 1927. To characterize Ford as “abandoning the Protocols” at this time is really shabby, imo. You ought to answer for yourself here. PLUS, I cannot find a single connection of Prof. Robert Faurisson stating a view that The Protocols are a forgery. I would appreciate a link or a quote from Faurisson saying that.

  17. Protocols of the Elders of Zion read aloud in Greek Parliament
    Ilias Kasidiaris, a spokesperson for neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn, read out Protocol 19 from the anti-Semitic forgery.

    http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion-read-aloud-in-greek-parliament-1.472552

  18. I saw that stupid Jewish TV movie about Henry Ford. With Cliff Robertson playing Henry Ford.
    At the end of the movie when Henry was an old man he was sitting in his parlor watching a real to real projector of the HOLOHOAX, and crying for the poor Jews. WHAT A CROCK!
    I was a young man when I saw that movie probably in my late 20s. I didn’t know much about the HOLOHOAX at the time but I knew on a gut level that it was a bunch of BS.
    I didn’t realize at the time that the Jews ran Hollyweird. After I figured that out it all made sense.
    Now I notice every single movie that comes out of Hollyweird always puts in a little dig about the HOLOHOAX, or the evil Nazis.

  19. Ilias Kasidiaris looks to be perhaps one-eighth Negro.
    http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/508bd6cb69beddbe1f000021-400-/ilias-kasidiaris.png

    That’s consistent with his poor judgment and lack of self-control.

  20. He does look black. Looks like Obama. :)

  21. Comment on TIJSH from 15 October:

    “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

  22. And here is the full paragraph translated by James Murphy:

    Okay, so it’s a paragraph instead of a sentence. Out of how many pages in Mein Kampf? (The Mannheim translation runs 694 pages.) How “impressed with The Protocols” did Hitler have to be to discuss it in one paragraph? It was not an important influence in his thinking, and therefore I don’t think he looked into it very deeply.

    He thought it was good propaganda in 1923 but I doubt that he would say that today, because the fact that it is bogus is now known and accepted by practically everybody.

    In the Table Talk, Protocols is not mentioned at all. He does mention Henry Ford, but only as a manufacturer of inexpensive cars that ordinary people could afford.

  23. He thought it was good propaganda in 1923 but I doubt that he would say that today, because the fact that it is bogus is now known and accepted by practically everybody.

    Ha! Pathetic. You were dead wrong and now climb even deeper into the hole you’ve dug instead of acknowledging a serious error. You forgot to answer for the adjective “noncommittal” that you used about the “sentence.” You resort to what you think Hitler would say today! :-( Let me tell you, he would say the same thing he said then (my guess is as good as yours). At the time of the writing of Mein Kampf, 1924, the “explosive news” put out by the Times that the Protocols is a forgery was already a few years old. I’m sure Adolf would have heard about it, but was not impressed by that.

    Table Talk, conversation taken down by stenographers and not approved by Hitler himself, cannot be compared to Hitler’s own book Mein Kampf. Doing so only shows desperation.

    I will be discussing this on my Saturday Afternoon show two days from now. I will be taking phone calls, so, Hadding, you are welcome to call in.

  24. Hitler’s position is noncommittal so far as authenticity is concerned.

    This is a very flippant statement: “They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic.”

    That might be “the best proof,” but it’s really no proof at all of authenticity. Hitler surely understood that. He’s being rather flippant. His reference to the anonymous Judenkopf that presumably wrote those revelations is also flippant.

    Then he says that the best kritik of the Protocols is a comparison of what they say with the events of the preceding 100 years, but all it really means is that whoever compiled and composed the work was a good observer who had made some observations that anybody could make. I have made this point over and over, especially in the early episodes of IJSH.

    I think Hitler didn’t want to be critical of Protocols because it was being used with success at the time.

    It think it’s pretty obvious that for various reasons (mostly legitimate) public reception of the Protocols today would not be so credulous as in 1923. Furthermore there are many other, better resources for educating people now.

    Somebody today could write a pamphlet making some of the same representations as the Protocols, but using footnotes citing verifiable facts as the foundation of credibility instead of the completely unverifiable claim of being leaked minutes of a secret conspiratorial meeting. Dr. William Pierce did this in part with his perennially updated booklet Who Rules America?, demonstrating Jewish control of mass-media and what they do with it.

  25. katana

    Carolyn
    November 1, 2012 at 11:20 pm

    ————
    He thought it was good propaganda in 1923 but I doubt that he would say that today, because the fact that it is bogus is now known and accepted by practically everybody.
    ————–
    Ha! Pathetic. You were dead wrong and now climb even deeper into the hole you’ve dug instead of acknowledging a serious error. You forgot to answer for the adjective “noncommittal” that you used about the “sentence.” You resort to what you think Hitler would say today!

    ——————–

    As I mentioned in a comment to an earlier podcast, I think the Protocols can be seen as being ‘semi-authentic’.

    That is, being written by ‘someone’ interested in setting out and describing jewish plans and methods, for whatever reason. That is the value of studying the Protocols. For its techniques and predictive value.

    BTW, Carolyn, I’ve noticed in this message and many others your tendency to sometimes come across as being abrasive. It hinders relaxed conversation.

  26. katana, I don’t believe in being “relaxed” about these things.

  27. This is a very flippant statement: “They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic.”

    That might be “the best proof,” but it’s really no proof at all of authenticity. Hitler surely understood that. He’s being rather flippant. His reference to the anonymous Judenkopf that presumably wrote those revelations is also flippant.

    There is no sign that Hitler was being “flippant.” You used the word 3 times, but where is the flippancy in that entire paragraph? I don’t see it and I suspect if we took a poll you would be the only one to claim to see it that way. [Definition: Marked by disrespectful levity or casualness. Synomyms: brassy, breezy, cheeky, cocky, disrespectful, flighty, flip, fresh, frivolous, glib, impertinent, impudent, insolent, lippy, nervy, offhand, pert, playful, rude, sassy, smart, smart-alecky, superficial]. And if you can somehow make any of those synomyms fit Hitler’s words in that paragraph, it doesn’t mean he did not mean what he said! So what is the point of saying his words were “flippant” except to dismiss what he wrote because it doesn’t follow Hadding’s position.

    You are really doing a job on Hitler, twisting the meaning of his words like pretzels. From what you write, you don’t think you have to credit him with much integrity, or even intelligence, because “we understand so much more now in our modern age.” Your basic position is that both Hitler and Henry Ford were “fooled” by a forgery that you, Hadding, can see through, but you are the one being fooled by the sleight-of-hand of the Jews to deny their deeds and their documents.

    I leave it to others to carry on with a relaxed conversation.

  28. Joshua

    Hadding, Hitler was being sarcastic. Indicating he did not believe in the forgery nonsense.
    The date he made that statement would be nice to know due to the timing of the Swiss trial.

© the White network