- Christogenea Saturdays
Christogenea Saturdays, August 15th, 2015 - The Protocols of Satan, Part 1
We are going to begin a long and multifaceted series which we are going to call the “Protocols of Satan”, and this is Part 1. The Protocols, so far as we know, have never been presented from our Christian Identity worldview, and we hope to make a thorough presentation in that manner here. However first we are going to have to establish the credibility of the Protocols, because they certainly were not some pro-Aryan conspiracy against Jews, as they are often claimed to be. Rather, they fully reflect the course of a long-running Jewish conspiracy against Aryans, against Christendom, which has with all certainty been carried out against our European races since the Emancipation of the Jews at the time of Napoleon, and even earlier than that. Henry Ford recognized this, and published The International Jew in book form and as a series in his paper, The Dearborn Independent, throughout the early 1920's.
However another book by Sergei Alexander Nilus, The Protocols and World Revolution, was translated into English and supposedly, as some sources refute the account, edited by Boris Brasol and published in Boston in 1920 by Maynard, Small & Co. The Nilus book, from its second Russian edition published in 1905, contained a copy of the Protocols, and they were apparently the first version available in English. Boris Brasol is a story in himself. He was a Russian lawyer who prosecuted a blood libel case against Jews in 1912. He was an officer in the Tsar's army during the first great war, and was fortunate to have been sent on a mission to the United States, where he was during the Jewish takeover of Russia in October 1917, and where remained thereafter, remaining a writer for several decades and writing several books against Soviet socialism.
In the course of this series, we hope to employ all of these sources and others, as well as many of our own observations of what we shall often call here The Protocols of Satan. Understanding the Protocols is, we believe, especially important today as the Jewish plans for complete Jewish World Supremacy are quickly coming to their absolute and total fulfillment. Understanding the Protocols, we can look at where we are today and see exactly to what extent Christians themselves have and still do cooperate with the Jewish devils who would enslave and destroy them forever. But Yahweh the God of true Christian Israel shall somehow save His people.
So to begin this series, we are going to make a presentation of The World Jewish Conspiracy, written by Dr. Karl Bergmeister and published in 1938. We will add information from many other sources as well. We could not find any information on Bergmeister himself (we even wonder if the name is not a pseudonym for one of the participants in our story), so we will simply present what he said in his booklet. It is approximately 22 pages long, and with the material that we add to it and our own comments, it will take several segments of this presentation to complete.
There is one small immediate problem. This story includes a lot of long Slavic names, which I will probably butcher.
THE JEWISH WORLD CONSPIRACY
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion before the Court in Berne
by Dr. Karl Bergmeister 1938
The Jewish world conspiracy
The lawsuit over the authenticity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which took place in Berne during the years 1934 and 1935, gave to Jewish and pro-Jewish publicists alike, the much wished-for opportunity to blazon forth into the world that in Berne, a judge after objective consideration, had pronounced judgement to the effect that the Protocols were a forgery.
It is in this sense that the Jew Alexander Stein writes in his work “Adolf Hitler, Schüler der Weisen von Zion” (Adolf Hitler, a Pupil of the Elders of Zion), Graphia Verlag, Carlsbad, 1936, and the Jew Ivan Heilblut in “Die öffentlichen Verleumder, die Protokolle der Weisen von Zion und ihre Verwendung in der heutigen Politik” (The Public Slanderers. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and their Use in Present-Day Politics), Europa Verlag, Zurich, 1937; similarly Irene Harland, the pro-Jewish propagandist, in her book “Sein Kampf, Antwort an Hitler” (His Struggle, a Reply to Hitler), Vienna, 1936, and the Freemason Count R. N. Coudenhove-Kalergi - married to a Jewess - in "Judenhaß von heute (Hatred of the Jews in the Present Day), Pan-Europa Verlag, Vienna-Zurich, 1935.
[The Coudenhoves were a supposedly Flemish and wealthy family who fled to Austria during the French Revolution. From there, the family has been systematically race-mixing ever since. First it was only a Polish woman, of supposedly Greek heritage, named Kalergi, but later it was with Jews and even Japanese. The author of the book mentioned here is Richard Coudenhove Kalergi, who had a Japanese mother, and who had joined a prominent Masonic Lodge in Vienna in the early 1920's, and became the founder of a pan-European movement, which was financed by Louis de Rothschild, Max Warburg and other Jewish bankers.
This pan-European movement had several thousand significant members by the mid-1920's, and held its first congress in Vienna in 1926. Coudenhove remained its leader until his death in 1972. It persisted throughout the war, but Coudenhove waited the war out in the United States, to which he had fled from National Socialist Germany. According to one German-language website on Freemasonry, “In the 1930s, Count Richard Nikolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi turned in various publications against 'Nazi anti-Semitism' in the German Reich”. He continued to write books and articles in America, and after the war Harry S. Truman implemented many of his proposals as American policy in Europe. When he died in 1972, he was succeeded by Otto von Habsburg who held the post until 2004. The party still exists, and while it distinguishes itself as separate from any political party, it is the society most responsible for the modern European Union.
Even according to Wikipedia, which normally downplays or obfuscates the true ambitions of the political left, Coudenhove-Kalergi's political philosophy was “to replace the nationalist German ideal of racial community with the goal of an ethnically heterogeneous and inclusive European nation based on a commonality of culture”, and “expressed the supports on Jews by the Pan-European movement and the benefits to Jews with the elimination of racial hatred and economic rivalry brought by the United States of Europe”, statements which were made as early as 1926.
Studying the Coudenhoves, one can only come to the conclusion that it was not Hitler, but the Jews all along who wanted to conquer and unify Europe, forming it in their own bastardly image, and Hitler withstood them. Here we also see a representation of the type of writer who would attempt to discredit the Protocols of the Jews and Masons. To return to Dr. Bergmeister:]
All the above [the writers of books intent on discrediting the Protocols], with apparent intent, pass over the fact that already in 1935, a short time after the proceedings in Berne, a book appeared from the pen of Dr. Stephan Vasz, entitled "Das Bemer Fehlurteil über die Protokolle der Weisen von Zion" (The Faulty Judgement in the Berne Protocols Case), Publishers the U. Bodung-Verlag, Erfurt, in which, from the documents submitted to the court, and the minutes of the proceedings, the author furnishes exhaustive proof of the fact that what took place in Berne was a mockery of justice.
Moreover when Jewry, with incredible frivolity, initiated the proceedings, and led them to an apparent victory, they do not seem to have reckoned with the possibility that this very lawsuit, and the far reaching research which it was to initiate, would bring to light material of so valuable a nature, that from then on, it would hardly be possible for any thinking person to maintain that the Protocols were a forgery.
In the present pamphlet, a certain familiarity with the Protocols is assumed.
[It will become apparent later why the Berne lawsuit is important, because it was actually a lawsuit against certain politicians who were running on anti-Jewish platforms, and the Jews were actually suing them in order to get them to stop employing the protocols in their campaigns.]
1. How the Protocols came into existence.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion form the text of a lecture under 24 headings, dealing with the political, economic and ﬁnancial programme of Judaeo-Masonry for the establishment of Jewish world domination.
The authorship, time and place of the lecture, as well as the actual date at which it was written down, it has not up till now been possible to ascertain.
In the matter of the authorship, the American writer F. Fry, following upon investigations carried out in Russia by Henry Ford, states that the Protocols are the work of the Jewish writer and leader Achad Haam (Ascher Ginsberg), and that they originated in Odessa. Certain circumstances go to show that the Protocols - perhaps following upon the lines of a concept by Achad Haam - formed the subject of a lecture in French Masonic Lodges. The bases for this supposition are the following, namely: that Freemason policy follows the lines of the Protocols, and that S. A. Nilus tells us that the copy which came into his hands in 1901 bore the following inscription: “Signed by the Representatives of Zion of the 33rd Degree.”
[S. A. Nilus is going to figure prominently in our discussion on the Protocols. His full name was Sergej Alexandrowitsch Nilus and he seems to have been a pious Russian Christian who was writing about the Jewish threat to Christendom as early as 1901, in a book entitled “The Great within the Small, and the Antichrist as a Political Possibility in the Near Future”. Then in 1905, after having obtained a copy of the Protocols, he published them in a second edition of his book. Subsequent editions were printed in 1911 and in 1917, on the eve of the Bolshevik Revolution, where he had changed the title to the more alarming “He is at the Doors!” We have a copy of this book in PDF format, and plan to make presentations of it at length, or possibly in full, as this series progresses. Returning to Dr. Bergmeister:]
The story generally put about by Jewry, that in the case of the Protocols, we have to do with a pamphlet drawn up by the Russian Police, and more particularly by Councillor P. J. Ratschkowsky, the purpose of which was to calumniate Jewry, is one which simply will not hold water; the so-called evidence brought forward in support of this story, being wholly without foundation of any kind.
Equally untenable is the theory emanating from anti-Jewish quarters, that the Protocols owe their origin to the Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897. There are however some grounds for the supposition that the text which had already been drawn up between the years 1890 and 1895, formed the subject of a debate at a meeting of brethren of the Bnai-Brith Order in Basel in 1897.
Proved beyond all doubt however is the fact that the first person to possess a copy of the document in French, was the late Russian Major and Court Marshal Alexei Nicolajewitsch Suchotin of Tschern, in the Government of Tula. S. A. Nilus in his book "The Great within the Small" confirms this fact. It is further conﬁrmed by S. S. Nilus, son of the above, in a written declaration dated 1936, to the effect that he personally was present when Suchotin handed the document to his father.
I was successful in finding out a further relation of Suchotin's in the person of Madame Antonia Porphyrjewna Manjkowsky, née Suchotin, widow of the Russian Admiral of that name, and resident at the moment in Jugoslavia. This lady gave me on the 13th of December 1936, a written declaration to the effect that in her youth, she on many occasions visited the Suchotins on their estate. On the occasion of one of her visits about the year 1895, she was witness of how a transcript was made of a copy of the Protocols by Suchotin's sister Mademoiselle Vera Suchotin and his niece Mademoiselle Olga Wischnewetsky, later Madame Lotin.
Vera Suchotin being long since deceased, Madame Manjkowsky advised me to visit Madame Lotin who was still living in Paris. Much to my disappointment, I found that in consequence of the death of her husband Madame Lotin had become completely insane, and was now living in an asylum near Paris, and no longer capable of being interviewed.
Having regard to the date in question, the declaration of Madame Manjkowsky assumes particular importance, for the reason that in her books "Waters Flowing Eastward", p. 89, and "Le Juif Notre Maltre" (The Jew Our Master), p. 95, Mrs. L. Fry publishes a letter written to her on the 17th of April 1927 by Philipp Petrowitsch Stepanoff (deceased 1932) late Procurator of the Holy Synod in Moscow, in which Stepanoff states that already, in 1895 he had received a transcript of the Protocols from Major Suchotin, and adds that he received it through the intermediary of a lady in Paris.
[L. Fry, or Leslie Fry, was the pen name of Paquita Louise de Shishmareff. Her most famous book, Waters Flowing Eastward, was published in 1931, and is said to assert that Jews were to blame for both Capitalism and Bolshevism. While we have never read the book, we know that it is available from The Barnes Review. If she did assert that the Jews were responsible for both Capitalism and Bolshevism, we can wholeheartedly attest that her assertion is correct. She was evidently an American who married a Russian Imperial Army officer who was murdered by the Jews during their Bolshevik Revolution.
Back to Dr. Bergmeister:]
Who this lady was, it has not been possible up till now to ascertain. S. A. Nilus also writes in his book that Suchotin, on handing the document to him in 1901, mentioned her name to him, but that he had forgotten it. In this connection Nilus's son informed me that his father had only mentioned the matter because Suchotin had made him promise to keep the lady's name a secret as long as she lived. From all this it becomes clear that a transcript of the Protocols was in existence in Russia in the year 1895 already, that is to say two years before the ﬁrst Congress in Basel.
According to data furnished by Nilus's son, the ﬁrst publication of the Protocols took place in the Winter of 1902/1903 in the “Moskowskija Wiedomosti”. I have unfortunately not up till now succeeded in obtaining a copy of this paper. As against this, it is a matter beyond all doubt that the Protocols were published in the "Snamja", the Paper formerly edited by Kruschewan, in the numbers appearing between the 28th of August and the 7th of September 1903. It was first in the year 1905, that Sergej Alexandrowitsch Nilus included the text of the Protocols in his book on Antichrist entitled "Welikoje w Malom i Antichrist kak bliskaja polititscheskaja wosmoschnost" (The Great within the Small, and the Antichrist as a Political Possibility in the Near Future). This was in the second edition of his book, of which the ﬁrst edition which appeared in 1901 did not contain a copy of the Protocols. The third edition appeared in 1911, and the fourth in 1917, under the altered title "Blis jest pri dwerech" (He is at the Doors!).
[This edition, published in English in Boston in 1920, we hope to present, at least in excerpts, and discuss here over the coming months. In that publication it is also attested that Nilus published a copy of the Protocols in a 1905 edition of his book.]
In the year 1906, the Russian author George Butmi published the Protocols in his book "Oblitschiteljenja rjetschi, wragi roda tschelowjetscheskago" (Speeches which reveal the Truth, the Enemies of Mankind), the fourth edition of which appeared in 1907.
In the rest of Europe the Protocols remained completely unknown. It was first after the World War that Russian emigrants brought Nilus's book to North America and to Germany. It was thus that a copy came into the hands of the President of the “Verband gegen die Überhebung des Judentums” [this can be translated as The Association against the arrogance of Judaism. Martin Bormann and Alfred Rosenberg were said to also be members.] in Berlin, Müller von Hausen, who had it translated in the year 1919, and published under his pseudonym Gottfried zur Beek, under the title “The Secrets of the Learned Elders of Zion”.
A second edition was published by Theodor Fritsch with the incorrect title of “The Zionist Protocols”. A seventeenth edition of this brochure appeared in 1936 in the Hammer-Verlag, Leipzig, this time with the correct title “The Protocols of Zion”.
[There is a difference in the titles. The Jews were of course always claiming to be the Israelites of Scripture, and “Protocols of Zion” would refer to that. However Zionism is a political philosophy of their return to establish a state in Palestine, a political idea which gained popularity from the late 19th century, and the Protocols have nothing to do with that.]
2. The ﬁrst Jewish attempts at defence.
In the year 1921, Jewry took up the defence against the Protocols. In rapid succession the three following articles appeared.
On the 25th of February 1921, the “American Hebrew” published an interview given by the Russian Princess Catherine Radziwill to the Jewish reporter Isaac Landman.
On the 12th and 13th of May 1921, the French Count Armand du Chayla published an article in two parts in the Russian paper “Posljednije Nowosti” ("Dernières Nouvelles") in Paris.
The third article was from the pen of the English journalist Philip Graves, and appeared in three parts in the London “Times” on the 16th, 17th and 18th of August 1921.
Princess Radziwill declared that the Protocols were ﬁrst drawn up after the Russo-Japanese war and the ﬁrst Russian Revolution in 1905 by the Russian State Councillor Peter Ivanowitsch Ratschkowsky, Chief of the Russian Secret Police in Paris, and by his agent Matthew Golowinsky. During her stay in Paris at the time, the last named had shown her the manuscript which he had just composed, and which had moreover a large blue inkstain on the front page. It had been planned in Russian Conservative circles to incite the Czar Nicholas II against the Jews by means of this publication.
[Soon we shall see, as it has been mentioned here by Bergmeister already, that according to the testimony of Sergei Nilus, before 1905 he had received his copy of the Protocols from a prominent Russian official, who had already informed him that it was too late to act on them. However Nilus, first publishing the Protocols in the 1905 edition of his book, the Protocols could not have been made as Radziwill attests.
This Princess Catherine Radziwiłł was born Countess Ekaterina Adamovna Rzewuska and married the Polish aristocrat Wilhelm Radziwill (who was of the same family that the sister of Jacqueline Kennedy, Caroline Lee Bouvier, later married into). It is reported that Wilhelm Radziwill died in Vienna in 1911, however the couple had been divorced by 1902. The Polish aristocracy had heavily intermarried with the Jews in Poland, especially after the time of the Frankists in the mid-18th century. But in this respect we can only wonder.
However in any event, soon thereafter Catherine Radziwill, later known as Catherine Kolb, was stalking the famous British politician Cecil Rhodes and tried to get him to marry her, but he refused. She retaliated by forging his name on a promissory note. In 1902 she was convicted of forgery spent two years in a South African prison. She also had problems in courts in London because she had failed to pay her debts. Then she appeared in the United States in 1917. Later, almost as soon as the Protocols were published there, she gave interviews with stories that the Protocols were a “forgery”. Radziwill seems to be an expert at forgeries, so who better for the Jews to employ in their campaign to smear the Protocols, than a disgraced and desperate woman, possibly a crypto-Jewess.
On April 30th, 1917, the New York Times ran a front-page article with the headline “Ex-Princess Held At Ellis Island; Former Wife of Prince Radziwill Must Explain Her Career in South Africa. Came Here To Lecture Had Won Society Woman to be Patronesses of a Talk on Russian Royalty for War Relief.” This article reported that “Mrs. Catherine Kolb, formerly the Princess Catherine Radziwill, wife of Prince William Radziwill, from whom she was divorced, arrived here yesterday on a Norwegian steamship to lecture under the management of William B. Feakins on the Russian Imperial Court and the present conditions in that country ...” The article reports that she also sought to raise funds for Russian prisoners of war, where perhaps she was attempting another scam.
Returning to Dr. Bergmeister:]
Comte du Chayla wrote that he visited Nilus in Russia in the year 1909. The latter had shown him the manuscript with the blue inkstain, and had told him that he had received it from his life-long friend Madame Natalia Afanassicwna K. (du Chayla afterwards stated that her name was Komarowsky) who had in turn received it from Ratschkowsky in Paris.
[This is Count Armand Alexandre de Blanquet du Chayla, who lived from 1885 to 1945. One online library says that he was “was a French nobleman who converted to Russian Orthodoxy. He is chiefly remembered for giving crucial evidence and/or testimony for the prosecution at the Berne Trial in 1935 against the notorious Protocols of Zion.”
We have already seen that S. A. Nilus had never revealed the name of this woman, so du Chayla was apparently lying. In The Protocols and World Revolution, the translation into English of S. A. Nilus's book which was edited by Boris Brasol and published in Boston in 1920 by Maynard, Small & Co., we read this on page 11:
Mr. Nilus, at pages 86 to 92 of his book, “It is Near, At the Door,” states that he received the manuscript containing the Protocols of the Meetings of the Zionist Men of Wisdom in 1901 from Mr. Alexis Nikolajevich Souchotin, at one time Marshal of Nobility in the District of Chern, Central Russia, and later Vice Governor of the Government of Stavropol, South Russia, and that when giving the manuscript to Mr. Nilus, Mr. Souchotin said:
“Take it into your full possession. Read it. Become inspired and make out of it something useful to the Christian soul. Otherwise it might remain with me unused. From a political standpoint it is useless, for it is too late to act on it. From a spiritual standpoint, however, it might be otherwise. In your hands, with God's help, it will bear fruit.”
Mr. Nilus states that Mr. Souchotin told him that the manuscript was originally obtained by a lady whose name is not given and who, he said, obtained it in a mysterious way.
Other sources claim to know the identification of this mysterious woman, which we will discuss at some point in the future. However as for du Chayla, he barely escaped being hanged by the Cossacks as a Bolshevik agent in 1921, and he was certainly guilty. While he apparently started out on the side of the monarchy, during the Jewish takeover he switched sides and was employed inciting the Cossacks against the White Army, to divide the opponents of the Jews. Now to return to Dr. Bergmeister:]
Philip Graves wrote that the Protocols had been composed with the aid of the “Dialogue aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu” (The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu) , a book written by the French advocate [lawyer] Maurice Joly, the ﬁrst edition of which appeared in Brussels in 1864, and the second in 1868.
[Continuing the attempt to discredit the Protocols, it is said on Wikipedia that “One of the few copies of the Dialogue to survive confiscation by Napoleon III's secret police found its way to Switzerland, where it was picked up by the Russian secret police Okhrana and served as the basis for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” The truth is just as likely that Joly, a lawyer who worked in the French Ministry of State in Paris for over ten years, knew what was circulating among high-level Masons and Jews in France, and in turn borrowed from it for his book, which was actually a satire against the political ambitions of Napoleon III. Joly, who was found dead in 1878 at the age of 49, is found to have also plagiarized other earlier works of literature. However our author, Dr. Bergmeister, for the meantime acknowledges that the Protocols did indeed copy quite heavily from Joly:]
The only thing that is true about these reports, with which I will deal later on, is the statement that the author of the Protocols made extensive use of Joly's book, in that he copied whole sentences, and even whole paragraphs from it. He committed an open plagiarism on Joly. This fact however cannot be taken as furnishing the least proof that the Protocols are an anti-Semitic forgery; for it is not a question of whether the text of the Protocols came into being partly through the misuse of the text of another book, but solely of whether the Protocols contain the programme of Jewish world domination, and were written by a Jew for the Jewish people. The fact that externally a plagiarism is to hand, is no proof that the contents are a forgery. The question of forgery would ﬁrst arise when it could be proved that the Protocols had actually been composed by an Anti-Semite for the purpose of slandering Jewry.
Jewry even made the attempt to bring proof of this, in that they caused Princess Radziwill to announce that Golowinsky had composed the document under the guidance of Ratschkowsky. The attempt to prove this however, as I will afterwards show, was a complete failure.
[Burgermeister did well here, to assert that it was the Jews who caused Radziwill to say what she had said in America about the Protocols.]
3. The Proceedings in Berne.
When, in spite of the above, the Protocols made their way round the world, and made their appearance in practically every country, and in a variety of languages, Jewry finally decided to obtain a judicial finding upon the subject.
On the 26th of June 1933, "The Federation of Jewish Communities of Switzerland" and the "The Berne Jewish Community" brought an action in the courts with a view to obtaining a judgement to the effect that the brochure by Theodor Fritsch, “Die Zionistischen Protokolle” (The Zionist Protocols) was literary trash, and further with a view to obtaining an order prohibiting its publication. As a matter of form the action was brought against five members of the “National Front”, and of the “Heimatwehr”, and among them, as principal defendant, Sylvio Schnell, who had distributed the brochure at a party meeting. As expert to the Jewish plaintiffs the judge appointed Dr. A. Baumgarten, Professor of Criminal Law at the University of Basel, and as Expert to the defendants the Director of the World Service at Erfurt, Lieut. Colonel U. Fleischhauer. As presiding expert he appointed the Pro-Jewish Swiss author C. A. Loosli.
[The Heimatwehr, or Home Defense was a Swiss political party founded in 1925 in Zurich. It is said on German-language websites to have leaned towards Italian fascism and to have been anti-Jewish, and the German version of Wikipedia says “there was a certain degree of antisemitism among the farmers which was directed primarily against Jewish property and livestock dealers and department store owners.” They were aligned with the National Front party in Switzerland throughout the 1930's.
C.A. Loosli is another interesting character. He was born a bastard, his parentage is not listed, and he was raised in Swiss youth institutions of the time. In 1927 he wrote his first book against antisemitism, and The Swiss Federation of Jewish Communities bought 300 copies of it, although some Jews in Switzerland disagreed with Loosli's persuasion that the Swiss Jews should be assimilated. As Aeschylus had written so long ago, the bastard is forever an enemy to the true-born. By this he was perceived as having the expertise that put him into the Berne trial as an expert.
Ulrich Fleischhauer, an expert for the defense in this case, is another interesting character. He is said to have been “a leading publisher of antisemitic books and news articles reporting on a perceived Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory and "nefarious plots" by clandestine Jewish interests to dominate the world. Perhaps we will comment more on him when we can cut through some of the propaganda about him, in the light of his role in this trial.
So we see that the Jews really wanted to prevent Nationalist politicians from using the Protocols as anti-Jewish propaganda, in their usual way of lawsuits and the instilling of fear. They had already sued Henry Ford in the United States in 1927.
The pro-Jewish American Bar Foundation says in the introduction to its own investigation of the Ford lawsuit that:
This project examines a well-known event in the life of Henry Ford -- a 1927 federal libel lawsuit against him and his antisemitic newspaper -- from the perspective of the people who sought to stop him. In the end, Ford did stop publishing the Dearborn Independent, but on terms he controlled: he evaded the efforts of several distinguished lawyers to use law to compel him to take responsibility for what we today call hate speech. Ford was no champion of free speech rights; he managed to avoid losing the lawsuit by engineering a sleight-of-hand that took advantage of the diversity of views, politics, and intellectual loyalties among American Jews that Ford’s newspaper so narrowly caricatured.
In 1924, to regain the public spotlight and burnish his image among American conservatives, Ford directed the Independent to resume an antisemitic campaign that had first begun in 1920 and lasted for two years. Playing on the crushing boom and bust cycles that plagued American agriculture after the war, in this second antisemitic campaign the Independent attacked the agricultural cooperative movement as alien to the individualist spirit of American husbandry. The Independent accused Aaron Sapiro, the movement’s leader, of defrauding American farmers to advance an international Jewish conspiracy. Ford saw himself as the only legitimate champion of rural America; he targeted Sapiro both because he was Jewish and because he was not a farmer.
Sounds like Ford was addressing the same problem that the Swiss farmers of the Heimatwehr were facing. But in hindsight, we can see that Rothschild and Warburg support for Coudenhove's internationalism and the destruction of ethnicity in Europe, and the condition of Europe today as the result of that, is in fact proof by itself that Ford and the others were right.
Now to return to Dr. Bergmeister:]
At the end of October 1934, the 16 witnesses called by the Jewish plaintiffs were heard, and on the 14th of May 1935 judgement was entered to the effect that the Protocols were a forgery and demoralising literature. No other decision was possible, because on the one hand the Marxist judge accepted the falsehoods of the Princess Radziwill and of the Comte du Chayla as correct, and consequently was bound to accept the expertises of Baumgarten and Loosli, which were founded upon these falsehoods; and on the other hand because he refused to listen to the objections raised by the expert Fleischhauer against these falsehoods. Quite apart from this, the judge went so far in his preconceived opinion that the Protocols were a forgery, and in his lack of objectivity under undisguised pressure from Jewry, that he did not even stop at deliberately setting aside the conditions laid down in the Swiss Civil Code for the carrying out of legal proceedings. Thus he only allowed the witnesses brought by the Jewish plaintiffs to be heard, whereas of the 40 witnesses brought by the defendants, not a single one was allowed a hearing. The proceedings were accordingly carried on solely upon the testimony of the Jewish plaintiffs. And further, although Swiss law demands that in the case of every lawsuit, shorthand minutes of the proceedings be taken by an official of the court, the judge did not adhere to this condition, but permitted the Jewish plaintiffs to appoint two private stenographers to keep the register of the official proceedings during the hearing of their own witnesses. As therefore no legal record of the proceedings was kept, it follows that the whole procedure, and the verdict itself are both null and void.
In other ways also bias may be said to have celebrated triumphs. Thus the expert Fleischhauer was hindered by a variety of expedients from making use of his legal right to examine the documents of the other side; and whereas the two Swiss experts were allowed a good eight months for the preparation of their expertises, the judge demanded that Fleischhauer should prepare his expertise within six weeks. It was only after a protest, that he agreed to extend this period by the insufficient term of one month.
In consequence of all this, the principal defendant Silvio Schnell lodged an appeal through his counsel Hans Ruef.
After a lapse of two and a half years, the case was reopened in the Court of Criminal Appeal in Berne on October 27th 1937.
Messrs Ursprung and Ruef, counsel for the defendants, demanded that the verdict given in the court of first instance be quashed, and their clients acquitted. Mr. Ruef submitted that the evidence taken down during the original proceedings had not been submitted to the witnesses for signature, and argued that little credibility could in any event be attached to their statements. He pointed out moreover that all the Russian documents which had been submitted to the court by M. Loosli were uncertified copies of the originals, and that a number of mistakes had been discovered in the different translations.
Mr. Ruef finally declared that it was not possible to apply the Bernese law to the incriminated document, because its contents were of a political, and not of a moral nature.
The Assistant Public Prosecutor Loder recognised that the manner in which the official record of the proceedings had been kept in the court of first instance had not been correct, and he further recognised that a whole series of errors in the sense of the Penal Code had been committed.
On the 1st November 1937 the Appeal Court pronounced judgement in the following terms:
“The accused Sylvio Schnell is acquitted without indemnity [meaning that they had to pay their own costs], all elements which might constitute a basis for the charge being absent.”
In summing up the President declared that any expertise on the authenticity or non-authenticity of the Protocols was superﬂuous. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion being a political pamphlet of a polemical order, the Bernese law did not apply. For this reason a complete acquittal had been pronounced. The President declared with emphasis that the judge in the court of first instance had no right to set on foot enquiries as to the authenticity or the non-authenticity of the Protocols for the reason that the matter was irrelevant to the consideration of whether an immoral publication was to hand.
[Therefore it was decided that under Swiss law, the lawsuit could not even be made.]
In this important lawsuit therefore Jewry have not attained their object.
When in spite of this the Jewish press announce that all that was decided by the Court of Appeal was that the Protocols are not demoralising literature, and that the declaration of the judge in the court of first instance that they are a forgery retains its validity, this amounts to no more than a gross misleading of public opinion.
In the Court of Appeal the judgement of the first court was quashed in its entirety, and the considerations upon which the first judge based his faulty judgement, and more especially his assumption that a forgery was to hand, were deprived of all weight.
[Wikipedia very well represents the Jewish spin on the outcome of the appeals court decision, where it says that:
Theodor Fischer [sic Fritsch] himself and the lawyer of Silvio Schnell (Hans Ruef, Berne) immediately appealed to the Berner Obergericht which acquitted both defendants in 1937 on purely formal legal grounds, arguing that the term “Schundliteratur” of the Bernese Law is not applicable to “political publications” but only to “immoral (obscene) publications”. The Berner Obergericht refused the obligation of the private plaintiffs to pay the costs of defence of the acquitted defendants explaining that “the one who circulates such sort of most vulgar instigating articles has to pay himself the costs resulting from them.” Fischer had to pay Fr. 100 to the state fees of the trial (Fr. 28,000, paid by the Canton of Berne).
The words concerning the order that the defendants shoulder their own costs are verified in a copy of the appellate court decision available online: “Wer aber solche Hetzartikel gemeinster Sorte in Verkehr setzt, muss die ihm daraus entstehenden Kosten selber tragen”. Citing the Revision of the Sentence by Berner Obergericht, Judge O. Peter 1937, p.50. We have verified the translation of the sentence, but not within the context of the entire paragraph.]
4. The supposed proofs of forgery.
Of the evidence brought by Jewry against the authenticity of the Protocols already in 1921, and in Beme in 1934/1935, the following may be said to be the substance.
The assumption made by Princess Radziwill that the Protocols were drawn up in the year 1906 after the Russo-Japanese War and the first Russian Revolution may be said to be false if only on the following grounds namely, that the text of the Protocols can be proved to have been in the hands of Stepanoff already in 1895, that in 1901 it was in the hands of Nilus, and that in the year 1903, it was published in the "Snamja".
[Pavel Alexandrovich Krushevan, whom our author had mentioned earlier, was a Russian journalist and an official in Imperial Russia. He came from a noble but impoverished Moldovan family. In 1903 he was the publisher and editor of the St. Petersburg newspaper Snamja, or Znamya, which means in English The Standard, where the German-language Wikipedia website even admits that the Protocols were first published in Russian at that time.]
It can further be proved that in 1905, and some years previously, both Ratschkowsky and Golowinsky were no longer in Paris. Thus does the whole catena [Latin for chain] of lies contrived by Princess Radziwill fall to the ground. This woman moreover falsely gave herself out as a princess in her interview with the Press in 1921 [in New York], whereas already in 1914, after her divorce from Prince William Radziwill, she married an engineer called Karl Emil Kolb, from whom she was again shortly afterwards divorced, and in 1921 following upon of a new marriage became Mrs. Danvin. [In 1917 the New York Times reports that her last name was Kolb.] It was in vain for the expert Fleischhauer to point out to the court during the proceedings that the evidence of this woman could not be taken seriously, if only for the reason that she was a proven forger and crook. The court refused to make any investigation of her previous career. [When she arrived in New York, she was forced to remain at Ellis Island until she explained her criminal career, and especially what she had done in South Africa, according to the same 1917 New York Times article.] It might therefore be fitting at this point to mention some of her shady actions in the past. About the year 1900 she attached herself to the diamond mine owner Cecil Rhodes, at the time he was going to South Africa. On the grounds of pure vanity apparently she published in a paper called “Greater Britain”, which she edited there, what purported to be an interview with the late Marquess of Salisbury on the political situation in South Africa. In this interview Lord Salisbury is supposed to have expressed the view that Rhodes should be advanced to the position of Premier of Cape Colony. To put the matter beyond all doubt, the Princess showed Rhodes' private secretary the text of statement purporting to be signed by Lord Salisbury, and a telegram which she stated she had received from him inviting her to an interview. It came out afterwards that the telegram was not genuine, as it was not Lord Salisbury, but the Princess who had sent it to herself, that the interview had never taken place, and that moreover Lord Salisbury's signature had been forged.
During the year 1901, she passed cheques to the aggregate amount of £29,000, signing them with the name of Cecil Rhodes. Following upon this she was arrested and sentenced to eighteen months hard labour [our other sources say two years]. A full account of this affair, and of other exploits of this forgeress and adventuress may be found in the memoirs of two of Cecil Rhodes' private secretaries entitled “Cecil Rhodes, his private life by his private secretary Philip Jourdan” London, 1910 and “Cecil Rhodes, the man and his work by one of his private and conﬁdential secretaries, Gordon le Sueur”. London 1913. Both books may be seen at the library of the University in Göttingen. [Remember that our author is a German writing in Germany.]
After leaving South Africa this woman did not alter her way of life. In 1921, she was arrested at the instance of two hotels in New York for having piled up bills for meals, and then disappeared without paying them. [As we have seen, the New York Times had also reported in 1917 that she had done that same thing in London.]
A suitable witness indeed to prove that the Protocols are a forgery!
The patently false statement that the Protocols were first drawn up after the Russo-Japanese war in 1905 was very awkward to the Chief Expert Loosli, so he in his turn proceeded to falsify the evidence and with the object of adding verisimilitude to the statement made by Radziwill, he in his expertise unobtrusively altered the year 1905 to 1895. He was compelled by Fleischhauer seven months later to own up to this before the court. Even this incident produced no effect upon the biased judge. There are moreover definite grounds for the supposition that Landman laid before the Princess what was definitely a text, the main contents of which had been prepared beforehand, and which was afterwards ornamented by a few personal comments of her own. It is also stated that she was paid the unusually high sum of 500 Dollars for the interview by Lewis [sic Louis] Marshall, the B'nai Brith Mason and leader of American Jewry. This of course was no honorarium, but hush-money.
[At the Russian-language website polit.ru, there is an online article published in July, 2009 by Lev Aronov, Henryk Baran and Dmitry Zubarev entitled Princess Catherine Radziwill and 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion': the hoax as a lifestyle, and the hoax they speak of is the conduct of Catherine Radziwill. These Russian historians also highly question the integrity of Radziwill and what may have been her motivation. The introduction to the article summarizes its first few paragraphs, and concludes that “the role of the princess in the story remains mysterious.” Here we shall paraphrase the opening paragraphs, since the translation is not perfect and some minor editing is required:
In January 1921 the famous American financier and a prominent Jewish activist Felix Warburg received a letter signed by Princess Catherine Radziwill (They reproduce the letter in the Appendix of the book from which this article was extracted). She had written because there had arisen the topic of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” a couple of years earlier to haunt the Jewish community in Western Europe and the United States. After receiving her letter, Warburg sent a letter to Louis Marshall - Senior lawyer and public figure, chairman of the American Jewish Committee in the recent past, and the head of the Committee of Jewish delegations to the peace conference at Versailles in 1919. On February 25, 1921 the weekly The American Hebrew and Jewish Messenger published an interview with the editor of the aforementioned Princess in which she said that she not only knows by who and when this document was produced, but saw the original in French. She named a number of persons involved in the pre-revolutionary Russian special services - the generals P. A. Cherevin and P. V. Orzhevskogo, head of the Foreign Police Department agency, P. I. Raczkowski and his assistants M. V. Golovinskiy and I. F. Manasevich-Manuylova.
This interview with the princess, soon published in France, was the first "evidence" that the Protocols are a political forgery, born in the depths of the security services of the state, which no longer exists.
The testimony of Princess Radziwill caused a significant response in the press. Although some information immediately appeared in the press regarding errors and obvious anachronisms, it created the basis for the so-called “police version” of the origin of the Protocols, which is still very common in the popular and partly in the scientific literature of the Protocols. As for the antisemitic writers and historians, they then say of E. Radziwill that on the one hand, here is yet another proof of the omnipotence of the world power behind the scenes and on the other, that it is another controversial episode in the biography of a person who was for a long time compromised.
Aronov and his fellow writers clearly see through the lies and deceit of Catherine Radziwill. They will agree with our author in many of his other assessments in this section as well. Yet it was not their task to validate the Protocols, for they sought only to determine the actual history of the document, and to assess its reception in the West. We shall be hearing more from them as well, when this series continues.