* WHAT is the BOOK that for over 34 years has caused trouble and controversy ?

* WHY does the press avoid discussing it openly in spite of the fact that it seems to be the most discussed book, next to the Bible, today ?

* WHY is the possession of this book punishable by death in Soviet Russia ?

* WHY do the Jews so persistenly try to surpress it?

* WHY do their adversaries wish it to be widely known ?

* WHO wrote it . . .? Is it TRUTH or FORGERY ?

* WHY so much fuss about it ?

* STUDY them carefully in the light of the recent historical and political events . . . then draw your own conclusion to its TRUTH or FORGERY


As no correct account of these important events can be expected to appear in the world press, these notes have been compiled for the benefit of those who do not understand German. All the statements are based on information supplied by different Swiss, German and Jewish papers; the source and date are always indicated.

These notes will probably be useful to Aryans in different countries and enable them to propagate the truth.

The "Jewish Daily Post" announced on April 26th that the trial definitely fixed for April 29th had been postponed in view of the fact that Silvio Schnell, one of the defendants, had sued ten witnesses for giving false evidence in favor of the plaintiffs during the first hearing of the case in November.

The announcement of this postponement caused many people who had intended to go to Berne for the proceedings to abstain from undertaking the journey.

Great surprise was therefore caused when it was discovered that the announcement was inaccurate and that the trial WAS taking place as originally fixed.

On April 28th the "Jewish Daily Post" contained a column "Protocols trial again," coolly stating that the trial was to be resumed on Monday, and also a leader "A trial and its lessons" declaring that the events at Berne were followed with close interest by Jews all over the world. "That the volume is an impudent forgery goes without saying -- there is no longer any question of proving or disproving the allegations. That matter is Settled . . . what is now important is that this refutation be given the widest publicty. . . . The judgement must be spread abroad."

"The Nazis themselves have said that their whole "anti-Semitic ideology is on trial at Berne. The trial has other lessons. In the first place it shows concretely what can be done by proper Jewish organization, against the Nazi onslaught: in the second place the trial brings to light that there exists an alliance of subversive anti-Semites.

"In the face of the expert evidence available in this trial might not the representative body of Anglo Jewry now negotiate with the Home office to secure the inclusion of similar libels in the category of offensive literature whose circulation in this country (England) is prohibited by law?"

The leader is very instructive; it now establishes that proper Jewish organization can conduct a trial in such a manner that the matter is declared to be settled a week before the verdict is delivered by the nominal judge (!!!) We further learn that the immense powet of Juda is to be utilized in bringing pressure on the Home Office to effectively muzzle Great Britain, at a time when disloyal and blasphemous writings are freely circulated without being stopped by the authorities.

The "Neue Zurcher Zeitung," the "Bund" and many other Swiss papers devote several columns to the "Historical lawsuit at Berne."

The auditorium holds about 100 seats. Entrance cards had been unprocurable weeks in advance. 40 cards had been delivered to journalists. The number of Jews present was conspicuous.

In October Judge Mayer had permitted the appearance of a large number of witnesses, supporting the plaintiffs, but had only admitted one single witness for the defendants (Dr. Zander). An application to present a number of witnesses able to prove that false evidence had been advanced by the Jewish witnesses, was refused (!!!) "Die Front" remarked April 30th that it was strange that Jewish witnesses should be permitted to appear in Court, while their Aryan opponents were excluded . . . (How could JUSTICE be delivered under similar conditions?!)

The defendants claimed criminal prosecution against the Jewish witnesses, who had made statements contrary to truth. The president of the Court declared that no attention was to be paid to this request. One exception was however made; the witness Burtseff will be prosecuted. This man stated in Court that General Globatchoff had personally told him that "the Protocols were forgeries!" The General is fortunately still alive and has vehemently denied the allegation. The assertion of Burtseff is void of all truth.

(This damaging fact was revealed in the "Front" but not mentioned in the other newspapers.)

The request made by the defendants for the postponement of the action until the veracity of the previous witnesses had been established was equally refused! The trial was continued without examination of this all-important fact! Prof. Baumgarten - a German emigre - the "expert" for the plaintiffs was allowed to make a speech. His statements are based on evidence, the falsity of which the defendants are not permitted to prove!!!

The postponement would have been highly desirable as it appears that secret documents had been placed by the Soviet Government at the disposal of the third Expert Mr. Loosli, (who is presumed to be "neutral!") The Expert for the defendants, Col. Fleischhauer, naturally claimed permission to investigate these documents. He had only been permitted to glance at them but not to examine them; it is therefore not established that these documents are truthful and genuine. At a mere glance, Col. Fleischhauer had been able to discern one important misstatement; there may be numerous others! The Court then declared that the Colonel could only be permitted to examine the documents if he would in advance give his word of honour not to divulge their contents (!!!) This he declined to do.

"Die Front" sympathetically records the calm and dignified attitude of Col. Fleischhauer (The Expert for the defendants) who firmly and nobly expounded the only possible solution of the Jewish problem, viz. the obtention for the Jews of a country of their own and the cessation of the dispersion.

The lawyers of the plaintiffs attempted to establish that Col. Fleischhauer was unsuitable to be an "expert" as he was a well-known anti-Semite and had "pre-conceived opinions" concerning the case!!! (Are "preconceived opinions" only permissable when they are favourable to the Jews?)

The attempt to get rid of the Aryan Expert was however unsuccessful.

Prof. Baumgarten maintained that no Jewish conspiration had ever existed. The Protocols are sheer invention. (The accurate fulfillment of all the prophecies made 30 years ago, are of course a mere co-incidence). The expert then denied that the Bolshevik revolution was accomplished through the Jews(!!!)

(The Revealer of Aug. 13, 1934 gives the names of the 454 Jews out of a total of 545 officials who bear the responsibility.)

The Expert further stated that the Protocols 'indoubtedly had "contributed to make the Aryan nations feel distrust and horror for the Jews." (This point cannot be disputed! The question is whether the distrust is justified!)

Prof. Baumgarten further asserted that there was no connection between Jewry and Freernasonry. The Expert repeatedly quoted as "authorities" Mr. Burtseff - now assigned for having given false evidence - Mr. du Chayla and Princess Radziwill, the notorious swindler who has spent three years in prison for forgery. (Of what value is a legal opinion, resting on such grounds? Is a work to be branded as a forgery" on the evidence of a convicted forger?)

Most of the people who lived when the Protocols were first published have now passed away. The Court refused to hear the evidence of the few remaining witnesses, who might have shed light on the origin of the Protocols. The "Front" adds: "How can truth be reached under such conditions? How can a just verdict be delivered if a hearing is granted to the witnesses for the plaintiffs - and refused to the defendants?"

The lawyer of the defendants pointed out how terribly unfair it was to have developed a small action referring to the sale of a book (which had never been prohibited) into a colossal law-suit, backed by the whole Jewish race. The defendants had nothing to do with the question of the authenticity of the Protocols, which had been cleverly "switched on" to the original case in order to obtain, if possible, a juridical verdict establishing the innocence of the Jews.

The libel action is to be decided by one sole judge (who is a Social-Democrat) not by a jury.

The N.Z.Z. expressed on April 30th in a leader its indignation over the criticisms formulated in the "Front." "The personality of judges must remain unassailable - whatever the lecisions to which they arrive! In political law-suits, no allusions must be made to the private views of the judge, who must be presumed to be exalted above party-interests." The N.Z.Z. asserts that it is an enormity to doubt the perfect fairness and mental incorruptibility of a judge.

In another column ironical comments are made concerning Col. Fleischhauer. The "neutral" expert Loosli - in a private letter to the judge - accused him of seeking to "produce mental confusion" (Verirrung) and thus to "pervert the course of justice" (which is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment) The Nazi expert may take steps to obtain redress for this insult.

Is "mental confusion" really produced through elimination of falsehoods and presentation of true facts in a new aspect?

Col, Fleischhauer pointed out that no attempt at co-operation between the experts had been made so as jointly to discover the truth. He had not even been personally introduced to his colleagues.

He vividly regretted that the request to produce witnesses for the defendants had been refused by the judge. He pointed out that the Jews exercise collosal influence on present political events. The "air-pact" had been drawn up by a Jewish journalist called PAUL JAKOFF and the "Kellogg-pact was also of Jewish origin. It is a public duty to inform the nations of similar facts,

In October the Jews were represented as "poor down-trodden people," whereas in reality they are immensely wealthy and powerful, exercising corrupt influence on important personalities.

The Nazi expert refered especially to the Jewish Colonial Bank where article 7 in Statutes expressly recommends similar practices. Achad-Ha-am had in no way opposed the method, but merely recommended that the plans of the financial Institution should be kept secret.

The expert further stated that Maurice Joly (Moses Joel) was of Jewish descent, even if he had been baptised, a ceremony which does not affect racial idiosyncracies. He produced his portrait, which greatly resembled that of Karl Marx.

The "Berner Tageblatt" gives a far more extensive, correct and sympathetic account of the trial than the other Swiss papers.

It stated on May 2d: Col. Fleischhauer has produced an extremely good impression on everybody. It is strange, that this great enemy of the Jewish race compels respect, even from his antagonists, through his absolute sincerity, honesty and courage. One feels that here is a man, who will firmly ascend a scaffold for his convictions.

Having heard that the Jews are insinuating that the photograph of Joly is also a forgery (-!!) Col. Fleischhauer requested the judge to summon before the court those who made this statement, as legal action will be taken against them. Nobody dared to advance to substantiate the false accusation.

Among the brilliant arguments advanced by the expert we want to quote the following:

1) The Protocols are not merely destructive, but also contain a constructive part, which is remarkably brilliant. If they had been manufactured by anti-Semites, this excellent constructive part would obviously have been omitted.

2) In the Protocols the Police are represented as secretly connected to Masonry. This would not have been asserted if they had been concocted as a political weapon in order to convince the Czar. Such a statement was quite contrary to the facts in Russia.

3) Mention is made in the Protocols of Underground Railways; these were entirely unknown in Russia at the time.

4) Jews often attempt to back the "forgery" theory through the assertion that alusions are made to the facts which only occured 2 years after the Basel Conference - notably the Panama Scandal! This scandal only became public property in 1898 but the shameless swindle was of course known to the perpetrators many years in advance. So the argument is valueless.

The expert brilliantly exposed the contrast between Achad-Ha-Am (Ginzberg) the representative of Symbolic Zionism and Theodor Herzl, the organizer of political Zionism, and described the bitter hostility between the two leaders.

He quoted Nitzsche's saying that the Jewish race aspires to become a super-nation, regardless of the injury that might thus be inflicted on fellow-creatures.

The expert declared that if the Jews were entitled to devour all other nations, these assuredly possessed the right to defend themselves against being devoured.

He further refered to Herzl's assertion that he would make wealthy friends injure Turkey financially so as to compel the Government to accede to all Jewish demands.

The "Front" contained on May 4th a very interesting report of the proceedings written by Dr. Zander.

The false evidence brought by Princess Catherine Radziwill was torn to shreds. She had asserted that the Russian agent Solovinsky showed her at her Paris residence, the forged copy of the Protocols, which he had "concocted in 1904-1905 with the aid of Ratchkovsky and Manuiloff"; she stated that there was a large blue inkspot on the first page of the M.S.

It had been established:

1) That Princess Radziwill never had possessed any residence at the Paris address indicated.

2) Burtseff in his evidence committed the blunder of stating that Ratchkovsky never was in Paris during the years 1904-5!, (consequently he could not have performed - any joint work with Solovinsky and Manuiloff).

3) Prof. Swaticoff - another pro-Jewish witness had assorted that Solovinsky only resided in Paris 1890-1900!

Thus the whole fabric collapsed! Princess Radziwill, who had been in prison for forgery, is of Jewish descent! She is the daughter of the notorious Jew Blanc, the owner of the Monaco gambling hell!

Col. Fleischhauer further established the fact that the other chief witness for the Jews, Count Chayla, had been sentenced to a long term of imprisonment by a Russian Court. Chayla had stated in his evidence that he has seen the famous M.S. with the blue inkspot in Russia. "It was in the possession of Nilus in 1901" viz. three years before it was fabricated in Paris( H-) (All these false witnesses contradict each other.)

It appears most surprising that the expert for the plaintiffs, Prof. Baumgarten, can have dared to invoke the testimony of exploded swindlers in support of the Jewish claim.

Col. Fleischhauer further pointed out that all the efforts of Jewry to suppress the Protocols had been vain. The work is now known all over the earth and sold in millions of copies. This law-suit represented rather the beginning than the end of the fight. The Aryans are now thoroughly awakened. [NOT ANYMORE! -BeWISE]

The expert further expounded the hidden connection between Jewry and Bolshevism, the role played by the League of Nations, Freemasonry and various other movements. He established the corrupting influence exercised by Jewry on literature and art and read some passages from a Jewish Drama, which was of such pestilential nature that the newspapers declined to reprint any part of it. (If a Nobel prize for shameless literature existed, then the Jew Carl Einstein would deserve it). The police did not interfere with the sale of similar publications intended to poison human souls, but an attempt was made to prevent the revelation of a sinister plot!

It was imprudent of Jewry to have started this law-suit: whatever the verdict might be, it has deeply stirred public opinion and has riveted attention on these important secret documents, which contain the quintessence of Jewish aspirations. (Lively applause in the audience.)

The expert further pointed out two mistakes which have frequently been made:

1) Burtseff is pro-Jew but not a Jew.

2) Joly was not originally called Moses Joel but Joseph Levy. (The name Joly was concocted out of four letters of his true name.) This announcement produced quite a sensation in Court.

Die "Front" related on May 6th that the expert Loosli had written a letter of apology to Col. Fleischhauer, retracting remarks previously made and expressing high regard for the Colonel as a man and an expert.

This step greatly honours Mr. Loosli. It facilitates the continuation of the debate in all courtesy.

On Saturday morning Prof. Baumgarten had altered his tone considerably and had ceased speaking disparagingly of the Anti-Semitics. He admitted that sinister forces were at work everywhere behind the scenes, but as he had known many "decent Jews", he declined to lay the whole responsibility at their door! He had often been treated by Jewish physicians.

Dr. Zander points out in his review that such subjective arguments cannot be accepted: the matter must be treated objectively. No special account can be taken of "decent Jews" if these fail to openly condemn criminals belonging to their race. They must all stand and fall together unless they dis-countenance the terrible program enunciated in the Protocols and carried out in their midst, to the great detriment of all nations.

The 'Front" on May 7th records how convincingly Col. Fleischhauer demonstrated the analogy between the Protocols and definite opinions expressed in Herzl's Diaries, which again were based on passages of the Old Testament, notably Exodus 23, verses 29 and following, and Deuteronomy Chapt. 7 verse 22 and following.

Herzl advocates the expropriation of the original owners and the utilization of non-Jewish slaves, which were to work for the benefit of their new masters(!!!) Are people who claim such measures entitled to "howl" if they encounter opposition? If Jews were treated like that in Switzerland, they would surely whine about "pogroms." Herzl recommends in his "Diary I", page 108 that "if Jews take possession of a country, infested with serpents and wild animals, then the native population might perform the dangerous task of exterminating them so as to make the country safe for the Jews. (!!)

Can anything more immoral be conceived? First the natives were to risk their lives for the benefit of the Jews and thereafter - as a reward - be deprived of their property, driven away or exterminated.

Herzl's opinions harmonize perfectly with the views expressed in the Protocols. If the Latter are condemned as "immoral", the same fate must befall the works of Herzl. [AMEN! -BeWISE]

The trial could not proceed on Monday morning as Prof. Baumgarten who was to refute Col. Fleischhauer's arguments, failed to appear. The evidence produced against the false witnesses was so annihilating that the expert for the plaintiffs presumably found himself in a difficult position.

The amount of material at the disposal of Col. Fleischhauer seemed inexhaustible. The World Service is a private undertaking and not in the pay of the German Government, as often erroneously stated. It has however employed about 50 officials in its bureau at Erfurt to sift and elucidate the authenticity question, and a dozen calaborators have worked in Paris.

Col. Fleischhauer's expenses up to the present moment have amounted to 63,000 Marks.

As the Judge had graciously permitted the plaintiffs to make a number of statements, the defendants have now had an opportunity of publicly demonstrating their utter falsehood. This law-suit so impudently started by the Jews enables the Aryans to bring overwhelming evidence before the World.

Prof. Baumgarten had himself reluctantly been forced to admit that it was henceforth necessary to alter many preconceived notions.

The "Front" pointed out with surprise on May 8th that the expert Loosli, (who is supposed to be "neutral") displayed far greater hostility towards the defendants than Prof. Baumgarten (the expert representing Jewry). He started with a virulent attack on Germany, using the most insulting language about their "ruffian journalists" the sexual perversion of high officials, etc., etc.

What have all these wild accusations to do with the lawsuit at Berne? This explosion of bile was evidently caused through realization of the fact, that the dignified and scientific speech made by Col. Heischhauer had caused irretrievable damage to the plaintiffs! How strange that a "neutral" expert should furiously resent disclosures adversoly affecting one of the litigant parties! Can that attitude he compatible with impartiality?

Loosli stated that if the "Nordic theory represents science, then he would prefer to obtain a diploma of congenial idiot(!). If Streicher's noble blood was better than that of the Jew Freemasons, then he would wish to terminate his life.(!!!) He also spoke of his friend ZOLA. What connection is there between these rabid outbursts and the grave problem to be elucidated?

Loosli then produced a "baptismal certificate of Joly, dated Dec., 1829! Can a document transform a Jew into an Aryan? Does a baptised negro cease to be a negro?

Loosli also denied that Joly could have been a Freemason. (A portrait of Joly in masonic regalia is preserved in a London club!)

The "Heimatswehr" (Berne) pointed out on May 9th that the authenticity can be established either by outer or inner evidence. The former relates to the problem of the identity of the writers or compilers; the locality where they were produced; the exact date etc. This is the ground on which the Jews want to fight as satisfactory evidence concerning these matters is unobtainable after a lapse of nearly 40 years. But these outer circumstances are of scant importance. The Gospels are valuable whoever wrote them! The thoughts expressed in a book are the chief things and not the personality of the scribe.

Through inner evidence it can be established that the Protocols are genuine; they are in complete harmony with the political aims and methods of Jewry as expounded by their own writers. [AMEN! --BeWISE!]

If the Jews deny this they must prove:

1.) that they have at no time harboured any thought of "World Supremacy" or considered themselves to be a specially "elected" race;

2.) that the ruthless methods advocated to reach supremacy have never been utilized by them;

3.) that they do not exercise any preponderant influence on the Press;

4.) that they never sought to obtain political advantages through the exercise of financial pressure;

5.) that Jewry and Masonry are in no way connected;

6.) that Marxism could not be of Jewish origin;

7.) that Jews have never developed a cultural demoralizing influence;

8.) that Jews all over the world are in no way internationally connected and have not remained a racial unit all through the dispersion.

The Aryan experts - basing themselves on a colossal amount of evidential documents - declare that it would be utterly impossible for the Jews ever to disprove those incriminating facts.

The Protocols must therefore be considered a genuine expression of their secret political aims and methods, whoever the scribe may have been.

What can be more characteristic than this passage in one of Achad-Ha-Am's works:

"Even if we succeed in establishing a Jewish state in Palestine, how could such an achievement satisfy us? Have we really suffered so much during the centuries merely to content ourselves with the foundation of a tiny state?"

Such paltry results are obviously inadequate for those who aspire to WORLD SUPREMACY!

Palestine is only a milestone on the road: Jerusalem has to become the capital of the world!

On May 9th it was recorded that Col. Fleischhauer had loeen insulted and attacked when leaving the court. The judge apologized for this gross breach of Swiss hospitality and expressed admiration for his courage.

As it had been conclusively proved that the "forgery" COULD not have been committed in Paris in 1905 (the Russian not being there at that date), the expert Loosli attempted to assert that it was "a typist's error" and that it "should have been 1895". Col. Fleischhauer pointed out that no such explanation was possible: Princess Radziwill had expressly stated the events took place after the Russo-Japanese war! That irrevocably fixes the date at 1905, and establishes the mendacity of her assertion. (Is it worthy of an expert to attempt to help a false witness?)

From Joly's own memoirs it appears that he was not born in 1829. The baptismal certificate supplied by Jewry must therefore have refered to another individual!

Col. Fleischhauer refuted many other misstatements most brilliantly, altogether he spoke 23 hours - a remarkable feat.

The following day the barrister's for the plaintiff assented to the fact that the unimportance of the accused persons (Schnell and Fischer) was immaterial; the purpose of the action had been to injure the Fascist Movement of which they were representatives. It was urgent to stop expression of anti-Semitism in Switzerland.

The barrister for the defendants then claimed that his clients should be compensated for the enormous expenditure to which they had been put and that the cost of the action should be defrayed by those who had started it. He pointed out that the defendants are not anti-Semites but pro-Zionists: they advocate the establishment of all Jews in a country of their own. The Jews attempt to control the destinies of all the countries where they are guests, ought not be tolerated.

How could the defendants be guilty of having sold "forged" literature? The question of authenticity is actually being debated! The Judge would not have called in three "experts" if that matter had been settled before the beginning of the lawsuit. The defendants have been dragged in to the court accused of an offence which had hitherto never been proved. Historical facts of universal importance can, under no circumstances be conclusively established through a verdict pronounced by one single judge in a police court!

The "Front" related on May 14th, that the barrister Ruef, for the defendants, pointed out numerous irregularities which had taken place; the witnesses for the defense had not been admitted; the prosecution for false evidence had been refused; the experts were allowed to use material supplied by criminals and proved to be sheer fabrication; grave technical mistakes were committed.

Art. 92 of the Berne criminal code claims that all witnesses must sign their depositions. This had been entirely neglected: consequently all the evidence supplied by the witnesses, produced by the plaintiffs was null and void! These illegal documents could not serve as a base for the declarations officially made by the pro-Jew experts.

Burtseff has escaped prosecution as he has not signed the evidence given in court. The report of his speech is declared to have been "defective" and these defective reports of the trial are now to be used for delivering the verdict! Ought the "neutral" expert to have accepted documents from the Soviet, with the stipulation that they should not be "examined"? Why did the Judge refuse to hear Col. Boris Engelhard, late member of the Dnma, who had seen the original documents? Why was the damaging evidence of the Metropolit Antonius entirely suppressed?

The defendant Solanell is protected by Art. 55 of the Swiss Confederation: he only sold books obtainable in every library! He had no legal obligation to examine the contents of the work.

The "Front" makes a few remarks concerning the attitude of the audience: the entire hall was crammed with Jews and Jewesses. Among others were noted Mr. Grimm, engrossed in conversation with Rabbi Messinger. (This Mr. Grinm is notorious for having suggested that the Jew Radek (alias Sobelsohn) should be elected. . Dictator of Switzerland) (!!-)

When Col. Fleischhauer quoted damning passages trom the Talmud, the Rabbi was unable to control his fury; he sprang Up, muttering: "to prison!". . Who was to be locked up? Presumably the expert, who revealed for Gentiles things that they were not intended to know.

The Rabbi was later on seen in friendly intercourse with the "NEUTRAL" expert Loosli, who patted him on the shoulder.

The "Jewish Daily Post" announced on May 13th that "the Nazis despair of Protocols case". Feeling certain that the verdict will be against them they have determined to appeal against it to a higher court.

"Fleischhauer wanted to institute proceedings against the Swiss Government for allowing the expert Loosli to attack him in court, but was told that this was impossible".

It is further stated: "Col. Fleischhauer has replied to Loosli, but seemed quite unable to find any arguments against him (!!)

It was then announced that a pro-Jewish lawyer demanded the confiscation of the Protocols (which were a "danger to civilization") and of "anti-Semitic" literature and the punishment of their Switzerland.

On May 13th the "Jewish Daily Post" made a formidable blunder: it spoke of the "pro-Jewish expert, Loosli."

The third expert - elected by the Tribunal - was supposed to be impartial!!! Elementary justice claimed that he should not have been chosen as arbitrator between the contending parties, if it was known in advance that he was PRO-JEWISH and not neutral!

In his speech Loosli spoke of Hitler in such an insulting mannner that it called forth a protest from the German Minister in Berne.

(Judge Meyer failed to notice this or to stop the outrage!)

The "Bund" reported on May 14th a very fine speech by Col. Haller, one of the defendants, who had most unjustly been dragged into the action and received compensation for the injury thus inflicted.

Lawyer Ruef expressed indignant surprise over the fact that Chayla's evidence was accepted by the court, while the Russian Generals were not permitted to prove that it was false.

The Russian Col. Prinzeff in Riga had stated on oath that he had seen the Protocols in Hebrew and that they were circulated among the Jews in Odessa, but no notice was taken of this statement! Facts to the detriment of Jewry were simply ignored.


As no legal proofs had been supplied by the plaintiffs establishing that a forgery had been committed, this cardinal point was never mentioned by the Judge. He delivered a verdict in their favour, because the defendants were not able to prove that the Protocols were genuine!

(The logical conclusion of this sentence is, that if the Church is not able to prove that the Pantateuch was written by Moses, this fact establishes that the Scripture is a forgery!)

And how could the defendants have been able to prove the authenticity when out of the 36 witnesses that they wished to produce, only one was permitted to appear?

Silvio Schnell - a young boy of 23 - was condemned to a fine of 20 Francs and Theodore Fisher to 50 Francs.

This Jewish victory is triumphantly announced in practically every country on the globe - save Germany - by a Press, which they declared in court that "they were not conrolling!" How strange that this "independent" press should have kept secret the great Jewish DEFEAT at Cairo!--

Some specimens of these outrageous statements are to be found in the "American Hebrew" of May 3d.

On the Front page it is written: "Protocol trial discredits Nazi claims: at the trial it soon became apparent that there is not a shred of evidence, despite all Nazi machinery, to bolster up the claims of authenticity of the spurious document". Further a postponement was desired because the Nazis are unprepared to present any evidence now and have no ideas where to look for any in the future". Further: "Fleishlaauer was sent to Switzerland in an attempt to stave off the disgrace which is inevitable through a public discredihng of the Protocols." "Fleischhauer made frantic efforts to cast suspicion(?) on the evidence of Princess Catherine Radziwill, the "widely known authority" etc.

The Jewish paper then declares "the Radziwill revelations will be influential in determining the decision of the court as regards the falsity of the Protocols."

Can the Nazies really be "discredited" because the Jews succeed in obtaining a verdict through production of a false witness, who has been in prison for forgery (???)

The "Front" made some ironical comments on May 16th concerning Judge Meyers assertion that only "FOOLS" (Dumkopfe) believed in the authenticity. The paper enumerated a long list of these "fools" among which are to be noted the head of The Orthodox Church, the Metropolit Antonius, the Prince Bishop Dr. Pavlokovski, the papal Monseignuer Jouin, Professor Dr. Trzeciak and countless other distinguished men.

In Germany, the Protocols are utilized as a text book in the schools; the Berne verdict will not affect the propagation of knowledge in that country.

An appeal has been lodged by the defendants, "Will the superior Court also refuse to hear the witnesses, which are able to elucidate the case?" That is the question. asked in Berlin by the German Press Bureau. ****************** The "Front" announced on May 15th that a great Meeting of protest at once took place in Zurich. The largest hall there, which holds 2,000 persons, was filled to overflowing by Swiss citizens expressing their intense indignation.

"The verdict has not yet fallen" - explained the speaker - it will ultimately be pronouced by a whole world!" (Vivid applause)

     Unfortunately the tone can get a bit harsh in revealing these Truths. BeWISE would like to re-emphasise that we are in no way blaming every single individual Jew for this NWO push. That would be ridiculous and wrong since we actively work with many precious Jews all across the world. We are clearly pointing out that this push for global control as laid out in the Protocols comes mainly from the Jewish LEADERS and their cronies - their politically correct "yes men" . . . However, it is a FACT that many Jews are used willingly by these diabolical leaders and their agendas as are many other people . . . and that is sad . . .

     In fact, BeWISE just received yet another surprising CONFIRMATION of what we post on this Site from a former high-level rabbi who rejected the LIES of Judaism and accepted Christ. He stated to us verbally and quite directly:
      "I am now 100 percent convinced, without a shadow of any doubt whatsoever, that the entire world is being run and manipulated by non-believing Jews."
     WOW! We have complete documentation of this incredible revelation by this precious and courageous man.