tWn_The_Heretics_Hour_20121119.mp3
(27.47 MB)
Nov. 19, 2012
Is it possible that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion were written before the Geneva Dialogues, and thus the latter were “plagiarized” from the former? Yes, says Carolyn, and proceeds to lay out the case for such a supposition.
- Maurice Joly, author of the 1864 Geneva Dialogues, from which the Protocols were allegedly plagiarized, was associated with:
- Adolphe Cremieux (pictured right), illustrious French Jewish legal mind and leading member of the esoteric Mizraim Lodge in Paris from whence a copy of the Protocols was allegedly stolen in 1884;
- Both men hated Louis Napoleon, with Joly being aided by Cremieux to write a devastating satire pointing to Napoleon III as a Machiavellian despot;
- Cremieux had the status and the opportunity to write or upgrade the Protocols prior to 1860;
- A big question comes from the absence of effort to conceal the similarity between the Protocols and the Geneva Dialogues;
- Jacob Venedey, a German-Jewish communist and friend of Karl Marx, and also Cremieux, wrote a book Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Rousseau in 1848, from which Joly likely took some ideas;
- Venedy showed Machiavelli and Rousseau as triumphant Communism, while Joly showed Machiavellism as Reaction and Imperialism;
- The London Times 1921 “exposure” of the “forgery” lacks convincing detail and uses the arguments always used to divert criticism from Jews: antisemitism.
- 2173 views
Comments (1)
Original comments on this program
carolyn
2 Responses
Joshua
November 27, 2012 at 2:32 am
Crémieux. Very prominent Jew evidenced by his role in the Damscus Affair 1860 and his position in the govt of Napoleon III, his protégé. Maurice Joly was a professional lawyer and political secretary in that Government. Joly,s book Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu was published 1864.
Crémieux was Minister of Justice so the chances of them not knowing one another are nil. Crémieux could even have collaborated in the writing of Joly’s book. The last thing on his mind would have been plagiarism. The Protocols at that stage were secret. It is typical Jewishness to reveal your hand a little: the urge to boast is overwhelming!
At a general assembly of the Alliance Israélite Universelle, (founded 1860) on May 31, 1864, Crémieux had said: ‘The Alliance is not limited to our cult, it voices its appeal to all cults and wants to penetrate in all the religions as it has penetrated into all countries. Let us endeavour boldly to bring about the union of all cults under one flag of Union and Progress. Such is the slogan of humanity.’ This is the kind of language that the Protocols uses. (There does not appear to be an original French version. Translation from French to Russian to English would not be as good as a translation directly from French to English)
Under the Talmud only Jews are ‘humanity’. The rest are ‘cattle’.
Crémieux dies 1880
theft by Schorst 1884.
150 years later you are not going to ever get direct evidence such as Crémieux’ handwriting or a witness statement. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming however. If it is plagiarism, well the Devil himself is the plagiarist!
I am disappointed that Hadding while insisting it is a forgery, refuses to investigate. It is reminiscent of my experience with those to whom I say, “Not one Jew was gassed.”
Their response, “Are you mad?”
“No, I can prove it !”
Their response, “I don’t want to know.”
This is slightly off subject here, I know. But that response is the universal response of those who watch TV. It is something to be investigated. It is too much of a co-incidence that that should be the response from every single person who is a regular TV watcher. Those who don’t watch TV or don’t have one ALWAYS allow me to continue the conversation.
Carolyn
November 29, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Joshua,
Some real good stuff here. Interesting your comment about TV watchers; it seems to pan out. Although Hadding is not a TV watcher; I don’t think he has one.
Yes, this is the language of the Protocols. However, we’re now faced in the 10th Protocol with the use of “Panama” as designating a scandal. From Wiki:
The misbehavior took place in the 1880′s but it would have had to be in the 1890′s that the term “a Panama” would have been used for a “dark affair” or a scandal. What we don’t know, though, is how many versions of these documents there might have been. For example, earlier and later versions. It doesn’t seem to me that something like this was written only once and used once.
I brought this up in my first program about it, Saturday Afternoon Nov. 3. The story goes that after Cremieux’s death, while the question of authority was in flux, security might not have been as tight, making it possible for Schorst to take a copy of it. But, again, that would have precluded the “Panama” example to be used. This, and a couple of other things point to a writing date in the 1890′s. I’m currently studying the Protocols carefully on my own, and I suggest those who want to make use of them for our cause do the same. Don’t overly depend on what someone else has said. Not saying you are, Joshua.