What a "coincidence" that it should turn out to be 1917, just as Jews assume control of Russia, when Henri Bint is alleged to have told someone that Golovinski forged the Protocols! Even according to the Jews' various contradictory conspiracy theories, that is about 12 to 17 years after the Protocols were supposedly forged by Golovinski. And how interesting that Lépekhine's 'evidence' should remain hidden for so long, until 1999, and then turn up in Moscow, decades after a Jewish-led revolution in Russia. The alleged conversation between Bint and Sergei Svatikov is supposed to have occurred when Svatikov was "the envoy of the new Russian government of Kerenski". aka Aaron Kuerbis aka Adler (1881-1970), whose position as Russian prime minister lasted only from July to October 1917, was Jewish through his maternal grandmother and possibly through his father, although in recent times Jews have denied that as part of their attempts to rewrite history. Kerensky's job was to prepare the way for the Bolshevik Revolution.
And of course, how easy was it to get a French edition of the Talmud in 1886 or 1894, and would the hypothetical "anti-Semite" really have gone to the trouble of reading through the Talmud to get an understanding of the Talmudic supremacist mindset, just on the off-chance that there could have been something he could fit into his Protocols "forgery"? The Jewish protocols writer, in contrast, has been "reared on analysis" of the Talmud, poisoning his mind and turning him into the very sort of Gentile-hating misfit that, if you'd put him in charge of shelling a Gaza beach more than a century later, or in charge of a bulldozer, he'd have relished the opportunity to fire on innocent children, or demolish a disabled Palestinian's home before he could be helped out of the building. Or demolish three Manhattan skyscrapers, trapping thousands in the tallest towers, whilst murdering dozens more at the Pentagon as part of a plot to exploit an accounting system that was "in disarray" and "liberate" hundreds of billions of dollars of hard-earned money from the "goyim".
There is a bizarre contradiction in Golovinski's later role as a "prominent" Bolshevik. According to Jewry, he's supposed to have started out as a Jew-hating secret police forger, who revelled in his job as the "second writer" of the "fanatic" and "antisemite" Michel Soloviev, and forged the Protocols to make people hate the Jews. But then, in 1917, when the Jewish Bolsheviks assume power, they don't take revenge and kill Golovinski. They forgive him, let him switch sides and give him a top job! They must have had a powerful motive, such as knowing full well that the claim about Golovinski forging the Protocols was simply false, and that they could use him to back up their own web of lies.
The earliest possible time for an "anti-Semitic forgery" is set to about November 1892, when Jacques de Reinach's probable suicide was reported, and the cover up in the bribed French press fell apart. Almost all of the French press, with the exception of , had been bribed to stay silent about the corruption. Without inside knowledge of the scandal, the casual observer would have been unlikely to foresee Panama as becoming such a big scandal as to make the reference to puppet politicians having some "Panama" in their past. There was a report in the New York Times in November 1888, and then the cover up, specifically in the French press, was maintained for another four years. On the other hand, Jewish intriguers were fully aware of how many politicians had been bribed, and after 1892, it probably wasn't as big a scandal as they were expecting in 1889, since nearly all the politicians escaped criminal convictions for lack of evidence. Everything points to the Protocols writer following events in France; a report in a foreign newspaper that wasn't confirmed at home would have been very unlikely to sway an "anti-Semitic" writer into making the Panama reference.
If Jews wrote the Protocols between 1890 and 1894, that rules out the story of Radziwill retaliating against Glinka, and Glinka being banished to her estate in the early 1890s. Apart from that, it fits the references to events, and is consistent with the Stepanov deposition. But the story of Radziwill's retaliation in 1890 to counter Glinka is consistent with Jewry's use of Radziwill from 1921 through to 1935 in their unsuccessful attempts at refuting the Protocols, and consistent with how Radziwill had already "built up contacts with influential people in the journalistic world", years before her criminal acts of forgery in 1901.
So Lutostansky plagiarised Nilus (1905) or Butmi (1906) or the (, 1903), and Bernstein cites that as part of his 'evidence' for the Protocols being a forgery!
Bernstein was attempting to refute the Protocols by using the "plagiarism, therefore forgery" fallacy before Philip Graves did so. The on the similarities between the Protocols and Joly's Dialogues were published in the London from August 16 to. Bernstein's book was dated , and there are copyright entries for it with dates in . Bernstein pointed to similarities between passages in the Protocols and by Hermann Goedsche aka "Sir John Retcliffe" (1868), and by Ippolit Lutostansky (1907). The Protocols was published in Germany in 1919, then in England, France and the US in 1920. Bernstein's book was already researched, completed and ready for publication, by the time of Isaac Landman's article of February 25, 1921, that served as a mouthpiece for Princess Radziwill, the early 1900s answer to .
In reality, the defendants were only convicted in the original trial because the judge was in the pocket of the Jews, and so the Berne trial's failure to serve as compelling evidence of forgery is even more glaringly at odds with the position that the Protocols was a forgery. As evidence of the judge's true allegiance, in 1934, he allowed nineteen (19) witnesses for the prosecution, including three who were cited but could not attend court, but - Alfred Zander - whilst refusing dozens of witnesses that the defense wanted to call. (See part 3 of .) In 1935, of the three experts, one was appointed by the judge, one was appointed by the plaintiffs, and Ulrich Fleischhauer was appointed for the defense. However, the judge simply ignored Fleischhauer's refutation of the claims of the liars Radziwill and du Chayla. Nevertheless, the verdict to impose fines on the defendants was overturned on appeal.
Here's the really funny part. In 1917, when Radziwill emigrated to the US and was delayed at Ellis Island, being interviewed by the authorities for two hours as she tried to persuade them to let her into the country, she was going to extraordinary lengths to deny that she was the Princess Radziwill who had forged the Rhodes checks. She said it was a case of "". She claimed she had a "double", who, in a bizarre string of coincidences, was also named Princess Catherine Radziwill, was also previously named Catherine Lzewuski, also married a prince, also married a man named Kolb, and also had . Naturally, she declared it was the "double", not her, who was the fraudster. According to Radziwill, her "double" was dead, which was supposed to account for the fact that there never was any evidence of a double. And conveniently, the "honest" Radziwill didn't have any passports, since "they were delayed by the breaking out of the Russian revolution", but she had a signed statement as 'evidence' that she'd applied for passports. In another attempt to distance herself from the "other" Radziwill, she claimed her father did not acquire his title as a Russian count until after she was born. According to Radziwill, the divorced princess was the fraudster, her "double", whereas she, the "honest" Radziwill, had been widowed when 'her' prince had died in 1910. And she had the death certificate to 'prove' it, but unfortunately, it was all in Russian. In reality, Radziwill's estranged first husband - Prince Radziwill - had divorced her in 1906 after the "South African affair" of the Rhodes forged checks (they'd already been separated for more than ten years by then).
Apart from trying to smear Nilus with unjustified attacks on his character - it wasn't Nilus who forged checks and then tried to frame an innocent woman, and ran up bills with no intention of paying them, etc. - and trying to smear Sukhotin with an unsubstantiated allegation that he had peasants arrested for refusing to cart manure from infected animals, Bernstein also complains that Nilus kept changing his story of how he got the Protocols. The fact is that Nilus had promised to protect his sources, so until her death, Nilus had to refer to Glinka as an unnamed woman or a woman whose name he'd forgotten. Stepanov was clearly still alive as of April 17, 1921, whereas Sukhotin died in 1903 (according to information within a Russian article ). Jews often find it strange when Gentiles keep their promises and exhibit a belief in virtues such as loyalty. (Bernstein's source for his attack on Sukhotin is Fyodor Ismailovich Rodichev [1854-1933], who wrote about , fled Russia for Finland, and then fled Finland . Rodichev was an outspoken wealthy "liberal" who was always having to apologize, such as when he referred to his political opponents as the "", or when he referred to the hangman's ropes of Stolypin's field courts as "Stolypin neckties", and Stolypin, whose marksmanship was "common knowledge", challenged him to a duel. Rodichev even had a motive for assassinating Stolypin!)
During the year 1901, Princess Radziwill passed cheques to the aggregate amount of 29,000 pounds or $200,000, signing them with the name of Cecil Rhodes. In 1902 Radziwill was at the House of Correction, after being convicted on 24 counts of forgery, but and granted early release owing to her "delicate health". Given that she and survived for another 39 years until May 1941, having died at the age of 83 or 84 depending on whether we take her reported birth date or her reported as , there can't have been much wrong with her health. Her indictment included " and a charge of contravention of the telegraph act", which involved bribing a junior telegraph clerk for ten shillings to insert London as the origin of two telegrams sent from Cape Town. It is generally accepted that Radziwill's decision to launch her own lawsuit against Cecil Rhodes, forcing him to go to the heat of South Africa and testify, and the worry that he was caused over Radziwill's hounding of him, at the age of 48, on March 26, 1902. The Radziwill case was concluded April 30, 1902. Radziwill's crime was regarded as particularly aggravating because she'd - Mrs. Schultz. Moreover, the "" - Dr. Schultz, - died of pneumonia on March 7, 1902, again, before the case was concluded.