Court rules in 1937 Protocols of Zion are Real.

*** just a note to tell you Haarp was out big time today.  We saw it in the clouds so watch out for tomorrow or the next day for geological or weather changes.

Vatic Note:  This is the second historical confirmation of the validity of the protocols of the Elders of Zion.  The first we covered on a blog that was the result of the investigation back in 1919 of military intel and congressional investigation of the Russian revolution and the connection of the protocols and whether they were a threat to the United States.  Remember we published that Wilson put a top secret classification on the results that were kept on for 50 years.   We would not be here today where we are had he not done that.  But alas, he did and we are simply playing catch up.  Please read below and realize this was a second confirmation that was foreign rather than US alone.  Good read. 

Protocols Decision Washed Out - 1937

http://biblebelievers.org.au/examiner.htm

By the 1937 Examiner, provided by Biblebelievers

February, 1938

Press and Radio Silent on Appeal Finding

Great publicity was given throughout the world in 1935 to a decision in the Swiss Courts that the documents known as "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" were a forgery; that the judge had described the contents as "ridiculous nonsense"; and that the Protocols had been condemned as an offence against public morals.

Even in remote New Zealand numerous newspapers at that time published long articles on what they termed an "Historic Forgery"; and addresses were similarly given over the radio system proclaiming loudly that the Protocols had been shown to be baseless.

We are now at the end of February, 1938, but the writer can recall nothing in the daily papers, and he has heard nothing over the radio system, telling him that the Protocols verdict given on May 14, 1935, was reversed by the Berne Court of Appeal on November 1 last. When the decision went one way it was news fit for all the world to hear: a subject for special articles and radio broadcasts. When it went the other way it ceased to be news at all.

What the Protocols Are

To those unfamiliar with them it may be explained that the Protocols were first published in English in 1920 by Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode, long printers to the British Government. They attracted very considerable attention, and the London "Times", in reviewing them in a lengthy article on May 3, 1920, stated that its representative had inspected in the British Museum an edition of the Protocols published in Russia by Professor Sergius Nilus in 1905, and bearing the Museum's date stamp of receipt of August 10, 1906.

The "Times" attached importance to this positive evidence of the existence of the Protocols in 1906, because the Protocols contain a programme for the conquest of the world by subterfuge, and of this programme, world events from 1906 to 1920 were a fulfilment. That is the whole significance of the Protocols. The plan contained in them goes on getting itself fulfilled.

If the Protocols were considered significant in 1920 because of the course of world events between 1906 and 1920, the course of events between 1920 and 1938 makes them immensely more significant to-day.

Depression and Revolution

Look back on the world depression of 1929-1934, and consider the following few words from Protocol No. 3:

"We shall create by all the secret subterranean methods open to us and with the aid of gold, which is all in our hands, a universal economic crisis whereby we shall throw upon the streets whole mobs of workers simultaneously in all the countries of Europe."

Consider the interconnections of international finance and international revolution in the light of this passage from the same Protocol:

"We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression (of capitalism] when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces-Socialists, Anarchists, Communists - to whom we always give support in accordance with an alleged brotherly rule (of the solidarity of all humanity) of our social masonry . . . By want and envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands wipe out all who hinder us on our way. When the hour comes for our Sovereign Lord of all the world to be crowned it will be these same hands that will sweep away everything which might be a hindrance thereto."

Deadly Forecasts

The thirty thousand words of these 24 Protocols constitute one of the most remarkable documents in all history. In Henry Ford's "Dearborn Independent" of July 24, 1920, it was said: "Nothing like them in completeness of detail; in breadth of plan, and in deep grasp of the hidden springs of human action has ever been known. . . what is written in the Protocols in words is also written upon the life of to-day in deeds and tendencies."

The late Lord Sydenham, formerly Governor of Victoria and Governor of Bombay, and member of the Committee which reconstructed the British War Office, in a letter to the London "Spectator" of August 27, 1921, referred to "the deadly accuracy of the forecasts in the Protocols, most of which have been fulfilled to the letter"; and said their most striking characteristic was "knowledge of a rare kinds embracing the widest fields,"

Where They Came From

The origin of the Protocols is a mystery. They came by way of Russia. It is asserted that they reached Russia from Paris, being forwarded by an agent of the Tsarist secret service; but of this there is no positive proof. Professor Sergius Nilus who published them in Russia was described by the London "Times" as a minor official in the Russian Foreign Office. He wrote a book entitled "The Great in Little" and in a second edition of this book in 1905 he printed the Protocols, saying they had come from a friend since deceased, with the assurance that they were a true translation of documents stolen by a woman from a highly initiated Jewish Freemason in France.

Nilus brought out the Protocols again in 1917, entitled "It is Here: At the Gates". This edition is said to have been suppressed by the Kerensky Government; and it has been asserted that the Bolsheviks later shot at sight anybody found in possession of a copy.

Forgery Alleged

A German translation was made in 1919, and since then the Protocols have been translated into almost every language. Numerous Jews have taken the strongest exception to the publication of the Protocols: and have repeatedly denounced them
as useless forgeries.

The late Mr. Lucien Wolf, an eminent Jewish journalist, in a long letter to the London "Spectator" of June 12, 1920, said the Protocols were plagiarised from, a novel "Gaeta Duppel Warsaw", published in 1868.

In August, 1921, the London "Times" published a series of articles from its Constantinople correspondent saying he had been shown by an unnamed "Mr. X." a copy of a book by Maurice Joly called "Dialogue in Hell, between Montesquieu and Macchiavelli", published in 1865, with several passages almost identical with passages in the Protocols, and that this Mr. X. had obtained the book from an old officer of the Tsarist secret police; and that apparently the Protocols were plagiarised from this very copy. Nilus got his copy from Alexis Sukhotin, and there as stated to be "A.S." scratched in the back of the book. No names were given in the persons making the statements.

Wrapped in Mystery

These London "Times" articles are the "proof" advanced everywhere that the Protocols are a baseless forgery, Mrs. L. Fry in her book "Waters Flowing Eastward" (1933) points out that there is another book entitled "Macchiavelli, Montesquieu, and Rousseau", by Jacob Venedy, published in 1850, which has similar passages to those in Joly's book, and in the Protocols. Jacob Venedy was a Jewish revolutionary. It has been asserted in various quarters that Joly was also a Jew, though this was disputed at Berne. Joly was closely associated with the Jews Cremieux and Janin.

The plain fact of the matter is that nobody knows who wrote the Protocols. Many similarities between them and earlier documents can be discovered, included in the number being passages in the Talmud. Their interest and significance is in their fulfilment. They are either a plan or else a very accurate and curious prophecy. Nobody even knows who gave them their name. They are a formless production, and the Ford "Dearborn Independent" in commenting on them said they seemed as if they were most probably notes taken during a series of lectures. If such was the case, the lectures were not propaganda, but an exposition of a plan to an audience which had already accepted it in principle.

Berne Prosecution Begins

The famous Berne trial, the decision in which has been reversed, was a prosecution begun in June, 1933, of certain members of Swiss national and anti-Jewish movements charged with selling copies of the Protocols, which were alleged to be in contravention of article 14 of the Berne Cantonal law forbidding the circulation of matter likely to incite to crime, lead to immorality, shock the sense of decency, or provoke to depravity in any manner whatsoever. The action was brought by the United Jewish Communities of Switzerland and the Jewish Synagogue of Berne. It came before a Magistrate, Judge Meyer.

After various adjournments, the Court permitted the case to be enlarged by the complainants from a simple police court action into a question of the history and authenticity of the Protocols. On October 29 and 30, 1934, the Court heard an array of 16 witnesses for the plaintiffs affirming that the Protocols were a forgery. Chief among these witnesses were Dr. Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organisation and the Jewish World Agency, and Dr. Ehrenpries, chief rabbi of Sweden. A part of the evidence was in rebuttal of a suggestion or allegation that the Protocols emanated from those concerned in the first Zionist Congress in 1897; but the whole, question of origin was also traversed.

Defence Allowed No Witnesses

The defendants, with this heavy artillery brought against them, secured an adjournment to enable them to bring material in reply. Various anti-Jewish bodies rallied to the support of the defendants.

Three experts were appointed by the Court to report as to the authenticity of the documents. One, M. Loosli, was appointed by the magistrate, Professor Baumgarten was nominated by the plaintiffs, and Lieut-Col. Fleischauer by the defendants.

The defendants in November, 1934, nominated 40 witnesses whom they wished to call, but on March 26, 1935, Judge Meyer informed their expert Col. Fleischaver that he would rule out any motion to summon more witnesses.

On April 15 Dr. Ruef, counsel for defendants, applied for permission to bring actions for perjury against ten of the sixteen witnesses on the Jewish side. In May this application was also refused by the examining magistrate and the Public Prosecutor's Department, the ground being that these witnesses had "merely given expression to their personal opinion and judgment". The defendants protested in vain that it was not expressions of opinion but statements of fact by the witnesses that they challenged. At this stage it further came out that although the Swiss law requires depositions to be taken of all evidence and signed by the witnesses, this had not been done when the Jewish witnesses gave evidence in the preceding October, and the only record of their evidence was unsigned notes taken by their lawyer. There was thus no legal record of the Jewish evidence on which to base a prosecution for perjury. Nevertheless, this evidence was accepted as valid by the Magistrate in giving his decision.

The Magistrate's Decision

After hearing argument by the three experts, Judge Meyer gave his decision. This was that three of the defendants were acquitted, and the fourth was fined 20 francs for circulating literature in contravention of article 14 of the Bernese Cantonal law respecting indecent and immoral literature, This defendant was also ordered to bear 10,000 francs costs. Another defendant was fined 50 francs and 18,000 francs costs, for selling a pamphlet (not containing the Protocols). The heavy costs represented mainly the expense of bringing the Jewish witnesses from abroad to testify.

With respect to the authenticity of the Protocols, Judge Meyer said: "The defendants had been unable to prove that the Protocols of the Elders of Lion were a genuine document." As to the origin of the Protocols, Judge Meyer said: "The Protocols are a forgery; they were forged by General Katchkowsky." This was the case advanced by Professor Baumgarten, the Jewish expert. It rested largely on a statement made by Princess Catherine Radziwill in an American Jewish paper in 1921. She had asserted that in 1905, after the Russo-Japanese war, Golinsky, an official in the employ of General Katchkowsky, head of the Russian secret police in Paris, showed her a copy of the Protocols, which had just been completed. The defendants contended that this was not possible as Golinsky had not been in Paris after 1900, and General Ratckowsky had left Paris in 1902. Further, they contended that Princess Radziwill (daughter of M. Blanc, founder of the Monte Carlo Casino) was not a person of the highest reliability, having been sentenced in London to two years' imprisonment for forgery in 1902, and arrested in New York in 1921 on a charge of defrauding a hotel and also prosecuted by another hotel.

Irregularities Alleged

Notice of appeal against the verdict was given by the defendants. They and their supporters expressed great dissatisfaction with the conduct of the case. They contended, in the first place, that Judge Meyer, being a Marxian Socialist and having other attributes favourable to Jewry, was not a suitable judge for such a case. They objected to the refusal to hear their witnesses in rebuttal of the plaintiff's evidence, and also to the blocking of their action for perjury, these two decisions completely preventing any presentation of evidence for their side. They commented strongly on Jewish foreknowledge of the decisions given by the Court. On February 25 the London "Jewish Daily Post" in a message from Switzerland stated that the Court had decided to hear no more witnesses. Judge Meyer's minute to this effect was not made until February 27, and was not communicated to the defence until March 26; yet the correspondent of a Jewish newspaper had correct information on the point to send a telegram away on February 24.

Advance Knowledge

Similarly, although the Court's decision was not given until May 14, the "Jewish Daily Post", in commenting on the case, said on April 28: "It is much more a question of taking note of the charges than refuting them. The matter is already settled . . . The important thing now is to give the refutation as wide a publicity as possible. This case is a proof of what can be done with good Jewish organization." examiner.htm

NO CRIME TO PUBLICISE PROTOCOLS OR DISTRIBUTE THEM,
SAYS SWITZERLAND

On November 1^st, 1937 the high court of the Canton of Berne, Switzerland, ruled that the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion do not constitute immoral literature in that sense that circulation of the documents calls for punishment. The conviction in the lower court of two anti-Semites, Silvio Schnell and Theodore Fischer, accused of circulating the documents, was reversed. They were convicted after a seventeen-day trial which ended in May of 1935, at which the presiding judge ruled that the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" purporting to reveal Jewish plans for domination of the world "are forgeries and immoral literature."

The two defendents were entirely exonerated of any incorrect behavior in publishing and circulating Protocols, although all parties to the suit had to pay their own costs. This is a distinct loss for the Jews of the world, who had built a clever defense for themselves out of the first pro-Semitic verdict.(The New Liberation, Volume VIII, November 7, 1937).

---

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/

---

The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.