- Christogenea Saturdays
The Protocols of Satan, Part 15
In the last segment of our presentations of the Protocols of Satan we covered a variety of topics. First we compared the concept of the State as it was imagined by Frédéric Bastiat to the concept of a State as it was explained by Adolf Hitler. In the mind of Bastiat, the economy is greater than the State, and the state is an only a bully which may be bent to the will of one group or another who use it to gain an economic advantage for themselves over the rest of the population under its rule. This is the status quo for all of the nations of the West today. To Hitler, the State is an organism of a people, represents the people, and maintains an economy subservient to its will, in a manner which is, theoretically at least, beneficial to all of the people of the particular nation.
So to Bastiat, money comes first and the people are victims to its whims. While to Hitler, money serves the people and the people have an obligation to serve one another. The view of nation and economy which was upheld by Bastiat serves the Jewish interests, and that is the Liberalism which has prevailed throughout the West from the 19th century to this very day. The Hitlerian view of nation and economy is anathema to the Jew and had to be destroyed by the forces of Jewish capitalism which have come to dominate all nations. I do not know if we could find better models by which to contrast these important differences in economic philosophy, which have played a significant role in the events of modern history.
For over two hundred years, the world has been caught in a deception, the supposed between Marxism and Capitalism, the dichotomy of Marx vs. Bastiat sold to the people and accepted, even disseminated, by the shallow minds of mainstream academia. In reality, both systems have profitted the same globalist Jews, and neither system is good for the nations. This is quite the same as the dichotomy between Calvin and Arminius, a false dichotomy offered to the people, who will choose one side or the other when both sides have always been partially right, and partially wrong. Caught in the dichotomy between two seemingly opposing and heavily promoted views, all other options tend to be ignored. This is especially true if they contain elements which can appear to be found in one or the other of the views being promoted. So, for instance, Adolf Hitler’s national socialism, which was actually a sound economic system that eliminated a usury-based currency, is to this day dismissed by shallow minds simply because they have accepted the confusion that Marxism is socialism. In truth, Marxism is not socialism, and before Marx, socialism had an entirely different meaning than it is perceived to have today.
Then in another aspect of our presentation we again compared the political philosophy of Adolf Hitler to that of the authors of the Protocols, where they had said that “Only an autocrat can outline great and clear plans which allocate in an orderly manner all the parts of the mechanism of the government machinery.” In this aspect, Hitler and the Protocols agree in substance, and differ in execution. The Jews who devised the Protocols understood something that Hitler also did: that parliamentary democracy is a virtually ineffective way for a nation to be governed. The Jewish remedy is evident in the history of all nations which had adopted Liberalism: they are all now governed by an unseen hand hidden behind many offices and layers of bureaucracy, while the elected rulers merely seem to be figureheads. Hitler’s remedy was to marginalize the Bundestag and concentrate power in the hands of responsible individuals at several levels, all who would be accountable to a single ruler, a man who would be democratically elected and then invested with the ability to rule authoritatively through the duration of his term. While his enemies slandered Hitler as a dictator, all along they knew that he was right about the nature of leadership and the rule of nations.
Then in the last part of our most recent discussion of this first of the Protocols, we encountered a line which reads: “Look at those beasts, steeped in alcohol, stupefied by wine, the unlimited use of which is granted by liberty.” And with this we offered a lesson from Scripture. The Rechabites, a tribe of the Canaanites, had of old been admonished to refrain from alcohol by their ancestors. Yahweh the God of Israel used the obedience of the Rechabites to their father as an example, that the children of the devil would be more faithful to their ancestors than the children of God were to their Father. We would venture to assert that for that reason alone, the Jews have come to rule over all of Christendom today. So we shall continue discussing the first of the so-called Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, as they are found in the book The Protocols and World Revolution attributed to Boris Brasol, and published in Boston in 1920 by Maynard, Small & Co.
But before we begin, and because the current topic of the Protocols is alcohol abuse, I want to offer an off-hand discussion voicing my opinion on the Prohibition movements of the 1920’s and 1930’s. I say movements, because there was more than one. While I have not yet done all the research which I need to document this, and do not even know if others have done such research, I will say these things regardless, because I am confident that they are true. It is apparent that the means by which public support for a cause is gained does not always reflect the original reasons for which the cause is promoted. Here we may be in danger of over-simplifying history, but we shall nevertheless risk the venture.
One case in point is the American Civil War. Almost as soon as Andrew Jackson fashioned his whip to drive the Jewish bankers of Europe out of the United States Treasury, the Rothschilds began to flood the States with abolitionist agitators. While the abolitionist movement had begun in England long before that time, and therefore it was nothing new, the facts that Jackson sought to close the Second Bank of the United States as soon as he took office in 1829, and that slave revolts in the South were instigated and heavily publicized from 1831 was not a coincidence. And while other factors, such as tariffs, were driving a wedge between North and South, it was the Rothschilds and other Jewish bankers of London who sought to create the circumstances by which the States would be divided, and slavery was the issue which raised the greatest emotion among the common people, especially once the churches became involved. So abolition was not invented for this purpose, but it was a convenient vehicle by which to exacerbate the conflict. The Republican Party was formed in an unholy alliance of capitalist business and Northern Protestants propagandized in favor of abolition by their churches.
The alcohol Prohibition movement of the early 19th century came as the automobile and motorized farm tools were becoming popular, and farms across the country were fueling their engines with alcohol that they made themselves. Farmers were selling their alcohol to people who could afford automobiles, as well as fueling their own tractors. When Prohibition was passed, it destroyed this industry and made farmers as well as everyone else dependent on Rockefeller gasoline. In the meantime, the principal bootleggers were Jews, who destroyed their competition and ended up controlling a great share of the legitimate liquor industry once Prohibition was lifted. The Bronfmans, who own Seagrams, are a prime example, as they were bootleggers to the mobs of the underworld throughout the Prohibition period.
The assault on the hemp industry, another profittable cottage industry for small farmers and rural families, had come much earlier, and is far more complex. Extracts made from cannabis were available in American pharmacies from the 1850’s. But by 1905 cannabis, hemp and substances prepared from them were listed as “poisons” in the laws of many individual States. They were not unlawful, they only had to be labelled as poisons. The federal Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 merely required that items containing cannabis be labeled as such. Throughout the 1930’s, Henry Ford had been making automobile fuel and ethanol fuel additives from hemp. Then in 1938 the Drug Act was updated to outlaw cannabis, and the greater hemp industry was outlawed along with it. The campaigns to have marijuana outlawed in this fashion have been connected to industrialists and bankers such as the Du Ponts and Andrew Mellon, who also controlled Gulf Oil Corporation. It was in the Du Pont interest to outlaw hemp so as to broaden the markets for their new synthetic fibers, which were also petroleum-based. These same forces seem to have been behind the anti-marijuana propaganda campaign which had begun in the 1920’s. The pharmaceutical industry also benefitted from the banning of cannabis, as it removed a natural pain reliver that is easily grown. In 1936 a movie which came to be called Reefer Madness, which was first produced by a church group, was edited several times and was distributed throughout the 1940’s and 1950’s. While marijuana was already generally outlawed, it is typical of propaganda which has perpetuated the negative image of a very beneficial plant.
We cannot support a slavery-based economy, as it prevents free White men from fair opportunities of employment. However on the other hand, the result of the American Civil War was that capitalism has prevailed, and has enslaved all men to corporate interests. But at every turn, whether it was the abolition of slavery, or alcohol, or hemp, the capitalist bankers and speculating industrialists, who were mostly Jews, were the beneficiaries of the political outcome. The government has continually operated for the commercial interests, and not for the people. All of these so-called movements were also revolutions created by the newspapers and the manipulation of the organized religions in the spirit of the Protocols. We discuss these things here, because this part of Protocol No. 1 asserts a lack of temperance among the goyim. But all of these topics are also avenues of investigation we hope to wander along further in the near future.
Here we will commence with our presentation of the Protocols:
PROTOCOL NO. I, continued:
Surely you cannot allow our own people to come to this. The people of the Goys are stupefied by spirituous liquors; their youth is driven insane through excessive study of the classics, and vice to which they have been instigated by our agents — tutors, valets, governesses — in rich houses, by clerks, and so forth, and by our women in the pleasure places of the Goys. Among the latter I include the so-called "society women," their volunteer followers in vice and luxury.
So the Jews would encourage their own women to immorality so that they in turn get Christian women to follow along. This is also a pattern we have seen often in recent history.
But in relation to the use of alcohol, this is one place where the Protocols themselves are somewhat misleading. We had previously seen them boast “Look at those beasts, steeped in alcohol, stupefied by wine, the unlimited use of which is granted by liberty.” However it was not Liberalism which made alcohol available to the people. In fact, alcohol was always available to the people, and the Roman Catholic Church never forbid nor even discouraged its consumption, except to encourage moderation. Quoting a book written by Iain Gately and published in 2008, Drink: A cultural history of alcohol: “The first official census of England, conducted in 1577, reported the existence of 14,202 alehouses, 1,631 inns, and 329 taverns. This equalled a pub for every 187 persons, and excluded other outlets such as tippling houses and street vendors.” In the Middle Ages, ale was the common beverage of the poorest of the British, and was even consumed regularly by children in place of bread.
So while alcoholic beverages were always commonly available, and were often abused, it was only the licentious use of such vices which was encouraged by the rise of humanism. Recently here we began a series of programs called Martin Luther in Life and Death, which we actually interrupted for our presentations of the Protocols of Satan and The Jews in Medieval Europe. However all of these subjects are intimately connected, as the progression down the path to this current and supposedly post-Christian society has truly been a long and slippery slope which descends into Sodom itself, and which began as soon as Europeans first rejected the Jews by accepting Christianity, but never fully disposed of the Jews themselves.
When we discussed the early career of Martin Luther, we also discussed the humanists at length, who were among his earliest and most ardent supporters. But the humanists were present throughout the church and courts of Europe long before Luther, and in part we wrote in Part Two of that series that
“… over the next several installments of this series [meaning Martin Luther in Life and Death] we shall discuss the permeation of humanism into the Catholic church, and attempt to illustrate the fact that it was the humanists, for the most part, who were also the principal apologists for the Jews. The courts of the popes as well as those of archbishops in Germany were filled with humanists, and those in attendance lived profligate and lascivious lifestyles at the expense of poor Christians. The indulgences which Luther protested were being used to finance the profligacy. There were many wicked forces at work during this period. If I had to quantify this period in a summary, I may assert that the nobles and people of Europe were caught between a Tyrannical church, and the humanists who opposed it ... the humanists within it, and the Jews who were using humanism to subvert it, and the few true Christians who sought to withstand it all....”
But we had also explained in that series that while some of the early humanists could be identified as converso-Jews, who had infiltrated the Church, many of the humanists took to dropping their own given and family names in favor of Greek or Roman names, and therefore their true identity as either German Christian, or Jew, could not be readily attained. Further on, in Part Three of that series, we wrote:
“The purpose of this series of presentations, entitled The Devil of Luther's Dream [which was the first four parts of our longer series on Luther], is to show the condition of the Catholic faith in Germany at the time of Martin Luther, the character of the Roman Catholic Church, and the extant struggle which Christians such as Luther were having with both Jews and Humanists, many of whom who were basically Catholics-turned-pagan, and a great number of them were monks and priests. Understanding these things, we may better understand the causes of the Reformation, and why Martin Luther and many others believed that it was necessary.
“In our last program, we exhibited the fact that the celebrated Catholic priest, Erasmus, was actually a humanist and not at all a Christian. In turn, Erasmus had fostered the development of an entire collection of fellow humanists inside the Catholic church organization in Germany. However we also were able to see in the words of Albert III of Pio, the Prince of Carpi, and from his own correspondence with Erasmus, that humanism had already become prominent within the structure of the Catholic church in Italy, and that many more conservative Italian Catholics were dissatisfied with that development, himself included. Carpi had spent much of his time over several decades challenging and feuding with Erasmus, until he was left bereft of his principality by Charles V of Germany, the Holy Roman emperor.
“With a partial description of these conditions, we concluded that, philosophically speaking, the 1960's hit Germany in the 1500's, and that it had hit Italy in the 1400's, and there is nothing new under the sun. However for Europe this was only the beginning of sorrows. We have already seen, in the writings of students of Erasmus such as Mutian, that humanists were also basically ecumenists, professing the validity of all religions in the deception that all religions really worship the same god. Now we hope to exhibit how humanists were also apologists for the Jews, and had fully infiltrated the courts of the papacy and the bishoprics of the empire.”
The humanists, being ecumenists, and then being the foremost defenders of Johann Reuchlin in his efforts to assure that the Jews were able to keep their wicked books, the Talmud and the Kabbalah, were indeed steeped in the immorality that the Protocols boast of here. In Part Seven of that series we wrote:
“In addition to all of that, we discussed the Reuchlin Controversy at length. Reuchlin was a German lawyer and a student of the Cabala who advocated the preservation and maintenance of the books of the Talmud and other Jewish writings in the hands of the Jews at a time when traditional Catholic theologians were promoting the removal and destruction of those books. The German humanists, led by Mutian, Crotus Rubianus and von Hutten, campaigned heavily in favor of Reuchlin and the Jews, attacking the positions and the character of the traditional German Catholic theologians unmercifully.
“It is evident that the German humanists hated the Church, but not simply because they saw the Pope as an anti-Christ or a tyrant like Luther did. Rather, they hated Christian morality and ethics and sought to replace them with immorality and hedonism as they celebrated such Roman perverts as Ovid and Martial. Erasmus, Mutian, Hutten and Rubianus were all supporters of Reuchlin and the preservation of the writings of the Jews in Jewish hands in Germany. While our historian does not discuss the Jews themselves at any great length in relation to this controversy, it is clear that the German humanists all sided with the Jews against traditional German theologians. Their position was absolutely contrary to most Church Reformers and papal critics of the time, who portrayed the Jews as devils and evil beasts.
So while we may not be able to tell whether the Jews had introduced humanism into German society, since we cannot readily tell which of the prominent early humanists were Jews, here in the Protocols the Jews take credit for the introduction of humanism. Continuing with our citation:
“We had observed how the German humanists despised all things German, and how many of them took it upon themselves to lay aside their German names and adopt Latin or Greek names. We see this in the name of Crotus Rubianus and many others of the German humanists. With this practice, it becomes difficult to tell just how many of these German humanists were really Germans, and whether any of them may actually have been Jews. Something else which is not entirely clear is whether the German humanists were sincere in their support of Reuchlin, or if they merely selected his cause as a vehicle in their own endeavor to undermine the authority of the church. In any case, the German humanists displayed a clear lack of morals.”
Now we have only repeated some of our conclusions on the nature of humanism from our series Martin Luther in Life and Death, however in the series itself we did indeed document all of the evidence which gave us the reasons for making those conclusions. And while we could not prove whether a Crotus Rubianus, a Conrad Mutianus, or an Erasmus of Rotterdam, or perhaps the earlier men who had influenced them, may have been crypto-Jews, here in the Protocols the Jews themselves have taken credit for them. In any event, all of these men were entirely friendly to Jews and the objectives of the Jews, while basking themselves in the immorality which has been promoted by the Jews throughout history.
As for the last line we have read from the Protocols, regarding “the so-called "society women," their volunteer followers in vice and luxury”, we will certainly have an opportunity to discuss the Jewish role in the sexual vices and prostitution further on in this series, where they would consign their own women to immorality in order to corrupt Christian women.
PROTOCOL NO. I, continued:
Our motto is Power and Hypocrisy. Only power can conquer in politics, especially if it is concealed in talents which are necessary to statesmen. Violence must be the principle; hypocrisy and cunning the rule of those governments which do not wish to lay down their crowns at the feet of the agents of some new power.
The translation by Victor Marsden may help to increase the understanding of what is being said here: “Our countersign is - Force and Make-believe. Only force conquers in political affairs, especially if it be concealed in the talents essential to statesmen. Violence must be the principle, and cunning and make-believe the rule for governments which do not want to lay down their crowns at the feet of agents of some new power.”
Here the Jews openly define thugs as statesmen, and that is exactly the pattern that was followed in the Bolshevik Revolution and throughout the subsequent Soviet period, where the likes of men such as Felix Dzerzhinsky and Joseph Dzhugashvili, otherwise known as Stalin, were actually common criminals. Stalin was already a Bolshevik leader associated with Lenin, and became famous for a 1907 train robbery which he helped to plan and execute. Dzerzhinsky was the first leader of the Soviet Cheka, and under his supervision mass summary executions were performed in order to instill terror in the population and quell opposition to the Bolsheviks. These are only two notable figures from Bolshevik history. There are many common criminals who commanded communist regimes or held high offices in the Soviet system, but who are called “statesmen” by the Jewish-controlled western media to this day.
This is also the same pattern followed by most, if not all, of the prominent polticians of the modern Israeli state in Palestine, especially the Prime Ministers, who werer former terrorists and criminals, and were exalted politically on those merits. It is obvious that Jews openly reward those of their own who perform criminal acts against others. The only Jewish criminals who are punished by Jews are those who commit acts against Jews.
In this manner the Protocols continue:
This evil is the sole means of attaining the goal of good. For this reason we must not hesitate at bribery, fraud, and treason when these can help us to reach our end. In politics it is necessary to seize the property of others without hesitation if in so doing we attain submission and power.
And the Talmud itself permits, even advocates, that Jews steel from, murder, and enslave non-Jews.
As we have already discussed, these Protocols of the Jews were circulating from around the time of the so-called First Zionist Congress, which was held in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897. Although revolutionary activity against the government of the Czar had already been building, in 1905 the first open revolution in Russia in 80 years had begun. Here we are going to quote from an article which appeared in National Geographic Magazine in May, 1907, titled The Revolution in Russia. The article, written by William Eleroy Curtis, was originally an address to the National Geographic Society made on December 14, 1906. Curtis’ opinions of Russia seem to have been formulated by 1888, when he wrote a narrative of his travels there. It can be determined from an archival catalog kept by the University of Virginia that for most of his life he was a travelling correspondent for two Chicago newspapers, and had been to Russia in that capacity. But most of his latter work, after 1888, seems to have been in relation to South and Central America, and there are records of this for the 1890’s and through 1908, when he was appointed a position on the Pan-American Committee of the United States. He died in 1911, at the age of 61. In our opinion Curtis has a clear bias against the Czar, and was also an advocate of Liberalism. However his opinions of Russia must be nearly 20 years dated by the time he had written his article, which we will quote here in part:
The fundamental error in the Russian system of government is that the officials are in no way responsible to the people or the courts. If an official offends his neighbor, if he commits a crime, if he robs the treasury or murders an innocent citizen, he is tried by his superior officers in secret and not by a court. The prosecuting witness is not permitted to confront him or to be represented by counsel, and neither he nor the public are permitted to know what has occurred at the trial or what punishment has been imposed. That is the reason why no one is punished for the Jewish massacres. Everybody knows that they were planned and carried out by the police in retaliation for the activity of the Jewish revolutionists. This has been admitted over and over again, but no one has ever been punished. Members of the recent ministry were guilty of revolting cruelties and acts of barbarism, but they were allowed to go without even a reprimand. When I asked why this was permitted, a prominent minister replied that it was impossible to fix the responsibility under the present system of government.
Now, we must wonder why the author seemed to neglect the fact that “revolutionary activity” is not a legitimate activity in the first place. In fact, such activity is an act of war against a State which should be punished in kind. We may also imagine that the Jew would certainly take advantage of more liberal laws in order to overthrow Christendom, as the history of Jewish “revolutionary activity” in the West has proven, and they had already had a history of subversive activity in Russia. The Bolsheviks were responsible for the train robbery in Tiflis in June, 1907. But this was only part of a pattern of crimes which they regularly executed. For instance, in 1906 in Helsinki they robbed a branch of the Russian State Bank (which was not a Jewish-controlled central bank), and ostensibly used the proceeds of that robbery to fund further subversive activity.
Continuing with Curtis’ The Revolution in Russia:
At present any official knows that he will be protected in anything he does, provided his act does not offend the men above him, and can defy the public and the courts. Mr Herzenstein, one of the ablest men in the Empire, the highest authority on financial and economic questions, and of unimpeachable integrity and patriotism, was assassinated last August by a policeman under the orders of his superior officer. It was a deliberate murder, and one of the government organs at Moscow published the news twelve hours before the deed was committed. The assassin's name was Nishikin; he was absolutely identified, but he was never punished, because he was responsible to no court and to no authority except the men who directed him to commit the crime.
What we see here in Curtis is the confused Western mind, and he wants to impose that mind on the Russian culture. There is a differnce between acts of war and crime, yet in the Western mind, acts of war committed by people under the guise of citizenship should be treated as crime, and those who commit them should be granted rights as criminals. This is the mentality which has allowed the West to be undermined by these same criminals.
It is easily understood why such a condition has not been corrected. The entire bureaucracy of the Empire has been united in defense of their most important prerogative. But until the officials are made responsible to the courts like ordinary citizens, there can be no genuine reform in the Russian civil service.
In the third section of a famous manifesto of October, 1905, the Czar promised "to make all classes equal before the law and assure the independence of the courts." In the first paragraph he says: "It is the first duty of all authorities in all places to fix the legal responsibility for every arbitrary act, in order that sufferers through such acts shall have legal redress."
To this the douma responded: "The whole Russian people welcomed this message with an impassioned cry, but the very first days of liberty were darkened by heavy afflictions laid upon the land by those who still bar the way of the people to the Czar and trample under foot all the principles of the manifesto; by those who cover the land with sufferings and executions without judicial sentence; with atrocities, fusillades, and with imprisonment."
As I have said already, the spread of socialism among the peasants during the last few years has been going on with amazing rapidity as they learn to read and write and tuck their shirts into their trousers, while a passive revolution under unconscious leaders has transformed almost the entire population of the Russian Empire from submissive subjects to discontented critics of the ministry and the court.
It is evident from the facts of his career that Curtis was most likely not in Russia in 1905 or 1906, when this essay was presented. We have already shown that any and all news from Russia at this time had reached the West through the Jewish-controlled Wolfe Telegraphic Agency. We have also already discussed the fact that Marxism was described by Western journalists in the most favorable terms all throughout this period.
After further discussing this first Russian legislature, the Douma, which was elected in March of 1906, Curits continues by briefly describing the members of the assembly and their political parties:
There were twenty-seven different political organizations, representing every phase of opinion from the ultra-conservative to the red radical; socialists, trades unionists, and other men of fixed purposes and extreme views. The most noisy and conspicuous were professional agitators, socialists and labor reformers, most of whom, although they call themselves "the party of toil," had never earned a dollar by manual labor in their lives. They professed to represent the views of honest farmers and mechanics and had been elected by them, but accomplished nothing and only injured the interests of their constituents.
So even with his moderate view of Marxist socialism, Curtis wrote critically of the agitating class that presumed to defend the interests of the farmers and workers. He then gives a rough breakdown of the political leanings of the Douma:
The members of the douma might be divided into three groups, as follows: Conservatives, 60; Moderates, 250; and Radicals, 150.
Describing the parties he says:
The principal parties were, first, the Octoberists, so called because they were elected upon pledges to support the manifesto issued by Nicholas II in October, 1905, in which he promised his people a constitution, a parliament, free religion, free speech, and all that is meant by civil and political liberty. This party was composed chiefly of business and professional men from the great cities, land-owners, and men of large affairs. Their numbers were limited, and they came nearer than any other class to support the government. Stolypin, the present Prime Minister, was one of the leaders of the Octoberist party. His brother is still the secretary of its executive committee and one of the editors of its newspaper organ. Generally speaking, the Octoberists advocated a limited monarchy similar to Germany, and a broad, liberal system of education. They demanded a reorganization of the entire government, the reform of the judiciary, and almost universal suffrage.
The Constitutional Democrats in their platform demanded all this and more, including a ministry responsible to the parliament rather than to the Czar. They would be satisfied with a government like that of Great Britain.
Curtis says much more about this party and the mistakes they made, but it is too much of a digression from our main point. It is evident to us that those who desired to subvert Russia carried on a decades-long campaign of violence, and when the Russian police acted with a heavy hand in order to suppress the revolutionary activity, they somehow became the criminals in the general perception of things. This is very similar to the current course of events in the United States, with radical groups such as Black Lives Matter playing the parts of the agitators. When the Police enforce the law and are pressed into using force, they themselves are seen as the criminals. Curtis goes on to discuss the more extreme parties:
The Social Democrats were next in numbers, and their platform was purely socialistic, based upon the theory that differences in wealth and station are wrong, and that all authority and all law are violations of the rights of man. [This is also the attitude of subversive minority movements in America today, that the law by itself is a violation of their rights.] They want a republic in Russia. So do the Social Revolutionists, who would accomplish the same thing by violence and are responsible for the bomb-throwing, the assassinations, the mutinies, the destruction of property valued at hundreds of millions of dollars, and other crimes against individuals and society in carrying on their propaganda. [So we see the reason why the Russian polce had acted with heavy hands, as Curtis described earlier.] The members of this party defy all law; they trample upon all rights. They are vindictive, cruel, and merciless. They are anarchists, nihilists, and terrorists, but are always willing to die with their victims. The nerve and stolidity of the Russian revolutionists were never surpassed by any human beings. They do not seem to have the slightest feat of death and are utterly indifferent to danger. Their boldness is amazing. Very few bomb-throwers have escaped alive, and no member of the fighting group of the Social Revolutionist party has broken down or even faltered in the presence of the hangman.
So we should see the pattern of events which were first illustrated in the Protocols, that an autocratic ruler would give up some of his power in the name of Liberalism, and eventually he would lose everything to those who could then take control through the power of Gold. Here we see that violence would be used to attain power, and that is how the radical subversives in Russia accomplished that very thing in little time. Then we see the Protocols boast that violence would be used to keep power.
But the enemies of Christendom had also infested the conservative and moderate parties with Liberalism, in order to assist their own endeavor. In Protocol 10 we read the following, from Victor Marsden’s translation:
1. The mob cherishes a special affection and respect for the geniuses of political power and accepts all their deeds of violence with the admiring response: "rascally, well, yes, it is rascally, but it's clever! ... a trick, if you like, but how craftily played, how magnificently done, what impudent audacity!" … Our goal - world power...
This is exactly what the Jews had done in Russia in 1917, and believed that they should have been commended for it. And then a little further on:
To secure this we must have everybody vote without distinction of classes and qualifications, in order to establish an absolute majority, which cannot be got from the educated propertied classes.
In this way, by inculcating in all a sense of self-importance, we shall destroy among the Goyim the importance of the family and its educational value and remove the possibility of individual minds splitting off, for the mob, handled by us, will not let them come to the front nor even give them a hearing; it is accustomed to listen to us only who pay it for obedience and attention.
In this way we shall create a blind, mighty force which will never be in a position to move in any direction without the guidance of our agents set at its head by us as leaders of the mob. The people will submit to this regime because it will know that upon these leaders will depend its earnings, gratifications and the receipt of all kinds of benefits.
We can only editorialize at this point. To achieve all of this, there must have been different groups of Jews throughout Russia working in different capacities and using different methods in order to obtain the objectives of the Protocols. This could only have been coordinated through the synagogues and Masonic lodges. The press must also have been one of the methods, and many subversive newspapers had been shut down in the surrounding decades. The result of their efforts must have been quite visible, as Sergei Nilus had quite frantically titled his 1905 publication of the Protocols “It is Near at the Door!”
Freemasonry had spread throughout Russia in the 18th and early 19th centuries. Catherine the Great suspected the Freemasons of subversive activities, and began persecuting them. She burned their books and leading Masons had to flee Russia. Sources inform us that many of Russia’s noble class had joined the lodges. In 1825, there was a Decembrist uprising which had been instigated by the Masonic lodges, and the objective was to force a constitutional monarchy upon the government, which is a Liberal form of government. Freemasonry and other political clubs were banned until 1905. The lifting of the ban as the Czar concedes to Liberalism should be no surprise.
So the Protocols insist that, once a government is infected with Liberalism, universal suffrage be imposed upon a nation in order to weaken that nation so that it may be subverted by the Jews. And in 1905, with the Liberal concessions of the Czar, among the foremost demands of the two largest political parties was universal suffrage. In his 1945 essay The Jewish War of Survival, Arnold Leese said
“The spokesmen of the Government are fond of making speeches and writing articles to convey the false idea that Democracy (the sort represented by universal suffrage -- the counting of heads regardless of contents, if any) is synonymous with Freedom. Actually, Democracy works out as the Dictatorship of Organized Money Power and that is a Dictatorship of the Jew.”
Arnold Leese was speaking of Britain, his own nation, and he understood that the Jews had already controlled it by that very means.
Further on in Curtis’ The Revolution in Russia he wrote:
Although the October manifesto of the Emperor and the constitution of Russia guarantee free speech, free press, and the right to hold political meetings, the government has suppressed a large number of newspapers and has compelled the publishers of those which are allowed to exist to sign an agreement not to advocate revolutionary doctrines, nor excite the people by attacking the arrangements for the approaching elections, or criticising the acts of the ministry. Mr Stolypin considers it his duty to preserve the peace and suppress opinions and utterances that are likely to cause disturbances. He has announced that the government will not hesitate "to demand that its officials employ all legal measures to prevent the transformation of instruments of progress and peace into instruments of violence and destruction." [So even the elected official of the Liberal government perceived the same threat.] He has adopted the same restrictive measures toward the reactionaries and is quite as unpopular with them as with the revolutionists. He treats both alike. All extreme opinions or measures are offensive to him. When "The League of Russian Men," an organization supporting the autocracy, asked him for 100,000 roubles to pay the expense of carrying on a propaganda in support of the Czar and the ministry, he refused to give them a kopeck; whereupon they passed a series of resolutions denouncing him as a usurper of authority, as a traitor to his sovereign, and declared that his program of reforms was treasonable and an infraction of the divine right of the autocrat. Apparently the Czar, to whom these resolutions were addressed, has taken no notice of them.
Mr Stolypin justifies his vigorous campaign of restriction, in suppressing revolutionary newspapers and shipping revolutionists to Siberia by regiments, on the ground that all enemies of the state should be prevented from accomplishing their designs by any measures that may prove effective; that the revolutionary organizations, by inciting mutinies in the army and navy and disturbances among the peasants; by robbery, assassination, and other crimes and violence, have placed themselves beyond the protection of the constitution and the October manifesto, and are ordinary criminals; [and the Police were combatting this in kind, but were inhibited by the Liberal government] that as long as revolutionary leaders are admitted to the douma they will destroy the usefulness of that body. Therefore it is his duty to keep them out and secure the election of practical, honest, and patriotic men. He contends that there can be no genuine reforms so long as the revolutionary element are allowed a free hand in politics. They are responsible for the industrial and financial depression in the Empire by disturbing public tranquillity. They desire to destroy. They do not want to build up. They are men of no character, no property, no interest at stake; the enemies of society, anarchists, adventurers, fanatics, without the slightest comprehension of the science of government or the meaning of the word "liberty."
As we have also seen outlined here in Protocol No. 1, once infected with Liberalism, either gold would come to rule, or force would be used to bring the Jews to power. In most of the West, it was gold, but only 12 years after the concession of the Russian czar to Liberalism, the radical revolutionaries that Curtis describes here had managed to take the Russian government by force, in company with the sufficient support of gold, as they had gained the support of the bankers in New York and London. Of course, the bankers who supported the Bolsheviks were also Jews.
So in Russia, there was a transition from the terrorism committed by the radical Jews in their subversion of the old government, to the terrorism of the radical Jews to consolidate and maintain power in their new government. So the next paragraph in Boris Brasol’s translation of the Protocols reads thus:
PROTOCOL NO. I, continued:
Our government, following the line of peaceful conquest, has the right to substitute for the horrors of war less noticeable and more efficient executions, these being necessary to keep up terror, which induces blind submission. A just but inexorable strictness is the greatest factor of governmental power. We must follow a program of violence and hypocrisy, not only for the sake of profit, but also as a duty and for the sake of victory.
We can perceive that the so-called “War on Terror” being fought in the United States these past 16 years is designed to induce that same sort of blind submission. This would include the endless supposed shootings and bombings reported in the television news, many which are later doubted to have even happened.
In Russia from 1905, it would seem as if the Jews were on the road to the peaceful conquest of Russia that they already had in most of the West. England, France and most of Europe had already been subjected to Liberal governments and Jewish banks, and were now ruled by the globalist cabal. The Jews were thriving in Kaiser Wilhelm’s Germany. It seems that the German empire was bound to be destroyed for several reasons, but the Russian czar was destroyed while he was assisting that cause. So it seems to us that the destruction of Holy Russia must have been precipitated by a greater lust, which was the lust for revenge. We will not elaborate upon that here, but the general history is clearly evident.
In Russia from October of 1917, the Jews installed a reign of terror in Moscow, made open war against all who opposed them, openly confiscated and reassigned property to men of their own party, confiscated food and starved those who produced the food. But at the same time they imprisoned large segments of the population, including everyone whom they thought might be a threat to their advances, arrested or assassinated most of the officers and nobles, eliminated the Czar and his family, and then held random assassinations each day simply by calling out the names of certain individuals and marching them out from the prison to be shot, for little real reason and without any semblance of a crime, never mind a trial. This was done for precisely the reasons mentioned here in the Protocols, whose authors claimed “the right to substitute for the horrors of war less noticeable and more efficient executions”.
The Jew, Arthur James Balfour, was the British Foreign Secretary during the Bolshevik Revolution. He was the recipient of all of the foreign reports coming from Russia into London which reported on the events of the Bolshevik Revolution. While a few of the reports certainly did incriminate the Jews as a group, we still cannot help to wonder to what extent they were sanitized before they were published as the Russia No. 1 Report, in 1919.
One interesting report which highlights the hypocrisy as well as the violent methods of consolidating power boasted of by the Protocols here is found in Report No. 46. Note that the reference to the Omsk Government was to the right-wing Provisional All-Russian Government, part of the White Armies who had still hoped to defeat the Bolsheviks.
Sir C. Eliot to Mr. Balfour.―(Received February 25.)
(Telegraphic.) Vladivostock, February 24, 1919.
AN appeal to all democratic parties to unite against Bolsheviks has been published by the Omsk Government. Reasons given are as follow :—
1. Dictatorship of one class was claimed by Bolsheviks, and people of other classes were placed outside the law and starved.
2. Bolsheviks have deprived educated classes of their votes, as they do not admit universal suffrage.
3. Bureaucracy has been set up in place of municipal and village government, which has been abolished.
4. Political organisations have replaced Law Courts.
As for the reign of terror, and executions simply for the purpose of instilling fear and consolidating control, perhaps Report No. 10 is a decent example, out of many possible examples:
Mr. Lockhart to Sir G. Clerk.
November 10, 1918.
Dear Sir George,
THE following points may interest Mr. Balfour :―
1. The Bolsheviks have established a rule of force and oppression unequalled in the history of any autocracy.
2. Themselves the fiercest upholders of the right of free speech, they have sup-pressed, since coming into power, every newspaper which does not approve their policy. In this respect the Socialist press has suffered most of all. Even the papers of the Internationalist Mensheviks like "Martov" have been suppressed and closed down, and the unfortunate editors thrown into prison or forced to flee for their lives.
3. The right of holding public meetings has been abolished. The vote has been taken away from everyone except the workmen in the factories and the poorer servants, and even amongst the workmen those who dare to vote against the Bolsheviks are marked down by the Bolshevik secret police as counter-revolutionaries, and are fortunate if their worst fate is to be thrown into prison, of which in Russia to-day it may truly be said, "many go in but few come out."
4. The worst crimes of the Bolsheviks have been against their Socialist opponents. Of the countless executions which the Bolsheviks have carried out a large percentage has fallen on the heads of Socialists who had waged a life-long struggle against the old régime, but who are now denounced as counter-revolutionaries merely because they disapprove of the manner in which the Bolsheviks have discredited socialism.
5. The Bolsheviks have abolished even the most primitive forms of justice. Thousands of men and women have been shot without even the mockery of a trial, and thousands more are left to rot in the prisons under conditions to find a parallel to which one must turn to the darkest annals of Indian or Chinese history.
6. The Bolsheviks have restored the barbarous methods of torture. The examination of prisoners frequently takes place with a revolver at the unfortunate prisoner's head.
7. The Bolsheviks have established the odious practice of taking hostages. Still worse, they have struck at their political opponents through their women folk. When recently a long list of hostages was published in Petrograd, the Bolsheviks seized the wives of those men whom they could not find and threw them into prison until their husbands should give themselves up.
8. The Bolsheviks who destroyed the Russian army, and who have always been the avowed opponents of militarism, have forcibly mobilised officers who do not share their political views, but whose technical knowledge is indispensable, and by the threat of immediate execution have forced them to fight against their fellow-countrymen in a civil war of unparalleled horror.
9. The avowed ambition of Lenin is to create civil warfare throughout Europe. Every speech of Lenin's is a denunciation of constitutional methods, and a glorification of the doctrine of physical force. With that object in view he is destroying systematically both by executions and by deliberate starvation every form of opposition to Bolshevism. This system of "terror" is aimed chiefly at the Liberals and non-Bolshevik Socialists, whom Lenin regards as his most dangerous opponents.
10. In order to maintain their popularity with the working men and with their hired mercenaries, the Bolsheviks are paying their supporters enormous wages by means of an unchecked paper issue, until to-day money in Russia has naturally lost all value. Even according to their own figures the Bolsheviks' expenditure exceeds the revenue by thousands of millions of roubles per annum.
These are facts for which the Bolsheviks may seek to find an excuse, but which they cannot deny.
R. H. B. LOCKHART.
Now, returning to the Protocols, the ultimate goal of all of this Jewish terror is stated:
PROTOCOL NO. I, continued:
A doctrine based on calculation is as potent as the means employed by it. That is why not only by these very means, but by the severity of our doctrines, we shall triumph and shall enslave all governments under our super-government.
The methods of the Protocols have been tried and effective in different ways throughout the histories of various nations in the West. The first reign of terror was in Revolutionary France. And in the United States, even though the nation has long been under the thumb of a Jewish-controlled central bank, there is always the possibility of resistance. So revolution after revolution, black riots, student riots, mestizo riots, have pushed the country slowly towards a point similar to that in which the Czar found himself at the interim between the two revolutions. Without a doubt, the Jews seek to destroy the homogeneity and stability of the White population, because that is their only credible threat. Until something breaks, all of the nations of the west will edge closer to the brink.