Facebook Twitter Gplus RSS

America’s Jewish Enigma: Louis Marshall – Episode 81

[CONTENT REDACTED BY REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR]

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

19 Responses

  1. Charles

    I’m glad you both were so alert and full of annotations and explanations of the text for tonight’s program, Carolyn and Hadding. I learned that “obiter” means passing or irrelevant remark, and the text used the phrase “haled to court,” which I always thought was pronounced “hauled” or “hailed.”

    I had no idea that the Protocols of Zion have been debunked. Is there a good authority to refer to on this besides the Jew Konrad Heiden? It has been a year or so since I’ve found anybody on the other alternative news websites repeatedly referring to it, now that you mention this as fact.

    I agreed with both of you as you marveled over Henry Ford’s statement:

    “It seems to be a part of Jewish loyalty to prevent if possible the Gentile law being enforced against Jews.”

    Look at our horribly weak banking laws! Look at Israel’s behavior as a rogue state and how the United Nations and the U.S. responds.

    Did you, while you were reading, think at all, like me, of Abe Foxman as the modern-day equivalent of Louis Marshall? Would you find the comparison justified? Or has that role of “ambassador” for Jewry disappeared since Henry Ford’s time, do you think?

    Hadding, you mentioned Matthew Raphael Johnson, Orthodox Nationalist, in what I understood was a kind of cheeky ploy to evoke a response in Carolyn. Was it an inside joke?

    What was that about? Do you both like Matthew Raphael Johnson? I only learned about him tonight through your broadcast. I listened to one lecture on national socialism and he seems compatible enough. Is he?

    I was sorry to learn Bradley Smith as a Libertarian cannot conceive of a group of Jews conspiring to do others harm. Niki Rapaana also thinks the same about Libertarians when writing about Communitarianism: She said it’s impossible for a Libertarian to conceive of this sort of group effort. But why? That’s the very definition of a corporation, isn’t it? Libertarians have never had a problem with corporations ripping off the people or the environment or allowing a group of individuals to hide behind the facade of a legal fiction? Is it that much of a stretch to conceive of Jews doing the same?

  2. I was sorry to learn Bradley Smith as a Libertarian cannot conceive of a group of Jews conspiring to do others harm.

    I don’t think that is what I said. I would not want to put it that Bradley “cannot conceive” of something. Rather, I meant that he believes we need to blame ourselves, not the Jews, because all we need do is say “no” to their demands. I said that Bradley probably has never read The International Jew or other authors that go deeply into the Jewish role in the political affairs of the 20th Century. He keeps his attention on the Anglo-American leaders and their military leaders, which he sees as the main culprits. And now includes the “Zionists” and Christian-Zionists.

    IMO, this kind of attitude is a gift to the Jews. As a matter of fact, this is in itself an example of not standing up to the Jews.

  3. JoshuaF

    A pity Hadding has to say that people were starving under the Tsar. He has really swallowed a large dose of anti-Tsarist propaganda. It is simply not true. Where is his source ?!

    The Tsar’s Prime Minister, Stolypin, was finally assassinated by Freemasons after a number of failed attempts, eleven I believe. The reason for that was the far-reaching reforms he instituted including where the peasants were able to own land. Also there was very low taxation and none at all for peasants. Freemasons had been plotting for a long time to bring down the Tsar and Stolypin’s reforms (land, freedom of the press and political parties, education reforms, health insurance), put a spanner in their works. That was the reason for all those assassination attempts (Juri Lena “Under the Sign of the Scorpion”). Kerenski, Lenin and Trotsky were all top level Freemasons. In 1922 $20,000,000 were sent by Trotsky to the Grand Orient and Scottish Rite Lodge in Paris. (Documents discovered by Germany in 1941)

    There was probably a lot less starvation than any other country at the time. Russia was the “breadbasket of the world” back then! After 1914 it produced more wheat than America, Canada, and Argentina put together.

    There are a lot of parallels with the NATO attack on Libya. (e.g. low taxation and free health care). It is “the refusal of a country to get into debt that raises the ire of the Usurer” (in the words of Ezra Pound.)
    I believe a read of Juri Lena’s book is time well spent.

  4. JoshuaF

    On the subject of Freemasonry, I would like to add an additional comment. If you go here…….. http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/duncans_ritual/royal_arch_degree.htm
    and scroll down to p.249, you will see that the “Ark” (one of the props for these initiation rites or ceremonies) contains the words, “For the good of Masonry, generally, but the Jewish nation in particular.” ….FOR THE JEWISH NATION IN PARTICULAR ???!!!

    Well, isn’t that Treason ? The Jewish Nation is a foreign country with a foreign flag, a foreign language and is fundamentally hostile.
    There it is, hidden in plain sight!

    There are other very disturbing passages in that initiation rite. Among all that mumbo jumbo, are mentioned Jahbulon (a creature with the body of a spider, three heads being a cat, a frog and in the middle an old evil-looking bearded man with a crown. The fangs are dripping venom.) Also god, God, Baal, Zerubabbel, “our Lord Jesus Christ” and probably a few others!

    The recipient of the Royal Arch Degree promises (p.230), “I furthermore promise and swear, that I will assist a Companion Royal Arch Mason when I see him engaged in any difficulty, and will espouse his cause so far as to extricate him from the same, whether he be right or wrong.” RIGHT OR WRONG!

    Imagine a Judge who is a Royal Arch Mason, and another Royal Arch Mason appears in front of him. That is subversive and undermines and corrupts the fabric of any civilised society.

    History bears out the corrupting and subversive nature of Freemasonry. The European Union and all the legislative institutions within the so-called West are riddled with Freemasonry. They are the enemy within and just as much our enemy as the Jew.

  5. JoshuaF said:

    A pity Hadding has to say that people were starving under the Tsar. He has really swallowed a large dose of anti-Tsarist propaganda. It is simply not true. Where is his source ?!

    During the First World War there was a breakdown in the supply of food to people in Russian cities. This is not a controversial point.

    The whole war effort had being organised in a most haphazard way. Manpower was conscripted indiscriminately without any regard for the needs of industry, agriculture or communications. The countryside was dispossessed of horses to serve the army’s needs, leaving the peasants with no means of tilling the land. Distribution problems had led to a breakdown in food supplies to the cities. By 1916 Petrograd and Moscow were receiving only a third of their fuel and food requirements. This was made worse by hyper inflation that saw prices increase fourfold during the war. These factors created serious discontent among the working classes in the cities. There were a number of strikes that had to be put down by troops. http://www.historyhome.co.uk/europe/russia.htm

  6. Charles said:

    I had no idea that the Protocols of Zion have been debunked. Is there a good authority to refer to on this besides the Jew Konrad Heiden? It has been a year or so since I’ve found anybody on the other alternative news websites repeatedly referring to it, now that you mention this as fact.

    It’s gratifying to think that I may have had that influence. I think we have a much better chance for progress if we stop setting ourselves up for defeat with bad arguments like that.

    The Protocols were found to be based on Maurice Joly’s Dialogue in Hell (1866) by Philip Graves, a correspondent of the London Times, in September 1921.

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2194&dat=19210910&id=dXAuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YdkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5856,668535

    That Times article in late 1921 was the turning point for the Protocols, where they lost credibility with well informed people. Further damage was done with the Swiss trials in 1934-1935, so that since then the Protocols have been much more useful as a propaganda-weapon for the Jews than against them. You will note that the ADL, for example, loves to talk about the Protocols: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&hs=QP8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&sclient=psy-ab&q=PRotocols+site%3Aadl.org&btnG=#q=Protocols+site:adl.org&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

    Regarding Matthew Raphael Johnson, I only mentioned him because he is an expert on Russian history.

  7. Hadding – Do you think the ADL writes all those articles against the “Protocols” because they are afraid of them(it)? Of course you don’t, but I do. I disagree with your reasoning as to International Jewry “loving” when the Protocols are brought up because it’s so obvious they are fake. No, it’s not obvious at all. And then there is the question of what does “fake” mean. There was no hard-set narrative of how the Protocols appeared – they just did. Various people gave different stories of their orgin. Does it really matter if some of it were taken, or inspired, by Maurice Joly, and also by other writers of the nineteenth century? I don’t think so. It is simply the recognizable truth that the Protocols convey that is important.

    William Pierce was not right in every pronouncement he made.

  8. Does it really matter if some of it were taken, or inspired, by Maurice Joly, and also by other writers of the nineteenth century?

    Yes, of course, it makes a huge difference, if you want to have credibility.

  9. Your idea of credibility. What makes you think people find you so credible? Seems to me you think that by staying conservative (on the safe side), you won’t lose credibility. I just don’t see it that way. I like to push into things even if I’m not sure that it will end up well. Sometimes it does.

  10. katana

    Carolyn and Hadding’s long running back and forth about the validity of the Protocols does have a resolution that is echoed in Henry Ford’s own observation about them. Something to the effect that current events are a witness to them.

    In other words the Protocols show, regardless of authorship, the mindset and strategy of “International Jewry”, and its long term plans. I tend to think the actual Protocols are indeed fake or a forgery, yet at the same time are “genuine” in that they reflect the strategy and spirit of organized jewry.

    Whether a jew or anti-jew wrote them, International Jewry and its non-jew brainwashed army are destroying us today by engineering wars, by subverting every everything decent, by mass third world immigration and so on.

  11. Katana – Would you also consider that by labeling them “fake” and “forgery”, the Jews succeed in putting those powerful, damning words “off-limits” for rational discussion? This is exactly how they put blinders and controls on Whites, stopping us from talking about Jews and what they are doing, as The International Jew points out again and again.

    Hadding argues that there are better things and/or other things to use against the Jews that are just as good. Whenever I ask what they are, he always responds with Pierce’s essay about Jews controlling the media. And I always say, That is not the same, is not as powerful, and not even in the same class as the Protocols.

    I think we have been waylaid by the Jew once again in regard to The Protocols. Both Henry Ford and Adolf Hitler recognized them as true and highly effective against Jewish power. But we allow ourselves to be as if tied up — not allowed to take hold of this powerful weapon against our enemy, a weapon that was given to us by somebody. Just think, arguing about who it came from, as if that matters.

    When someone places a powerful weapon in your hand as you are battling for your life, you just use it! You are a fool if you don’t.

  12. Charles

    “When someone places a powerful weapon in your hand as you are battling for your life, you just use it! You are a fool if you don’t.”

    Thanks for your weighted response to Katana over the Protocols of Zion Carolyn. I take it as a valuable teaching lesson.

    I recently listened to Michael Collins Piper’s recent podcast (on Sandy Hook) since he got out of the hospital, and he said, with great emphasis, “Carolyn is no fool. She’s no dummy.” Not that you need MCP’s validation, Carolyn, but I found your advice here so sharp and well-reasoned that MCP’s own words apply here, in my estimation.

  13. Thank you, Charles! I saw that MCP had done that podcast but haven’t had time to listen to it. I do intend to, though.

  14. Jon

    The Protocols are dubious, and I think it’s unfortunate that a lot of people tend to recommend The Protocols to people unfamiliar with Jewish power. Material such as Kevin Macdonald’s Culture of Critique series is what people should be introduced to.

  15. katana

    Thanks Carolyn for you response here and also for your further discussion of this topic in your latest Heretics Hour program.

    Carolyn wrote: January 27, 2014 at 11:00 am
    I think we have been waylaid by the Jew once again in regard to The Protocols. Both Henry Ford and Adolf Hitler recognized them as true and highly effective against Jewish power. But we allow ourselves to be as if tied up — not allowed to take hold of this powerful weapon against our enemy, a weapon that was given to us by somebody. Just think, arguing about who it came from, as if that matters.

    When someone places a powerful weapon in your hand as you are battling for your life, you just use it! You are a fool if you don’t.
    ————–

    But you need to know the limitations of that weapon and how to use it properly.

    OK, listening to your latest HH program I see your view of the value of the Protocols are more nuanced than I understood. You talk of the “practical value” of using them rather than the absolute origins of them.

    I think the Protocols are most likely an expose of organised Jewry’s methods and game plan to take control of us. Written as a warning by someone very opposed to those plans.

    If they are presented in the above way I think they can be more effectively used for our cause than by calling them the genuine conspiratorial writings of jewish elders of zion, which makes our position an unnecessary ‘all or nothing’ affair and subject to ridicule.

  16. katana – It’s been a progression. The main thing is when I first read the Protocols they made a big impact on me, in the way that you don’t put the book down and forget about it until you pick it up again. It seems to have that same “haunting” impact on everyone, and that’s why the Jewish leadership was so upset about it. And still is. It could be thought of, in a sense, as our “holocaust” issue. The “holocaust” condemns all White Europeans, but especially Germans, as “bad”; the Protocols condemns all Organized Jewry as “bad”. They don’t care about the facts — why should we? I mean by that, let’s use the propaganda value and not be sidetracked by needing to have every i dotted and t crossed.

    So we don’t know where it came from … so it was originally presented as an ancient “plan” of the “elders of Zion.” So what? Is it true? Our scholars should be researching it from that angle, from that perspective … rather than following the Jewish lead in dismissing it as a “fake.” My main objection to that latter reasoning is to say there are NOT other things just as good, or even better, than the Protocols. MacDonald’s work, and William Pierce’s writings and radio programs, are NOT in the same ballpark, do not have the same effect. If they were, the Jewish leadership would find a way to get at them too. The Protocols are in the same ballpark as The International Jew, and maybe one could say Mein Kampf.

    I think it’s likely the Protocols were put out by the strongly Christian element, in response to the attack on Christian churches, clergy and culture, etc. by the revolutionary atheist communist Jews. It seemed like the end of the world was coming, and in Russia it did. It came later in Europe, but most still haven’t recognized it because they are “comfortable.” Most real Christians “believe in” the Protocols, while most anti-Christians criticize and attack them in the same way the communist Jews do. This is an impasse we consistently have.

  17. Charles

    “The Protocols were found to be based on Maurice Joly’s Dialogue in Hell (1866) by Philip Graves, a correspondent of the London Times, in September 1921.”

    “Regarding Matthew Raphael Johnson, I only mentioned him because he is an expert on Russian history.”

    Hadding,

    Long overdue is my grateful reply to your responses to the questions I earlier put to you.

    I did not know at all about Monsieur Joly before you mentioned him and his work here, and I really appreciate your clarification about what the reference was to Mathew Raphael Johnson and why.

    Please continue, as you have, sharing your knowledge, if you will and as you can. You. Smart. Man. Me. Like. Much.

    :-)

    I look forward to hearing you read tomorrow night again on “The International Jew.”

  18. Jon said:

    he Protocols are dubious, and I think it’s unfortunate that a lot of people tend to recommend The Protocols to people unfamiliar with Jewish power. Material such as Kevin Macdonald’s Culture of Critique series is what people should be introduced to.

    Exactly right. Even before the Protocols there were books about the Jews that didn’t have the serious drawback of pretending to be a record of a meeting, and being exposed as a fraud in that pretense so that anybody that continues to use them looks reckless. Many more books about the Jews have been written since the Protocols. If the Protocols are not a genuine record of a conspiratorial meeting — which they clearly are not — then there is no reason to use them, and a very good reason for not using them.

  19. katana

    Carolyn wrote: January 29, 2014 at 11:19 am

    Most real Christians “believe in” the Protocols, while most anti-Christians criticize and attack them in the same way the communist Jews do. This is an impasse we consistently have.
    —————–

    I think it is reasonable to “believe in” the Protocols regardless of religious belief or lack of. That belief being that the Protocols are a dramatized fictional description of jewish strategy and long terms plans to dominate non-jews.

    Christians believe what they believe on the basis of “faith”. Non-believers believe what they believe on the basis of “what they can figure out for themselves”. If “anti-Christians” views’ coincide with communist jew view’s then that’s just a matter of where the facts point to.

    The “impasse” is simply a result of some people not willing to face the evidence that the Protocols were not written by the Elders of Zion but by a hostile writer or writers, out to expose them.

© the White network