Rothschild Money Trust

18
not tell us what the Jewish owners did to this "alarmed editor."
They probably crucified him.
It is not true that Nilus was a "briefless avocat" in Russia
and it is not true that he wrote the protocols to "find favor with
the Grand Duchess Elizabeth." Even the authors of the Liberty
articles do not vouch for this fantastic story. Why then mention
it On the contrary, Nilus was a reputable educator and
author of unimpeachable integrity. He believed that the "Hidden
Hand" was the author of the protocols, and such was also
the belief of Victor Marsden the translator, and such is also the
belief of millions of people in all countries.
Assuming that the authors have correctly quoted the various
paragraphs from "Maurice Joly's Dialogues in Hell," it must
be admitted that there is evident plagiarism by the real author of
the protocols. But that does not prove that Nilus was the plagiarist.
If the "dialogues in hell" truly represented the hellish
plans of the Elders it is but natural that they should adopt them
and use them. In that case they are the plagiarists.
The weakest part of the whole argument is the statement
of the evidence upon which the Berne trial court predicated its
judgment. It is in substance as follows: The Princess Catherine
Radziwill testified that she knew "the Paris agent of the Russian
secret police and that she knew Golovinsky, very well;" that
Golovinsky had access to Joly's Dialogues, that he "came to her
home with parts of the script which he showed and read to her;
. . . that his job was to prove to the Czar that the Jews had
formed an international plot to conquer the world."
She was asked, "Could you describe Golovinsky's draft"
She replied, "Yes, as he kept reading passages to me I became
familiar with the entire script. He later showed me the completed
manuscript. It was identical with the Protocols of Zion,
which I later saw in the various Nilus editions. It was written
in French in a variety of handwritings. It was on yellowish
paper; there was a big circular blue ink blot on the first page."
"This description was confirmed by the Count du Chayla,
who described the text as unidiomatic and showing every sign
of having been written by a foreigner on cheap yellowish paper
—and said that on the first page was a circular ink blot."
It should be remembered that this trial was in 1935, just
thirty years after the publication of the protocols in 1905. It
must be conceded that these two witnesses who were able to re-