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.

————
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.

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.

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.

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.

“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

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