Bernstein, Goedsche and the Devil

Bernstein and Cohn indulge in hyperbole, exaggeratng their opponents' case and thereby exposing it to ridicule.

In writing of the Protocols, they repeatedly beg the question by using the emotive expressions forgery, plagiaris[m], fantastic, spurious, notorious, fantasy, noxious fabrication, "needs no comment","his imagination", "of course", and the like.

Perhaps it's understandable that they were unloosing their emotions; on the other hand, they claim academic objectivity, and emotion is a hindrance, not an aid, to it.

Twice in his book The Truth About the "Protocols of Zion", Herman Bernstein claims that the story "The Jewish Cemetery in Prague and the Council of Representatives of the Twelve Tribes of Israel", published by Goedsche, has the Devil present at the meeting.

On p. 21 Bernstein writes,

'According to Goedsche's fantastic story, the representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel meet once in a hundred years in the Prague cemetery ... The midnight meeting, depicted by Hermann Goedsche in the style of blood-curdling fiction, is secretly attended by a converted Jew and by a "large-sized man, with the pale serious face of Germanic type." The Devil himself, the son of "the accursed one," is also present at that midnight meeting of the representatives of the twelve tribes of Israel. And from time to time the Devil is quoted as making side remarks.'

On p. 265 Bernstein writes,

'Here follows a translation from the Russian of the German novelette by the notorious Hermann Goedsche, who used the pseudonym of "Sir John Retcliffe." This product of

"Retcliffe's fantastic imagination" tells its own story, clearly foreshadowing

the Protocols, with all its accompaniment of melodrama, not even omitting the Devil himself.'

This is incorrect.

Bernstein implies on p. 21 that the expression "son of the accursed" means the Devil.

But the text of the story, provided by Bernstein, reads:

{quote} {p. 272} Thirteen old men came over to the tombstone ... {p. 273} At that moment the clock struck twelve. A sharp metallic sound rang out on the grave, after which a blue flame appeared and illumined the thirteen kneeling figures.

"I greet you, Roshe beth Aboth (heads) of the twelve tribes of Israel," announced a dull voice.

"We greet you, son of the accursed."

{p. 274} {The representatives of the 12 Tribes introduce themselves, then the first speaker says:}

"And I am the representative of the unfortunate and exiles," said the man who asked the questions in a dull voice. "I am myself wandering about all over the world in order that I may unite you ... "

The man who was the first to arrive rose and then seated himself upon the tombstone. One by one the others came over to him and whispered in his ear a seven-syllabled word, and each time he nodded in approval. After that all returned to

their former places. "Brethren," said the Levite, "our fathers formed a union ... To us belong the earthly god, which was made for us with such sorrow by Aaron in the desert ... the Golden Calf which the backsliders are worshipping!"

{end of quote}

Clearly, the figure addressed as "son of the accursed" is a man, a Levite, the convener of the meeting. He is not the Devil.

On p. 283 is stated, "It seemed to the doctor that on the top of the tombstone, in the bluish flame, there appeared a monstrous golden figure of an animal."

This is a reference to the Golden Calf story (above) and the worship of money. The doctor is a gentile German scientist introduced on p. 270.

There is no other statement that the Devil was present at the meeting in the cemetary.

Added September 10, 2008: I received the following letter on this matter:

{quote} From: F (name & email withheld) Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:39:43 +0000 Regarding your "The Protocols of Zion Toolkit", first part, section "2.3 Bernstein, Goedsche and the Devil" and the question of the Devil in the cemetery scene, I agree with your argumentation on the matter:there is no reason to suppose the dull voiced person is meant to be understood as devil.

I feel that the mysterious character represents a completely another character, one of both Jewish and mythical origin: Ahasverus, the Wandering Jew.

"We greet you, son of the accursed. ... And I am the representative of the unfortunate and exiles," ... "I am myself wandering about all over the world in order that I may unite you ... "

Ahasverus is the cursed one, having been cursed to wander in exile until the second coming of the Jesus. Character fits the description completely. Being "son of the accursed" he might be meant to be understood within the story plot as the 19th century descendant (or follower) of the mythical Ahasverus.

It is interesting to note how this Christian myth of medieval origins ties the end of Jewish people's exodus in with the Messianic times of the Second Coming.

For more detailed information please see Wikipedia's article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandering_Jew

Perhaps the original author wanted to include the character as a subtle artistic detail by borrowing the then well-known stereotype. Was there self-irony involved in it? (The fictional character of Ahasverus is of a distinctively Christian origin. The Jewish religious authorities do not recognize Jesus as a Messiah and thus do not coincide his second coming with the end of the exodus.)

{endquote}

And a follow-up:

{quote} From: F (name & email withheld) Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 20:06:16 +0000 Thinking about this Ahasverus, now I'm quite sure the writer used the legendary character to add colour and perhaps self-irony to the story. I think that by no means did he meant the dull-voiced one to be understood literally as "son of the accursed", that is son of the Ahasverus. I think it's just one of those small details which show the text's author was not a bad writer at all.

{endquote}