Commentaries and Podcasts

Our purpose here this evening is to discuss a federal lawsuit against Henry Ford which was filed by a Jew lawyer named Aaron Sapiro in 1925, and lasted until it was settled in 1927. While the lawsuit and its outcome have no bearing on the legitimacy of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, it was nevertheless taken advantage of in a ploy by prominent Jews to discredit the Protocols, for which they use it to this very day, and, as we shall see, that ploy of the Jews was used in turn by Henry Ford to get out of the lawsuit. Because of the popularity of Ford's publication of The International Jew among those who realize the veracity of the material in the Protocols, and because of the way in which Jews have mischaracterized the Sapiro lawsuit as another proof against the Protocols, we feel that no discussion of the Protocols would be complete without a discussion of this lawsuit, and what really happened when Henry Ford allegedly apologized for his articles in The Dearborn Independent which were later compiled in the volumes titled The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem.

Firstly, one major misconception must be clarified. The Sapiro lawsuit against Ford really had nothing to do with The International Jew, with the Protocols of Zion, or with most of the material ever published in The Dearborn Independent. The lawsuit only involved what certain articles in The Dearborn Independent had said of the Jewish lawyer Aaron Sapiro, who was engaged in organizing farm coops. Ford smelled a rat, and believed that through agents such as Sapiro, Jews were trying to corner the agricultural industry. According to a paper found at Harvard University, Sapiro vs. Ford: The Mastermind of the Marshall Maneuver, in reference to what Ford's newspaper said about Sapiro, “the New York Times summarized the accusations: “Mr. Sapiro was accused in the articles of being a cheat, a faker and a fraud”. We would agree, even if we would not publish such accusations without some evidence. Although we do not perceive that Sapiro himself was an agent for Jews in general, that he was indeed acting out of greed and the desire for control of the production of others is a characteristic inherent among the typical members of his race.

Introductory notes:

Before Alfred the Great, there were few Anglo-Saxon Kings who had any degree of care for learning and refined culture. One of them who did was Alfred of Northumbria, who preceded Alfred the Great by nearly 150 Years. But Alfred of Northumbria only had an opportunity for learning when he himself was passed over for the throne by the Witena, or council, and his younger brother had received his father's kingdom. Rather than fight the decision, Alfred retired to Ireland and received an education in the Scriptures and other literature. He became king of Northumbria after 15 years of such an education, when his younger brother died. Soon following Alfred to the throne was Coelwulf, the patron of the English church historian Bede. In Book 3, Chapter 9 of his History of the Anglo-Saxons, Sharon Turner says:

“The effect of Alfred’s reign and habits in this province became visible in Ceolwulf, who soon succeeded to his throne. This prince, who acceded in 731, was the patron to whom Bede addressed his ecclesiastical history of the English nation. In the dedication, the venerable father of the Anglo-Saxon learning says, that it was this king’s delight not only to hear the Scriptures read, but to be well acquainted with the deeds and sayings of his illustrious predecessors. From this feeling he had desired Bede to compose his history. But the flame, which Alfred had kindled in his dominions, was soon afterwards quenched there by the sanguinary civil contests that succeeded. It burnt, however, with a cheering influence in the other provinces of the octarchy. Bede and Alcuin may be considered as two of the valuable minds which it had excited.”

Christogenea Saturdays, September 26th, 2015 - The Protocols of Satan, Part 6: The Protocols of Joly Refuted

In our last segment of The Protocols of Satan, we had presented three articles from The London Times which were presumably written by Philip Graves and had been published on consecutive dates in August of 1921. In Part 3 of this series, we had quoted the Russian historians Lev Aronov, Henryk Baran and Dmitry Zubarev, who in their 2009 article entitled Princess Catherine Radziwill and 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion': the hoax as a lifestyle had written the following in reference to the Philip Graves articles:

Appendix 2 of the book Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, by Nesta Webster, which was evidently first published in 1924. When we first read of the Joly book in relation to the Protocols, we concluded that both works must have come from the same source, rather than the Protocols having been taken from Joly. Nesta Webster helped us to vindicate that position. In all honesty, the opinions put forth by the Russian historians, Aronov, Baran and Zubarev, and the assertions of Philip Graves may be accepted, if it is taken for granted that the Protocols did not come into existence until after 1864, but only upon the basis that the Dialogue of Joly and the Protocols are the only literature of the 19th century which contain such ideas.

Nesta Webster had also shown that in a June 12, 1920 article in a publication called the Spectator, a certain Mr. Lucien Wolf had declared that the Protocols were a forgery based upon a few parallels found in another political work of the period, Hermann Goedsche's Biarritz which was published in 1868, and that upon that basis Wolf made the declaration that “Nilus followed this pamphlet very closely.” Evidently this claim did not stick in relation to Biarritz, but it is the same claim that Graves made a year later for the Protocols and Joly's Dialogue, after which the Goedsche book was also claimed to have been a plagiarism of the Dialogue.

Christogenea Saturdays, September 19th, 2015 - The Protocols of Satan, Part 5: Philip Graves and the Dialogue of Joly

Click here to read the Protocols themselves at the Mein Kampf Project at Christogenea.

In our last segment of The Protocols of Satan, we had presented those parts of Chapter 10 of Nesta Webster's book World Revolution which demonstrated that much of the underlying political philosophy found in the so-called Protocols of the “Learned Elders of Zion” was actually expressed before the Protocols were ever published, by many of the key figures in the European secret societies of the 18th and 19th centuries. To do this, Webster had compared some of the writings of Adam Weishaupt, Piccolo Tigre, Mikhail Bakunin, Vladimir Lenin and other revolutionaries to statements that had been made in the Protocols. Finding the same sentiments expressed in the Protocols in the works of so many of the secret societies and writings of the revolutionaries, one can only come to the conclusion that a conspiracy which is greater than any particular secret society or revolutionary was lurking in the background which gave fuel to them all. Webster acknowledged that such a conspiracy must have existed, but she did not readily accept the exclusively Jewish nature of that conspiracy. However she did admit later Jewish involvement in both the conspiracy and in the revolutionary movements which the underlying philosophies had generated.

We have already discussed at length the earliest attempts on the part of the Jews to discredit the Protocols as so-called “forgeries”. Nesta Webster had also aptly pointed out the obvious posturing and glaring deficiencies in these attempts which were centered around the testimonies of frauds and traitors such as Katherine Radziwill and du Chayla. Further investigation into the backgrounds and antics of both of these characters reveals that they are even far worse than what we have already presented here, although we are not so certain that we should continue to elaborate on them. As Webster had stated, there is no reason that the Jews should have continued to put them forth as witnesses against the Protocols, except to purposely distract attention from the real evidence of their most plausible source, which was buried in the secret societies themselves. So to Nesta Webster, the Jewish posturing in their attempts to discredit the protocols was the first indication that the Protocols must have been legitimate even if their original author may never be determined precisely.