[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.In these series of articles Graves asserts that the Protocols are onlya clumsy fraud produced by a conscienceless plagiarist who paraphrased (chapter-by-chapter) another book, published in Geneva and Brussels, in 1864-1865.Thatbook called Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu and writtenby a Frenchman named Maurice Joly.The Times published several passagesfrom both books (from Protocols and Dialogues) in parallel columns thussupposedly proving beyond any doubt the spiritual kinship between them.Theforgery version seemed to be well established.It was easy to make this claimwhile Joly s book was unavailable.Napolean III s police confiscated it as soon asit was published.OK, the crux of Graves argument is that certain references and passages inProtocols were lifted from Dialogues.He claims there are 50 of these andproduces about a dozen.Their striking resemblance to Protocols, yes, leaves littledoubt that the author did refer to the Dialogues as part of his research.He had nocompunction about borrowing or reshaping a few passages that struck his fancy.Indeed Philip Graves, as he wrote, was struck by the absence of any effort on thepart of the plagiarist to conceal his plagiarisms. That s because he (who wrote theProtocols) had nothing to hide!Now, the Times emphasized carefully its standing in regard to the Jewishopinion as being absolutely non-partisan and pretended to have exposed this remarkable forgery for the sake of the truth only, as it was very important thatthis legend of the Protocols shall disappear as soon as possible and for ever.Indeed so, since the matter in question is of tremendous importance! The last of theTimes articles terminated with the following words: The fact that we have to dowith a plagiarism, only, is definitely established.Let the Legend now become amatter of the past. But this pious wish failed to materialize.There are manycircumstances that make it impossible to accept the assertion of the Times as a finaldecision.As Shakespeare would say, something is rotten in Kingdom of Denmark.And if we investigate we make some interesting discoveries.For example, National Tidscrift, newspaper in Oslo, Norway, in one of itsJuly issues of year 1922, reported that a certain JEWISH banker acquired thecontrol of the London Times at the time when these series of articles appeared.This statement to my knowledge was never refuted.And, to me, Graves articles smack of a Zionist propaganda operation.Graves expose of Protocols appeared in August 1921 when Zionists werepressing the League of Nations to turn Palestine into a Jewish homeland underBritish Mandate.Quite a coincidence !The Times proclaimed triumphantly that indisputable evidence wasproduced!!! 4Is that so? How wonderful.The Times explains that the forgery was discovered accidentally. If truethen it was a very lucky accident, considering the great importance of thequestion involved.According to Philip Graves, in Constantinople, where he wasthe Times reporter, he became acquainted, by mere luck, with a certain Russian.(Wishing to remain incognito, he was referred to only as Mr.X ) This mysteriousstranger handed the correspondent of the Times the particular booklet, written byMaurice Joly, which made it possible to discover the forgery. Mr.X presented itas irrefutable proof that the Protocols are a plagiarism.He claims he bought thebook from, get this, a former member of the Okhrana who had fled toConstantinople.The whole story seems to be somewhat dark and romantic.Noevidence was produced that Mr.Graves ever met that Russian in Constantinople.The identity of Mr.X was never revealed.Why so much mystery about it?How did the long since forgotten Joly book find its way to Russia? Thatproblem was never solved.Several untenable theories were advanced.The mind ofthe reader was switched at lightning speed from Constantinople to St.Petersburgand from Corsica to London.so that the British goyim readers of the Timesbecame dizzy and unable to keep in step, remaining far back in ignorance.Thegame was won! (By the way, you can read all those articles on the Internet.Address is available on the list which I gave.)Well, in his famous book, The Controversy of Zion (Chapter 34), DouglasReed, also Times correspondent at the time, provides additional background.In May 1920, Lord Northcliffe, a part owner of the Times, printed an articleabout the Protocols entitled The Jewish Peril, a Disturbing Pamphlet, a Call for anEnquiry. It concluded: An impartial investigation of these would-be documents and their history ismost desirable.are we to dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and tolet the influence of such a book as this work unchecked? Then in May 1921 Northcliffe visited Palestine and wrote that Britain had been toohasty to promise it to the Jews when in fact it belonged to 700,000 Muslim Arabresidents.Mr.Wickham Steed, the editor of the Times of London, for some reason,refused to print the article and Northcliffe tried to get him fired.Somehow Steedwas able to have Northcliffe declared insane .Later Northcliffe complained hewas being poisoned and then died suddenly in 1922.Wow! Again just merecoincidence???Douglas Reed actually was Northcliffe s secretary but didn t learn of theseevents until they appeared in the Official History of the Times in the 1950s.Clearly Northcliffe had offended some big boys when he opposed theBritish Mandate in Palestine.Thus, one man who had enough power and will to 5challenge the Protocols and Zionism on an international stage to an audience ofmillions, who was committed to illuminating the world as to the true agenda, hadbeen removed.Now, if all that supposed evidence regarding the Protocols being nothingbut forgery is properly scrutinized and subjected to serious investigation the onlysolid substance that is left is the fact that one of the books represents anoverwriting and further development of the other one.Under these circumstancescan the ugly word forgery be applied???Such a conclusion is simply ridiculous when we consider that the Bible, forexample, contain many parallel passages.A further development and widening of acertain text can not be classified as forgery, otherwise every preacher who quotesa passage from the Bible without mentioning the verse and chapter would also beconsidered as a forger and plagiarist
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]