Diane said (August 26, 2014):

I have been going back and reading your archived articles. I have recommended your site to friends. I was struck by your comment that next to the Bible the Protocols were the most important book in print today. I read the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion many, many years ago. I can tell you that when I read them I immediately recognized the pure unadulterated evil that guided these malevolent kenites. I felt absolutely soul sick. My spirit was absolutely grieved in a way that I can never express. I agree that these are 100% authentic. You cannot make up a future of evil that has not even happened yet and have it come to pass. I felt that as the Lord has given us the Holy Scriptures as a guide to his children that the Protocols were Lucifer's bible a guide or plot for his children.

I have never listened to David Duke. I have certain criteria for discerning what I listen too. One of the criteria is that I do not waste my time with anyone that is not familiar with the Protocols and/or that denies the truth of them. As always, I am impressed with your comprehensive knowledge and your absolute grace in proclaiming the truth. If ever I feel I may waiver in my own endeavor to enlighten those that I care about...then I will think of you and the very few like you that lit a lamp on a hill and proclaimed the word and the truth of God boldly. Thank you again. Your articles as always serve to inspire and enlighten those that are meant to see. May God bless and protect you always.

BWAS said (June 5, 2014):

We came across your article regarding the Protocols and have to agree a thousand percent with you.

When the courageous Dr. Gordon Ginn compared them to Rabbi Michael Higger's "Jewish Utopia" we wonder if Michael Hoffman has even taken a look at that. You hit the proverbial nail on the head when you rightly compared them to the Talmud. Just as they were confirmed by Higger's book, they're confirmed by the Talmud.

But more importantly your assertion of them being SELF EVIDENT is just pure beautiful LOGIC, something that is getting much harder to find these days. We researched them for over 30 YEARS within over 40 countries around the world. In light of what we discovered, I can't understand what makes Michael even think what he wrote. And David Duke?!!!!!!!!!!!!! Some is clearly amiss here and you nailed it.

I'll never forget reading them for the first time. I made the mistake of reading them all in one sitting.

I became instantly sick. My head hurt and my gut ached. My skin crawled.

No kidding Henry, the world's population owes you a huge debt of gratitude, whether they know it or not.

And I am not ashamed to say that (even as a former Marine veteran) that one of your articles brought tears to my eyes. I couldn't believe what I was reading. I was totally on board and connected to it.

David said (May 28, 2014):

http://revisionistreview.blogspot.ie/

As much as I like Michael Hoffman's work, I don't think he answers anything you said here...

JV said (May 26, 2014):

There may be a strategy to this 're-branding it a fiction' approach by Duke.

Most people are afraid to read certain books like 'kampf' the protocols (p), and so forth because they will be thought of as anti-s.

So, re-branding them as fictions, like 1984, would allow people to forgive themselves for reading such works. Note that most censorship already achieved here is self-censorship, so by calling it an interest fiction, it may by-pass the internal censor of a dismally propagandized people.

If the intent is to give wider circulation to the p, then much is achieved. A comic book version, or one re-written in modern English would also help distribute the core ideas.

Duane said (May 26, 2014):

Was what you purposefully misconstrued and took out of context here about David Duke's point of view on the "Protocols" intended to be a "Strawman/Red Herring?"
Are you an ADL/SPLC shill like Alex Jones?

The hit piece you wrote on David Duke's Illustrated edition of "The Protocols" is completely infantile...
David CONTINUOUSLY states everyday on his radio show 90 percent of the mandates in the "Protocols"
have COME TRUE....(and they have....).

You wrote "why does anyone need this when it is available online?"
Those versions are too easily dismissed and refuted....

Why does David's editing of the "Protocols" make them unrefutable?
Because on every topic/mandate/point in the "Protocols" is substantiated with historically accurate
QUOTES from prominent zionist jewish leaders (such as David Ben Gurian, the "father of israel"....).
So when anyone hysterically screams "that's NOT TRUE" You could reply: Okay but look at what
Karl Marx, Theodore Hertzel AND Henry Kissinger wrote RIGHT HERE here (substantiating this exact
Protocol mandate....)....

David describes that original "Protocols" can best be described as a dystopian work because to state that ALL
the prophecy in this work occurred at ONE MEETING is completely Illogical...
Any imbecile attempting to refute this work (and also those of us who know the Protocols were extremely accurate)
will cite this factoid in an attempt to refute ALL the extremely accurate information in this prophetical work....

These were originally authored in the person of an abridged fictional official meetings minutes document to make them comprehend-able and lay them out in a logical, easy to understand manner....David has NEVER stated or insinuated the mandates in the "Protocols" were inaccurate or untrue....

QUESTION?
Why does David's new illustrated edition of the "Protocols" worry you?

--
Duane

I think I made myself clear. The Protocols are either fact or fiction and Duke said they were fiction. I criticized Michael Hoffman as well and will expose anyone else who can't recognize the truth when they see it. Duke does excellent work which makes this lapse all the more disconcerting.

henry

Peter R said (May 26, 2014):

What's the big deal? Does Duke deny the truth of the Protocols? No. He is only giving a quirky name to the "old" Protocols in order to promote his new illustrated version.

The vast majority of people don't even know the book. A number have heard about it but never read it, partially because of the controversy about it.
Very few know what it says and can compare it to reality.

To me Duke's efforts are an attempt to reach those who never read it. Why those few in the know should be so outraged is beyond me, although Duke could have chosen his words in a way that doesn't rub them the wrong way.

But all in all, Duke is still a warrior against Zionist and organized Jewry's take over of our lives. That counts more than some stupid
promotional stunt.

To cast him out reeks somewhat of further dividing those few who bother to fight against Jewish supremacism. Unless there is evidence that Duke has abandoned this fight or he is compromised in any way, I consider the current criticism as unjustified.

About Khazar theories, and they were never more than that, brought to us by Zionist extremists with whatever hidden motives, even Kevin McDonald
agrees with Duke.

The Khazar question doesn't touch the core "Jewish problem" issue at all.

The issue only helps to further divide us. It doesn't really matter so much where they came from, IT MATTERS MORE THAT THEY ARE DOING IT TO US.

So stop quibbling, stop splitting our ranks and concentrate on the business at hand.

-

Peter

I acknowledged Duke's excellent work which I hope will continue. But you cannot evade the importance of misrepresenting the Protocols as a literary work comparable to 1984 and Romeo and Juliet, when in fact it is the original authentic non fiction Illuminati blueprint and battle plan. You'd think Duke would run with this approach if he wanted to sell books.

henry

Ron said (May 26, 2014):

Mr Duke has done a flip flop as you say and I agree he needs funds and is getting a bit nervous he is running out of talks the protocols are fulfilled and the enemy is advancing just as planned

Mercer said (May 26, 2014):

Seems to me that perhaps the time is growing short, and people are choosing sides, or perhaps their true colors are shining through.

JG said (May 26, 2014):

Good article Henry, well done!
I have followed David Duke for a long time from his internet radio broadcasts to his audio download of 'My Awakening' which was posted on his website for free.

There are two people here, David Duke and Dr. David Duke. David Duke was a legitimate White Southern Traditionalist, Dr. David Duke was a re-invention of the old David Duke without all the "raw political incorrectness".

I don't believe he is acting under the direction of American Free Press owner Mark Lane like Mike Piper and Marc Glenn might be with their attempt to discredit Sandy Hook research as well as their silence on 911 research.

But, then again, who knows?

Tom said (May 26, 2014):

As you know too well, the controllers do many things to truth. They write it as in “history is written by the victors”. They hide it as in the sealing of the critical elements of Obama’s history.

Another thing they do is place the truth in plain sight and then destroy as like with a piñata. That is the case with the “Protocols”. With their publication in 1903, the controllers effectively eliminated the chance that anyone of substance among them could ever divulge them as the truth.

This is done today with movies and other media. If they want something to be considered a fiction they put it in print or film. It is then considered by the sheeple as merely a flight of imagination from the author so as to sell the entertainment.

I think this requires us to consider two possibilities regarding Duke and Hoffman. One, they ignore the truth of the “Protocols” publicly so as to protect their own thoughts from being ignored. Or they are and were owned all along and are playing their small parts in the now century old deception.

Gene said (May 26, 2014):

An absolutely dead-on, super important article done in your normal effective, brief fashion.

Many years ago, Eustace Mullins said that David Duke was just a puppet of the Zionists. After watching about 5-minutes of Duke’s video (that was all I could take), I knew that Mullins was correct. Al Thompson’s comment to this article logically points out why Mullins was correct.

Most people seem to think that the Protocols are only slightly over 100-years old. In the Protocols, they plainly stated that the plan was a centurie-old plan. Since the latest version was discovered at the end of the 19th century, portions of the Protocols had to be in the works since at least the 17th century and, most probably, much earlier.

Keep up the good work of truth.

Debra said (May 26, 2014):

Look up Operation Mockingbird. Disinformation to attack key truths like The Protocols. One thing having a wrong opinion and quite another
when it becomes an ongoing work in progress.

Read http://JAHTruth.net/illumin.htm

Naila said (May 26, 2014):

Thank you for this. Yes, more of us need to know the Protocols are real, and yes, the weapon of alleged "anti-semitism" keeps that from happening. But the alternative media plays into their hands by constantly mentioning "Jewish bankers," "Jewish media," etc. -- without clarifying, as you did, that they're not talking about rank-and-file Jews.

Until there's more out-front discussion of this issue, the invisible shield will remain firmly in place -- and lots of good, otherwise-aware Jewish people (and others) will keep blaming the Republicans.

V said (May 25, 2014):

A few weeks ago I read another article by David Duke that say's that he doesn't believe that the Jewish Khazar theory to be true. You can read it here:

http://davidduke.com/rethinking-khazar-theory/

This is totally opposite of the book that Texe Marrs wrote titled "DNA Science and the Jewish Bloodline."

It is interesting that David Duke know say's that the Protocols of Zion are a "work of imagination." I can't imagine the rational behind David Duke and the Protocols and the Khazar theory. You can't appease the children of the devil.

Al Thompson said (May 25, 2014):

I remember that I read the "Protocols of Zion" in the early 1990s. I remember bringing the Protocols up in a political forum on the internet, and I was attacked on all sides for being a "kook" or a "conspiracy kook." I don't think any of us really know just how rotten is the new world order. But the Protocols give us an almost full disclosure of the plan of a bunch of psychos regardless of their race.

I suggest that people just look at the text itself and just judge from that, because one could argue all day long as to whether its a forgery or not. Evil people love to disclose their plans and then they execute them right in your face.

So, the downplaying of the Protocols from someone like David Duke is understandable. He was a KKK member who has sworn an oath of loyalty to his masters. KKK has its roots in freemasonry. He ran for congress which means he still is on the same side by virtue of the communist-socialist-fascist doctrines contained in most governments. This is something I myself learned the hard way. In order to run for any political office, one must swear an oath. No one in their right mind should ever swear oaths. Thus, if government depends upon oaths, then there shouldn't be any government as we know it today.

A man should be judged by his behavior and by what he says and by what he does. The idea that he downplays the importance of the Protocols is self-evident of his real intentions and motives because almost every single doctrine of the Protocols is now in place. To downplay the obvious points to a liar. But again, to lie is the main ingredient of brainwashing. The lie is the complete center for control of the mind. Someone may look as if they are opposed to evil, but then they are eventually found out from their inconsistent views. This may be the case in this instance.

G said (May 25, 2014):

The defense you bring to the authenticity of the Protocols as blueprint is beyond important; it's desperately needed and urgent. May it raise awareness as to where we're (further) heading and inspire more to work to halt the onslaught. Thank you

H said (May 25, 2014):

To me, "The Protocols of Zion" have always seemed like a ploy to direct attention to one small group of ethnicity, while the real culprits are occultist/satanists of every race and background. Sure maybe there are khazari "jews" at the top, or descendants of "cain" as some also say, but there is a broader free will spiritual legal system that seems left out, imo.

One thing that seems glaringly missing, is the spiritual nature of why they do what they do. For example, in the Old Testament, Belaam is hired to curse Israel, but he cannot and finally tells the king hiring him to send his circuses and whores down to entertain them and cause them to make free will CHOICES that will allow curses (aka, demons) to harm them.

Reading the Protocols makes us angry and upset, but it ignores that satan has no power over us in Jesus.

Matt said (May 25, 2014):

I had been briefly corresponding with Michael Hoffman a few years ago and asked him why he thought the Protocols weren't genuine. His answer? He was completely evasive and wouldn't tell me why, giving me some pathetic excuse like he didn't have time to explain because he had to write his book. My respect for the man completely evaporated after that.

Thanks Matt

Hoffman's expose of Judaism is both brilliant and indispensable.

henry

Tony B said (May 25, 2014):

The obvious plan is the obvious plan. What makes it obvious is, as Henry Ford said long ago, it is what is happening. Today we could say it is what has happened. Both are correct.

Perhaps we could also say that the truth will make you free but only if you bother to learn it.

Greg said (May 25, 2014):

Hi Henry, Though I haven't seen the Duke video as yet, i can see the protocols as an imaginative plan. All of the diabolical predictions have come to pass despite the document coming into the public domain 110 years ago. All plans originate from a thought process called imagination.

That this plan succeeded beyond most expectations is a credit to the original thought process. It was arrogant in the extreme.

To say that at the time of distribution, it was not an imaginative work would indicate direct satanic inspiration.

Who else would know that such things would come to fruition with such confidence?

Willem said (May 25, 2014):

This article raised already my eyebrows.....

http://davidduke.com/rethinking-khazar-theory/

what's going on with Duke?

Tyron said (May 25, 2014):

Henry

The Protocols are called a "forgery" and "anti Semitic" ONLY because the elite "Jews" don't want people to understand their game- their crimes- their mass murders- their mass thefts.

What is a forgery anyhow? An unauthorized copy of an original. So in other words, because the elite "Jews" claim the Protocols are a "forgery" it IS NOT a charge against the authenticity of its contents. Rather, the Elders of Zionism are only saying that they didn't give permission for the Czar's Police to make copies of their plans and distribute them.

--

Tyron

I think forgery is a Jewish malapropism. They mean "hoax."

henry