The Protocols of Satan, Part 22: The Midgard Serpent and the Enslavement of Christendom

The Protocols of Satan, Part 22: The Midgard Serpent and the Enslavement of Christendom (The Jews and the Enslavement of Christendom)

It has been just over a month since our last presentation of the Protocols of Satan, which was part 21 of this series, where we took a long digression to discuss the facts behind the supposed connections between the philosophy of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists, and that of Friedrich Nietzsche. The truth is, that no such connection ever existed. We tried to make the point that it is the Jews themselves who insist that Hitler drew his political philosophy from Nietzsche, when in reality Hitler’s inspiration were the Christian Scriptures. One example we cited of Jewish perfidy in this area were certain denizens of the Frankfurt School. Max Horkheimer was clearly influenced by Nietzsche. We also cited an academic paper by a student of Harold Marcuse, grandson of Frankfurt school denizen Herbert Marcuse, which insisted upon making the connection of Nietzsche to Hitler. Then we cited an abstract from another academic article published by the British Journal of Psychiatry which showed that Sigmund Freud was also heavily influenced by Nietzsche. These are all absolutely contrary to Adolf Hitler and National Socialism.

We had wondered how people who are otherwise very aware of Jewish treachery have been persuaded to believe that Adolf Hitler could have gotten his ideas for nation and race from a philosemitic nihilist like Nietzsche. So after the last program, Clifton Emahiser called our attention to one of those tell-all Jews with whom many otherwise rational Christians have been enamored. Men fall for this all the time, in the likes of a Nathaniel Kapner, a Henry Makow, a Bobby Fischer, a Harold Rosenthal, or some other Jew who says things that the supposedly awakened Goyim like to hear. But they are all snakes in the grass who will perpetuate the greatest lies while feeding little pieces of an incomplete puzzle to naive fools. If we are ever going to come to the real truth, we must end our fascination with devils.

This time it is Myron Fagan, by whom we were probably all at one time enamored with, but whom was also a Jew. Fagan was a writer, director and producer of both Broadway plays and Hollywood movies. He allegedly became a truth-teller during the Second World War, after some of the Roosevelt administration’s darkest treachery was said to have been revealed to him. So after the war, Fagan began speaking on the Illuminati, the Protocols of Zion, the Council on Foreign Relations, and other related topics, even going so far as to speak about the “synagogue of Satan” and certain corrupt Jews.

But to Fagan, there were also legitimate Jews that were not corrupt, and the Old Testament was still identified as a Jewish book. It is behind the perpetuation of these lies where we find the greatest treachery. Along with his bits of truth-telling, Fagan then spread the lies that Hitler was financed by the “corrupt Kennedy”, along with the Rothschilds, Warburgs, and other international bankers. Of course, Fagan once worked for a film company owned by Joseph Kennedy, so his expertise is easily presumed. In his lecture titled The Illuminati And The Counsel On Foreign Relations Fagan also said “This Nietzscheanism was later developed into Fascism and then into Nazism and was used to foment World War I and II.” So there are at least as many lies in the words of Myron Fagan than there is truth, even though he said a lot of things that Christian Patriots loved to hear.

The first treachery of Myron Fagan is that he perpetuated the lies concerning the Bible and the identity of the Jews. Secondly, he obscured the real economic success of National Socialist Germany by concealing the fact that the nation flourished under an economic system free of Jewish usury. Hitler’s Germany was financed by Germany itself, because they removed the Jewish usurer from the equation. Furthermore, Hitler’s social and political ideas came from the Christian Scriptures, as well as his beliefs about the Jews themselves, and are as far removed from Nietzsche or Fagan as possible. The last thing that the Jews would want is Goyim discovering the real truth behind all of these things, and therefore we were presented with Myron Fagan.

Early Christian patriots were enamored with Fagan, and distributed his speeches widely. I myself, some time in 1997, was given a copy of his speeches, and not knowing enough at the time, had been fascinated by them. But before I ever wrote a word about the issues they address, I set out to study the fuller truths of the matters. I have only God to thank for that. Those Christians who fell into Fagan’s trap went on to influence a whole generation of Christian and White Nationalists who did not investigate the truth of the matters. So we have the situation we are in today, where so many Christian and White Nationalists are divided on these issues. This is the division which the Jews love to cause, so as to forever confuse their enemies and dissolve their effectiveness. As we have said many times in the past, where a Jew moves his lips, he is lying, and no tidbits of truth are worth the flood of lies which emanate from their filthy mouths.

Presenting Protocol No. 2 here in our last presentation, we learned from Karl Radl that the words where it says “note the successes of Darwinism, Marxism, and Nietzscheism, engineered by us” were actually an interpolation inserted by Sergei Nilus for his 1905 edition of The Protocols and World Revolution. In his assertion concerning this, he had cited the original Russian publication of the Protocols, published by Pavlov Krushevan in a series of seven installments, in a periodical called Znamia in 1903. In this regard we are reliant on Mr. Radl, since we have no original Russian copy of our own.

However in the end, Nilus was not wrong to make the note that he did. Even if Darwin and Nietzsche were not directly products of the Jews, Darwinism and Nietzscheism, as well as Marxism, have all been promoted and used by Jews in order to lead Christians astray, and they have been very effective. The passage may be a commentary which does not belong in the text, but it is nonetheless accurate. As we had said in conclusion: A truly Christian society would not perpetuate the mindless drivel of Nietzsche, whose works were obscure in his own lifetime, or Darwin, whose theories have never been proven although they are accepted and persistently promoted by the Jewish-controlled society as if having been proven. As for Marx, he will be a topic of discussion in this presentation of Protocol No. 3, which the authors of the Protocols had subtitled Methods of Conquest.

This is where we shall continue our presentation of the so-called Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, employing the translation found in the book The Protocols and World Revolution attributed to Boris Brasol, and published in Boston in 1920 by Maynard, Small & Co. In the typical fashion, this protocol also opens with a boastful declaration:

PROTOCOL NO. 3

To-day I can tell you that our goal is close at hand. Only a small distance remains, and the cycle of the Symbolic Serpent — the symbol of our people — will be complete. When this circle is completed, then all the European states will be enclosed in it as in strong claws.

The Midgard or World Serpent of Ragnarock, the Leviathan of Christian Scriptures, the nations gathered by the devil against the Camp of the Saints, this same battle has occupied the subconscious of Christian and now mainly European minds for thousands of years. In the Prose Edda, it is said that Odin (a word which is akin to the Hebrew word for lord) took the children of Loki (a word which is akin to Lucifer) which he had by Angrboða, the giantess – certainly one of the giants known to the Hebrews as the Nephilim, or Rephaim. These children were the wolf Fenrir, Hel, who came to preside over the netherworld, and Jörmungandr, and threw this last into the great ocean that encircles Midgard, where it grew large enough to surround the earth and grasp its own tail. Ragnarock, the final battle would begin when the serpent released its tail. During Ragnarock, it is predicted that Fenrir, the giant wolf, would even kill Odin.

Any true student of antiquity, and especially of Christianity, should only see the story of Ragnarock, Loki, Jörmungandr, and these other figures in the Eddas as elaborations on an oral understanding of the Christian Scriptures. That is exactly what they are. The devil, as the word loki is derivative from the Latin pronunciation of Lucifer (where the letter ‘c’ was originally hard), the enemies of the Lord of the Bible (the Hebrew word for lord is adon), where in the New Testament devil can refer to Jews collectively, were ostracized from Christian society (the pit of Revelation chapter 20) and would come back in the end to surround the Camp of the Saints (the Christian people), where a great battle would be fought, ending with the destruction of the enemies of Christ in the Lake of Fire. But Christians know that in the end their Lord will not die at the hands of a wolf. And in fact, in Christianity the wolves actually represent those aliens who infiltrated the sheepfold in Judaea and had crucified the Christ.

In Scripture, in the Book of Isaiah it is written of this same enemy, in Isaiah chapter 27, that “In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.” The devil, which as it says in Revelation chapter 20 is also “that old serpent” of Genesis chapter 3, is in the sea just as Jörmungandr was cast into the sea by Odin. But to Christians, the sea is actually an allegory for the flood of the world’s other races which are cast from the mouth of the serpent to persecute the people of God, which is seen in Revelation chapter 12.

The Jews are among those other races, and have used those other races as their foremost weapon against Christians throughout this modern age. The Jews are the Midgard Serpent, Jörmungandr or perhaps Jewmungandr, and the analogy comes from the Christian Scriptures, where Christ had said to them “Ye serpents, ye race of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” That is only one of many examples of such statements made in reference to the Jews. Likewise, the descendants of Cain and the Canaanites and Edomites who later became the modern Jews can be traced back to an association with the Rephaim and Nephilim, the giants of Genesis chapter 6. So every aspect of the myth of Loki, the giantess, the wolf, hell and the serpent come straight from the Christian Scriptures.

It is not fantastic for learned Jews to come to the conclusion that they are, collectively, the serpent and leviathan of Scripture. If the Jews did not believe in Jesus, they would not have spent so much time in their Talmud blaspheming Him. The charade that they do not believe in Jesus is only a front they put on for Christians, so that they may keep the Goyim deceived by the idea that Jesus only started a break-away cult, and that the Bible really belongs to them. Christ referred to them as serpents, the apostles and prophets of Yahweh referred to them as serpents, and here they admit that they are indeed serpents.

They also admit the desire to execute the very plan foretold by Christ in the Revelation, in chapter 20 where it says that “7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, (which happened when the Jews gained their emancipation after the French Revolution) 8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 9 And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.” This is the story of the Midgard Serpent of Ragnarock, which both the neo-pagans and most modern so-called Christians are too ignorant to understand.

PROTOCOL NO. 3 Continued:

The modern constitutional scales will soon tip over, for we have set them inaccurately, thus insuring an unsteady balance for the purpose of wearing out their holder. The Goys thought it had been sufficiently strongly made and hoped that the scales would regain their equilibrium, but the holder — the ruler — is screened from the people by his representatives, who fritter away their time, carried away by their uncontrolled and irresponsible authority.

Their power, moreover, has been built up on terrorism spread through the palaces.

We cannot take the time to go through every constitution of every 19th century republic or constitutional democracy and examine it for faults. However we do have the experience e of our own American constitution, and can see that it was corrupted after only 80 years, where the posterity of the founders for whom it was meant were disenfranchised, the very language of the founders themselves having been used to subvert the document’s original intent.

Where the kings and princes of Europe did not voluntarily cede a sufficient portion of their power in the name of Liberalism, which we had seen explained in the earlier portions of the Protocols, violence was incited in order to overthrow them. After the time of Napoleon, there was a revolution in France against King Charles X in 1830, and a Belgian revolution to gain its independence from the Netherlands that same year. There were uprisings in Poland and Wales in 1831, and failed Republican revolutions in Canada in 1837 and 1838.

Then in 1848 there were Revolutions in France, and throughout Italy, Germany, Denmark, Hungary, Wallachia, Moldavia, and again in Ireland. In 1851 Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, as French president, dissolved the parliament and eventually declared himself emperor. He ruled as Napoleon III until 1870. In 1854 there was a revolution in Spain, in 1859 an Italian war against French rule, a war between Austria and Prussia in 1866. The prince of Romania was forced to abdicate in 1866 after forming a liberal government modelled after that of Napoleon III, and there was another Irish rebellion against the British in 1867, the deposition of Isabella II in Spain in 1868, and finally the Franco-Prussian war beginning in 1870.

The German states uniting under Prussia were ruled by a liberal government under the Freemasons King Wilhelm I and Otto von Bismarck, however the eventual result was the First World War, which was actually instigated by the Rothschilds and fought for commercial purposes. A little further below we shall cite Nesta Webster at length, in regard to the destruction of feudalism and the introduction of capitalism. It was the revolutions of 1848 which had done the most to bring down feudalism across Europe and introduce the so-called Age of Liberty, in which the European states would be ruled by parliamentary governments. By that time England had already had such a government for 200 years, when in 1649 King Charles I was dethroned and beheaded by the victorious Oliver Cromwell, who was financed by the Jews of Holland. To paraphrase Clifton Emahiser, when the heads begin to roll you know that the Satanic Jews have prevailed.

And before we approach that part of this protocol where we will cite Nesta Webster, we must say that here is one area where she disappoints us. With all of her good intentions, she was rather blinded by her Anglophile attitude, probably out of love for her own country, and went so far as to say, in Chapter 10 of World Revolution, that “Although the war on the part of Germany was one of pure aggression, and on the part of England one of urgent national defence, the whole German Social Democratic Party in a body went over to the German war-party whilst all the Independent Socialist organizations in this country Labour Party, the British Socialist Party, and the Socialist Labour Party opposed England's participation in the war.” So Webster also seems to have lumped all forms of socialism together, and acted as if Marxism was typical of them all, which we will also comment on later.

Here we see an assessment by the authors of the Protocols which is not based on a correct supposition, but on a condition which the Jews themselves had helped manage to create:

PROTOCOL NO. 3 Continued:

Unable to reach the hearts of their people, the rulers cannot unite with them to gain strength against the usurpers of power. The visible power of royalty and the blind power of the masses, separated by us, have both lost significance, for separated, they are as helpless as the blind man without a stick.

In earlier presentations of this series of the Protocols of Satan, we had discussed at great length how the first newspapers were printed public notices established and financed by the ruling classes of any particular community for the benefit of the common people, so that they would be informed as to whatever circumstances may affect the community. By these means, the rulers could indeed reach the hearts of the people, and in this manner the original press did indeed function as a fourth estate.

However in time the public press was replaced by for-profit enterprises, and the Jews, who had the power of money which was not available to the vast majority of the common people, quickly came to rule that enterprise. Very quickly was the press transformed from a fourth estate to the fifth column in every nation where the Jews came to control it. By the mid-19th century the European press was almost completely in the hands of the Jews, which was admitted even in general publications such as the 1901 edition of Chambers Encyclopedia. We read in Chambers Encyclopedia, 1901, Vol. VI., that "Another extraordinary and well authenticated fact is that the European Press, no less than European Finance, is under Jewish control," which we had discussed at length in part 12 of this series. So with the press, which was once a province of the nobles, moved to entirely Jewish hands, it is no wonder that the nobles could not reach the hearts of the people, which were firmly in the pockets of the Jews, as they are to this very day. So the Jews alone stood between “power of royalty and the blind power of the masses”.

PROTOCOL NO. 3 Continued:

To induce the lovers of authority to abuse their power, we have placed all the forces in opposition to each other, having developed their liberal tendencies towards independence. We have excited different forms of initiative in that direction; we have armed all the parties; we have made authority the target of all ambitions. We have opened the arenas in different states, where revolts are now occurring, and disorders and bankruptcy will shortly appear everywhere.

Governments are forced by the Jews into bankruptcy when because of endless war and insurrection they must borrow money to fund police and military forces.

The revolutionaries of 1848 never really rested until the resulting unification of German states under the Freemason Otto von Bismarck in the 1860’s, who is credited with having engineered the wars which achieved that unification. Therefore he is an immediate exampleof how the Jews chose rulers who loved to abuse power. Likewise also the unification of the Italian states under Garibaldi. Garibaldi was also a Freemason and by 1844 he was elected the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Italy. These and other revolutions of the period ended the rule of hereditary monarchy, denied the rights and privileges of the land-holding nobility, and heralded the rule of the bourgeoisie, the newly wealthy class of capitalists – many of whom happened to be recently liberated Jews. During this period there was another revolution, the War of Northern Aggression which is called the American Civil War, which would popularize the ideals of the French Revolution in America to an even greater extent than the American Revolution had achieved, by extending their declarations of liberty, equality and fraternity to the non-White races.

When Nesta Webster wrote her book World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilisation, we cannot imagine that she had time to thoroughly study and evaluate the Protocols. The first publications of the Protocols in English appeared in 1920 or early 1921, and World Revolution was published that same year. So she mentions the Protocols only in the last chapters of her book, and seems not to consider them in any of the earlier chapters. However many of her conclusions concerning the Illuminati and the other secret societies, Freemasonry – at least on the Continent – the revolutions of Europe and the fall of feudalism and rise of capitalism stand the test of time and as a witness against the Jews and all those who have aided them, a witness independent from the Protocols.

Sadly, Webster did not seem to realize the Jewish hand behind those same things in England two hundred years earlier, and often wrote as if England remained unsullied. She distinguished English Freemasonry from that of the Continent, but was perhaps blind to the fact that England, already having long been subverted by Liberalism, the Jews there did not need the same type of Freemasonry which had acted on the Continent. Nesta Webster’s fault in that area was her own blind patriotism, but in spite of that, her work concerning the subversive politics on the Continent was nonetheless excellent.

So in relation to this portion of the Protocols, here we shall read from Page 90 of Webster’s book, World Revolution, in the chapter titled The Growth of Socialism. Here, among other things Webster describes the goals of Illuminism to overthrow the status quo of church and nobility, the active role in which the Jews had played in Illuminism, the role of Freemasonry as an agent of those goals. There, in respect to Freemasonry, it is also said that:

Piccolo Tigre received the protection of the masonic lodges everywhere, although the greater number of the men who composed them [Freemasons] were held by the Haute Vente [a stricter secret society layered above Freemasonry] in supreme contempt. “Beyond the Masons and unknown to them,” writes Monsignor Dillon, “though formed generally from them, lay the deadly secret conclave, which nevertheless used and directed them for the ruin of the world and of their own selves.” …

It was thus by systematic demoralization that the leaders of the Haute Vente, like the Illuminati, hoped to establish their ascendancy over the “peoples” of Europe. But in order to understand the manner in which they set out to accomplish this purpose we must now examine the ground on which they had to work.

From this point she goes on to describe the state of the peasant after the fall of feudalism in the revolutions that Freemasonry, along with Jewish press control and other means, were employed to conduct. So we shall read the portion under the subtitle The Industrial Revolution, beginning at the bottom of page 90:

It is of the utmost importance to realize that the people at this period were suffering from very real grievances. These grievances weighed less, however, on the agricultural than on the industrial workers, whose conditions of life were often terrible. This fact no one has ever attempted to deny, and we need not have recourse to the writings of Socialists to gain an idea of the slavery endured by men, women, and children in the mines and factories of Europe during the years following on the Napoleonic wars, for we shall find the whole case stated with more accuracy and far greater eloquence in the letters of Lord Shaftesbury, whose whole life was devoted to the cause of the poor and oppressed. [Here Webster is astoundingly silent concerning the Rothschild sweatshops in London.]

What was the reason for this aggravation of the workers’ lot? Partly the speeding up of industry brought about by the introduction of machinery; partly, in England, the rapidly increasing population, but in France to a large extent the situation must be directly attributed to the Revolution. We have already seen how the destruction of trade unions and increase in the days of labour by the abolition of national [or Roman Catholic] holidays had added to the workers' burden, but a further effect of the great upheaval had been the transference of power from the aristocracy to the bourgeoisie with disastrous consequences to the people. In a word the destruction of feudalism had inaugurated the reign of Commercialism. This is admitted by no less an authority than Marx himself.

Here is one of our biggest disappointments in Nesta Webster. While what she says about capitalism and the results of the end of feudalism is excellent, she upholds Marx as the supreme authority for Socialism. She equates Marx with Socialism, as if Marx was actually advancing Socialism. But organic Socialism is nothing like the Socialism of Marx. In a proper socialistic society, those who actually work and produce goods are also the capital-holders, and the harder or better one works, the more capital one may hold. But with Marx, the state alone held all capital, all workers owned an imaginary “equal share” of what was nothing in reality, and that is not Socialism at all. We do not understand why Webster seemed not to distinguish Marxism from real organic socialism.

Webster continues:

The bourgeoisie has played in history a most revolutionary part. The bourgeoisie, whenever it has conquered power, has destroyed all feudal, patriarchal, and idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder all the many-coloured feudal bonds which united men to their “natural superiors,” and has left no tie twixt man and man but naked self-interest and callous cash payment. It has drowned religious ecstasy, chivalrous enthusiasm, and middle-class sentimentality in the ice-cold water of calculation. It has transformed personal worth into mere exchange value, and substituted for countless dearly-bought chartered freedoms the one and only unconscionable freedom of Free Trade. It has, in one word, replaced an exploitation veiled by religious and political illusions by exploitation open, unashamed, direct, and brutal. [Here Nesta Webster cited the Manifesto of the Communist Party, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. p. 9.]

Thus in the opinion of the leading prophet of modern Socialist thought, it was the destruction of feudalism that led to the endowment of the proletariat. Exaggerated as this indictment of the bourgeoisie may be, there is a certain degree of truth in Marx’s theory. The class that lives on inherited wealth is always the barrier to the exploitation of the workers. To the noble who paid 500 louis for his carrosse [coach, or carriage], or the duchess who never asked the price of her brocaded gown, where was the advantage of underpaying the workman or the dressmaker? “Sweating” results largely from the attempt to bring commodities within the reach of a class that cannot or will not pay a price allowing a fair rate of remuneration to the worker. After the revolution, when aristocracy with its careless expenditure and its traditional instincts of benevolence had taken refuge in garrets, these were the classes that supported industry, and it is thus against “the newly rich” [the bourgeoisie] that we find the bitterest complaints of the people directed.

In other words, the effort to sell luxuries to everyone makes slaves of everyone when everyone comes to desire such luxuries. Jewish advertising and global Jewish trade were exalted in the promise of an ability to deliver luxuries to the entire world, thereby enslaving the entire world. In this sense, commodities are even luxuries, because only those living in luxury may enjoy an endless supply of their common needs with little of their own labor used to procure them.

Continuing with Webster:

At the same time, amongst the bourgeoisie had arisen a new influence that Marx is careful not to indicate, but about which the Socialist Malon is more explicit:

Benoit Malon was a French socialist, writer and politician who lived from 1841 to 1893. He left the seminary after being inspired by the writings of the French anarchist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a leading figure of the 1848 revolution in France, who turned out to be an inept administrator of his own concepts. Proudhon is credited with the saying that “property is theft” and is said to have influenced Karl Marx. But on the other hand, Proudhon also considered himself a socialist, and opposed state ownership of capital goods in favour of ownership by workers themselves in associations. This is closer to what we consider to be organic socialism, which we see as being along the lines of National Socialism as it is explained in Mein Kampf.

Continuing with Webster, and her citation of Benoit Malon:

Feudalism signifies privilege granted in return for certain duties agreed upon; judaized plutocracy [the bourgeoisie] recognizes no duty, it has only one object, to appropriate the largest possible part of the work of others, and of the social accumulation in order to use and abuse it selfishly. That is its great moral indignity, and the signal for its approaching fall in the name of public welfare and of the interests of Humanity.

This has been the economic system that all of Christendom has been enthralled in since the downfall of the nobility in the various revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. This is the result of “Liberty”. Continuing with Webster, this is where we find that she excels:

We shall find the same opinion expressed later by the Anarchist Bakunin.

The Jew was of course not alone in exploiting the workers; but the spirit of the Jew, permeating commerce in every country — in France, in Germany, above all in America —- undoubtedly contributed to the industrial oppression against which Marx inveighs. Under the monarchy the Jews had been held in check by laws limiting their activities, but the edicts passed at the beginning of the Revolution, decreeing their complete emancipation, had removed all restraints to their rapacity.

I do not have much documentation, but as a youth my grandmother told me how her own mother, who was born in 1900, worked in the knitting mills of New England for ten hours a day at the age of 9. Her own father was a tenant farmer in the area of Framingham, Massachusetts, and that is a part of what commonly poor families of the time had to do to survive. In the relative luxury of modern times, we tend to forget even the plight of our recent ancestors.

The following short essay on child labor is from David Cody, an Associate Professor of English at Hartwick College in Oneonta, New York:

That the shameful practice of child labor should have played an important role in the Industrial Revolution from its outset is not to be wondered at. The displaced working classes, from the seventeenth century on, took it for granted that a family would not be able to support itself if the children were not employed. In Defoe's day he thought it admirable that in the vicinity of Halifax scarcely anybody above the age of 4 was idle. The children of the poor were forced by economic conditions to work, as Dickens, with his family in debtor's prison, worked at age 12 in the Blacking Factory. In 1840 perhaps only twenty percent of the children of London had any schooling, a number which had risen by 1860, when perhaps half of the children between 5 and 15 were in some sort of school, if only a day school (of the sort in which Dickens's Pip finds himself in Great Expectations) or a Sunday school; the others were working. Many of the more fortunate found employment as apprentices to respectable trades (in the building trade workers put in 64 hours a week in summer and 52 in winter) or as general servants — there were over 120,000 domestic servants in London alone at mid-century, who worked 80 hour weeks for one halfpence per hour — but many more were not so lucky. Most prostitutes (and there were thousands in London alone) were between 15 and 22 years of age.

Something tells us that most of their employers were Jews, but we digress… Continuing with David Cody:

Many children worked 16 hour days under atrocious conditions, as their elders did. Ineffective parliamentary acts to regulate the work of workhouse children in factories and cotton mills to 12 hours per day had been passed as early as 1802 and 1819. After radical agitation, notably in 1831, when "Short Time Committees" organized largely by Evangelicals began to demand a ten hour day, a royal commission established by the Whig government recommended in 1833 that children aged 11-18 be permitted to work a maximum of twelve hours per day; children 9-11 were allowed to work 8 hour days; and children under 9 were no longer permitted to work at all (children as young as 3 had been put to work previously). This act applied only to the textile industry, where children were put to work at the age of 5, and not to a host of other industries and occupations. Iron and coal mines (where children, again, both boys and girls, began work at age 5, and generally died before they were 25), gas works, shipyards, construction, match factories, nail factories, and the business of chimney sweeping, for example (which Blake would use as an emblem of the destruction of the innocent), where the exploitation of child labor was more extensive, was to be enforced in all of England by a total of four inspectors. After further radical agitation, another act in 1847 limited both adults and children to ten hours of work daily.

The children of medieval peasants fared much better than the children of 19th century commoners. As soon as the Jews were free to do what they wanted with their ill-gained money, they set to enslaving the Goyim who were dispossessed of the protection of the nobles. This was White Privilege in the Age of Liberty.

Continuing with Webster, and her description of the result of the end of feudalism, in some regards she is actually very cautious in her assessment of the role of the Jews:

By the Jewish race 1789 is therefore hailed as the year of deliverance. Without going so far as M. Drumont in saying that the Revolution delivered the people from the aristocrats in order to hand them over to the Jews, it cannot be denied that the power of the Jews over the people was immensely increased by the overthrow of the monarchy and aristocracy. Whether they deliberately contributed to this end it is impossible to say, but their influence was suspected by contemporaries, as may be seen by the following passage from Prudhomme, an ardent democrat and in no way to be accused of anti-Semitism:

The French Revolution did a great deal of good to the Jews; it entirely proscribed that antiquated prejudice which caused the remains of this ancient people to be regarded as a race of degraded men below all others. The Jews in France for a long while paid no longer at the barriers, as under the reign of Saint Louis, the same dues that were exacted from the cloven-footed. But every year each Jewish family was taxed 40 livres for the right of habitation, or protection and tolerance. This due was suppressed on the 20th of July, 1790. The Jews were, so to speak, naturalized French and took the rank of citizens. What did they do to show their gratitude? What they did before; they have not changed, they have not mended their ways, they contributed not a little to the fall of assignats. [Assignats were the paper money issued by the French National Assembly during the Revolution, from 1789 to 1796.] The disorder of our finances was a Peruvian mine for them; they have not abated their infamous traffic; on the contrary, civil liberty has only availed them to extend their stock-jobbing speculations. Public misery became a rich patrimony to them… The Jews took impetus. The Government had need of them, and God knows how dearly they have made the Republic pay the resources that it demanded of them. What mysteries of iniquity would be revealed if the Jews, like the mole, did not make a point of working in the dark! In a word and to say all, the Jews have never been more Jews than since we tried to make of them men and citizens. [Here Nesta Webster cited Crimes de la Revolution, iii. 44. (Then she says:) Burke relates that the Jews made large profits out of the plunder of the Churches, and that he is told “the very sons of such Jew-jobbers have been made bishops, persons not to be suspected of any Christian superstition” (where she is citing:) (Reflections on the French Revolution, p. 254). (and she remarks that:) This may explain the apostasy of certain prelates on the 8th of November, 1793. (I do not know the significance of this date, except to say that Robespierre was in the midst of purging the Girondist opposition, and the rather innocent Madame Roland was sent to the guillotine, where she is said to have proclaimed “Oh Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name!”.)]

Born in 1752 and surviving until 1830, Louis-Marie Prudhomme was a French journalist and historian who published a newspaper called Revolutions of Paris during the French Revolution. He is said to have written a two-volume work that listed all of the people he had known who were executed during the Reign of Terror. He wrote a work published in 6 volumes in 1797 titled l’Histoire générale et impartiale des erreurs, des fautes et des crimes commis pendant la Révolution française [The general and impartial history of errors, faults and crimes committed during the French Revolution] which is said to have been seized by police, and another in 1825 called L’Europe tourmentée par la Révolution de France, ébranlée par dix-huit années de promenades meurtrières de Napoléon Bonaparte [Europe tormented by the French Revolution, shaken by eighteen years of murderous walks by Napoleon Bonaparte]. Being an eyewitness to the French Revolution and over 30 years of its aftermath, his rather candid statement that “In a word and to say all, the Jews have never been more Jews than since we tried to make of them men and citizens” bears all the more significance.

Webster continues:

But it was the peasants who became the chief sufferers from the domination of the Jews. Under the Old Régime, the feudal dues had proved oppressive, but in many instances the seigneurs [the feudal lords] were the benefactors and protectors of their vassals. The Jewish usurers on whom the peasant proprietors now depended to carry on if crops failed or weather proved unpropitious, showed no indulgence.

“As soon as he " (the peasant), writes Daniel Stern, “has entered into commercial relations with this rusé race [crafty or sly race], as soon as he has put his name at the foot of a paper which he has read and re-read without perceiving the hidden clause that does for him, the peasant, in spite of all his finesse, will never succeed in recovering his liberty. Henceforth his activity, his intelligence, the benefits of Providence who sends him rich harvests will profit him nothing, but only his new master. The exorbitant interest on a very small capital will absorb his time and his labours. Every day he will see the comfort of his family diminish and his difficulties increase. As the fatal day approaches when the debt falls due the sombre face of his creditor warns him that he can expect no respite. He must make up his mind, he must go further along the road of perdition, borrow again, always borrow until ruin has been brought about, and fields, meadows, and woods, house, flocks, and home all have passed from his industrious hands into the rapacious ones of the usurer." [Here Webster cited La Révolution de 1848, by Daniel Stern, ii. 89 (La Comtesse d'Agoult). With the parenthetical remark, Webster explains that Daniel Stern was the pen name for Marie d'Agoult, the wife of a French Count and army Colonel in the time of Napoleon III, her Histoire de la révolution de 1848 was published from 1850–53 in 3 volumes. She was also a feminist who was divorced by her husband as she was caught in an affair with soon-to-be-famous composer Franz Liszt.]

Continuing with Nesta Webster:

In a word, the peasant inherited from the aristocrat; he was disinherited by the usurer. Here is the true history of the disinherited, not in France alone, but in Russia, in Austria, in Poland; everywhere that the worker lives by tilling his own soil the abolition of feudalism has led to the domination of the money-lender, and the money-lender is in most cases a Jew.

Here Webster has a note concerning Russia where she wrote asking the reader to:

See the account given on his journey through White Russia in 1816 by the Grand Duke Nicholas, who, whilst admitting the support given to the Imperial authority by the Jews, remarks: “The general ruination of the peasantry of these provinces is attributable to the Jews, who are second in import to the landowners only; by their industries they exploit to the utmost the unfortunate population. They are everything here — merchants, contractors, pothouse-keepers, millers, carriers, artisans, etc., and they are so clever in squeezing and cheating the common people that they advance money on the unsown bread and discount the harvest before the fields are sown. [Which is sort of the way that the modern commodities markets operate.] They are regular leeches who suck up everything and completely exhaust this province." [Here in her note Webster is citing:] (E. A. Brayley Hodgett’s The Court of Russia in the Nineteenth Century, i. 161).

Continuing with Webster, where she speaks of the peasant having become dominated by the Jewish money-lenders:

If, exasperated by this tyranny, the peasants from time to time have given way to violence and turned on their oppressors, is it altogether surprising? When in the fourteenth century the peasants rose against the noblesse, the blame, we are told, must rest solely with the nobles. Yet why is peasant fury when it took the form of a “jacquerie” to be condoned, and when it takes the form of a “pogrom" to be remorselessly condemned? Surely in one case as much as the other the plea of uncontrollable exasperation may be with justice put forward.

A jacquerie was a communal uprising or revolt against the local feudal lords, and, of course, a pogrom was a revolt against oppressive Jewish usurers. Webster continues:

The industrial worker as well as the peasant found the Jew an exacting taskmaster. It was not only the introduction of machinery that at the beginning of the nineteenth century brought about the speeding up of industry, but the spirit of the new commercialism, which succeeded to the leisurely methods of the Old Régirne. As M. Drumont has expressed it, if the workers paused for breath the cry went up from the statisticians: “What are we coming to? England manufactured 375 million trouser buttons last year and we have only produced 374 millions!”

This driving force behind the worker, this spirit of cut- throat competition, was largely attributable to the Jew.

At any rate, whether we regard the “Capitalistic system” as an evil or not, we cannot deny that the Jews were mainly responsible for it.

In order to appreciate thoroughly the insincerity of Marx with regard to this question, it is only necessary to glance through his book Das Capital and then the work of Werner Sombart on The Jews and Modern Capitalism. “The Jew,” as Sombart remarks, “embodied modern Capitalism,” [Werner Sombart, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, p. 50.] and he goes on to describe, step by step, the building up by Jewish hands of the system which superseded the Old Régime of amicable trading and peaceful industry; he shows the Jew as the inventor of advertisement [Ibid., p. 139.], as the employer of cheap labour [Ibid., p. 150.], as the principal participant in the stock-jobbing or agiotage that prevailed at the end of the first French Revolution. [Ibid., p. 101.] But it is above all as the usurer that the Jew achieved power. “Modern Capitalism,” says Sombart, “is the child of money-lending,” [Ibid., p. 189.] and the Jew, as we have seen, is the money-lender par excellence [a vocation to which Christians were generally barred for nearly all of 16 centuries]. The great fortune of the Rothschilds was built up on this basis. The principal “loan-floaters” of the world [Ibid., pp. 101, 103.], they were later the first railway kings [Ibid., p. 105.]. The period of 1820 onwards became, as Sombart calls it, “the age of the Rothschilds,” so that by the middle of the century it was a common dictum, “There is only one power in Europe, and that is Rothschild." [Ibid., p. 99.]

Now how is it conceivable that a man who set out honestly to denounce Capitalism should have avoided all reference to its principal authors? Yet even in the section of his book dealing with the origins of Industrial Capitalism, where Marx refers to the great financiers, the stock-jobbing and speculation in shares, and what he describes as “the modern sovereignty of finance,” he never once indicates the Jews as the leading financiers, or the Rothschilds as the super-capitalists of the world. As well might one sit down to recount the history of wireless telegraphy without any reference to Signor Marconi! How are we to explain this astounding omission? Only by recognizing that Marx was not sincere in his denunciations of the Capitalistic system, and that he had other ends in view. I shall return to this point later in connection with the career of Marx.

Here Nesta Webster is correct, Marx was not sincere. But neither was he a sincere Socialist. Rather, denying personal property rights, denying the right of a man to benefit from the fruit of his own labors, and concentrating wealth in the hands of the State is tantamount to putting it into the hands of the Jew, the same Jew who would benefit from Capitalism, and we would see that in another context, Webster agrees. But she should not have held Marx up as the authority on what is socialism.

Rather, she should have realized that Marx was half of an economic dichotomy in which the Jews had entrapped Christendom, and capitalism was the other half. Europe became embroiled in a battle between two competing Jewish ideologies, and no alternative could attract attention. The Jews themselves promoted Marxism as Socialism, which it was not, and that prevented men from finding a solution. Marxism was not socialism, and Webster should have made that realization.

Continuing with Webster:

Such, then, was the condition of things at the beginning of the period known as the industrial revolution. The grievances of the workers were very real; the need for social reconstruction urgent, the gulf between poverty and riches greater than ever before, and the Government of France had no schemes of reform to offer. If only a great man had then arisen to lead the people back into paths of sanity and progress, to show them in that fatal year of 1789 new-born democracy had taken the wrong turning and wandered into a pathless jungle whence it could only emerge by retracing its footsteps, and starting afresh led by the light of its own day, not by the will o’ the wisp of illuminized freemasonry!

Webster was also, to a degree, infected with humanism as we see here, but we may expect that for her time. She continues:

Unhappily at this new crisis in the history of the working classes there was no one to point the way, no one who had the insight and the courage to rise and declare: “The great experiment of 1789 to 1794 has proved a failure, the principles on which it was founded have been weighed in the balance and found wanting, the goals it set before us have turned out to be mirages towards which we have marched too long with bleeding feet, the methods it employed were atrocious and must never be repeated, the men who led it were the enemies of the people and such as they shall never deceive us again. There is no hope for suffering humanity but to repudiate the Revolution and all its works, and to strike out a fresh path with new hopes, new aims founded not on the dreams of visionaries or the schemes of demagogues but on the true desires of the people.”

We do not agree with the content of Nesta Webster’s solution, however we certainly can agree that Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and Democracy are experiments which were doomed to failure from their very conception. She concludes this section of her chapter and says:

Instead of rallying the people by such a trumpet-call as this, the men who now arose had nothing better to offer than the worn-out creed of their revolutionary predecessors. The doctrines that had proved fallacious, the visions that had turned out to be delusions, the battle-cries that had led the people to disaster were all to be again revived with the same assurance as if in the past they had been attended with triumphant success.

We still suffer this predicament today, we still hear the same patterns of thought from politicians, and we will suffer it until as a people we repent and turn our concern for one another, in the spirit of true Christian Socialism and love for our own brethren. Christ is the only answer to our woes.

In another context, Webster set forth an excellent assessment of Capitalism and Marxism, where she wrote in her chapter of World Revolution which is titled The Revolution of 1917 the following:

For the only form of Communism which it has ever been possible to carry out successfully is that practised by religious communities. Monasteries and nunneries are, of course, Communist, but the fact which makes this possible is that they are composed of people who have renounced all interest in earthly things and centre all their thoughts and desires on the Kingdom of Heaven. [We would call them communal rather than communist, to draw an important distinction in our own vernacular.] Secular Communism, by its insistence on materialism, eliminates the only factor that makes the system feasible [which is] belief in God and the Hereafter. It is inconceivable that leading Communists should be unaware of this fundamental error in – their teaching, or of the failure that has attended every attempt to put into practice in the past – above all, its colossal failure in Russia.

If, then, Communism or State Socialism has been proved impracticable, if, moreover, it is a system that no one who understands it can possibly want, who is to profit by establishing it? Sorel answered the question long ago “A few professors who imagine they invented Socialism and a few Dreyfusard financiers.” In other words, the Intellectuals who cherish the hope of being given official posts in the Socialist State which will give them an advantage over their fellow-men, and a few Jewish financiers. Werner Sombart, summing up the system of the latter, says: “Their aim was to seize upon all commerce and all production; they had an overpowering desire to expand in every direction.” The system of free trade was all part of this plan and can be traced back as far as Anacharsis Clootz, who was doubtless considering the interests of his friends the Jews when in his Universal Republic he advocated “all the peoples forming one nation, farming only one trade, all interests forming only one interest.” It is easy to see that State Socialism may be merely the prelude to this scheme, and here M. Sorel and M. Copin Albancelli are curiously in accord.

M. Sorel is the French philosopher and sydicalist theorist Georges Sorel. Paul Copin-Albancelli was a French journalist, a nationalist and a former Freemason who became an early so-called “conspiracy author”, founding so-called antisemitic and anti-masonic newspapers in France, Nesta Webster frequently cited publications with which he was associated. Of course, the point Webster is making is that the two would not naturally find agreement, unless the conspiracy actually exists.

Continuing with Webster where she cites Copin-Albancelli:

“One formula,” the latter wrote in 1909, “sums up the whole Collectivist propaganda: All for the State. All for the State! The people imagine that this means: All for All! and they march forward, intoxicated with hope, towards the conquest of this fallacious idea, not dreaming that the State being henceforth in the hands of the Jews ‘all for the State’ … will be ‘all for the Jews!’ … The dictatorship imposed by the Jewish race will be a financial, industrial, and commercial dictatorship.” [Here Webster cited La Conjuration juive contre le monde chrétien (The Jewish Conjuration against the Christian World), pp. 448, 450.]

Copin-Albancelli wrote those words some years before the Bolshevik Revolution, and in relation to Russia, his words have been proven by history. Continuing, Webster responds:

What could better describe the government of Russia today? The plan of wresting all capital out of private hands and placing it in the hands of the State, as under Communism, or in the hands of industrial syndicates as under Syndicalism, may well be the prelude to State Capitalism or to gigantic trusts controlled by international financiers. In this case the so-called war on capitalism is simply a war in favour of capitalism, of ruining all small holders of wealth or property in order to enrich a ring of multi-millionaries. A passage in Mr. Wells’s articles on Russia lends colour to this theory:

Big business is by no means antipathetic to Communism. The larger big business grows the more it approximates to Collectivism. It is the upper road of the few instead of the lower road of the masses to Collectivism. [Citing the Sunday Express for November 28, 1920.]

Conversely, then, may not Communism be the lower road which the masses are being invited to follow leading to “big business,” that is to say, to super-Capitalism? Once embarked on this road there can be no turning back. The present Capitalist system — that is to say, the system that aims at the distribution of capital amongst as large a number of hands as possible — having been destroyed by the workers’ own folly in favour of concentration of capital in the hands of the State, they will be obliged to work or starve. Their new masters will have them completely at their mercy.

There is a glaring error here in Webster’s judgement. Somehow she believed that capitalism “aims at the distribution of capital amongst as large a number of hands as possible” but precisely the opposite is true. Whenever usury is allowed, and especially in a closed system where all currency is put into corculation at usury, it is inevitable that all wealth will eventually be concentrated into the hands of the usurer, since there is never enough money in circulation to pay off the total outstanding debt.

She continues:

It will be urged: “But the workers will never stand this; they will rise against their tyrants and overthrow them! What government of this kind could maintain itself in power?” But this is where the role of the German armies comes in. It is quite true that a group of international financiers could not of its own strength maintain itself in power against an enraged industrial proletariat, but if we imagine this financial power backed by a superb military system, if, in a word, we picture an alliance between Prussian militarism and international finance, the plan no longer appears impracticable.

It is this alliance that today menaces civilization, and it is an alliance of long standing, as we have seen in the earlier chapters of this book. The present campaign of anti-Semitism raging in Germany is largely a strategic manoeuvre with the object of reinstating Germany in the eyes of the world and throwing all the blame for both the war and the revolution on the Jews. Germany will not relinquish her Jews as long as they can help her towards the attainment of her dream of world-power. Nor will the International Jew forsake Germany as long as by her military strength she remains the horse to back.

Webster could not have seen the entire picture, but it is evident that according to the desire of the Rothschilds and after the issue of the Balfour declaration, the Jews entirely forsook Germany for greener pastures in England and the United States, and Nesta Webster has just described rather perfectly the current function of the international capital, the United States and its military in our modern world, which has been the prevalent power ever since the end of the First World War. But the description fits any world empire in history, and it is described in our Scripture. So long as the people worship the beast and reverence the dragon which gives it power, they will be slaves to the eternal Jew. For a long time, Christianity kept our race relatively free of that slavery, and now in the desire for unheard of liberty we have become twice the children of hell.

The Midgard Serpent has bound all of Christendom in its grasp, and we can only await the day that it releases its tail, precipitating the fall of Babylon. (I bet the analogy offends some pagans, and some self-righteous Christians as well. But it is nonetheless true.)