The Protocols of Satan, Part 3: Bergmeister and the Verdict at Berne

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Saturdays
ChrSat20150829-Protocols_of_Satan_03.mp3 — Downloaded 10681 times

Christogenea Saturdays, August 29th, 2015 - The Protocols of Satan, Part 3: Bergmeister and the Verdict at Berne

Here we shall conclude our presentation of the booklet, The World Jewish Conspiracy, written by Dr. Karl Bergmeister and published in 1938, which defended the authenticity of the Protocols against some of the evidence presented at the Berne trial of 1934-1935, where a lawsuit had been tried against certain Swiss politicians because they had used the Protocols as propaganda in their campaigns. While it is accepted that Bergmeister could not prove the actual origin of the Protocols, and that the actual origin of the work in the form in which we know it may never be determined, he did indeed prove that the early attempts by Jews to discredit them as fabrications, or “forgeries”, were themselves based upon lies.

Before beginning, I am going to take a short digression to discuss the word forgery. I often hear the argument concerning the Protocols, that since a forgery is a copy of an original, the Jews prove that the Protocols are authentic by calling them a forgery. This might be funny, and it might even convince the simple-minded, but it should not be repeated because it is simply not true. If you examine not only the modern dictionaries, but also the original definitions for the word forgery in the first English dictionaries by Samuel Johnson and Noah Webster, you will see that the definition of the word is much broader. More precisely, a forgery is a document produced and ascribed to someone other than the person who produced it. So from a Jewish perspective, where the Protocols are disclaimed, the word forgery is appropriate. However we know better than to believe the Jews, and although certainly not all Jews are responsible for the Protocols, the Protocols do indeed represent the desires of world Jewry for the subversion of Christendom. And while all Jews are certainly not acting consciously to effect those desires, Jews do indeed act naturally towards their accomplishment. So many Jews may be able to plausibly deny the Protocols, but that does not mean that they are fraudulent.

In the first 5 parts of his booklet, Bergmeister both addressed at length and discredited the statements of Catherine Radziwill and the French count Armand du Chayla, the first figures to emerge and attempt to discredit the authenticity of the Protocols. They both had French and Russian connections, and therefore they both appeared to have credibility, while they also both turned out to be obvious frauds. We believe that this very circumstance, that the first witnesses against the authenticity of the Protocols set forth by the Jews had turned out to be liars and frauds, is in itself a monument to the authenticity of the Protocols. They began to be discredited as soon as they appeared in the west, but Jewry already had another path by which to reach their objective to cloud the issue, which was the sudden discovery in Istanbul of The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu by Philip Graves, who promptly noticed the similarities between that and the Protocols, even though the Protocols had only first been published in English translated from Russian at a very recent time, in 1920, unless we count the few excerpts published in a Philadelphia newspaper in October of 1919. We shall begin further discussion of Graves and the similarity of the Protocols to the Dialogue of Joly after we finish presenting the Bergmeister booklet.

In this respect the Jews are most adept, that through their control of so much of the media they can raise great clouds of dust by which to obscure the truth about anything. This is the same tactic which is seen in so many old Hollywood cowboy movies, where the bad guys raise a dust cloud and make off with the loot without being seen. The same Jews do this same thing over and over again to this very day. When one line of lies and deceit is exposed, the Jews have another one already prepared to fall back on. Look at the Holocaust tales. At first the Jews talked about the trains that were moved through power stations electrocuting the prisoners on board. Then it was the carbon monoxide trucks that went through Jewish neighborhoods, serving as portable gas chambers. When those stories and others were all discredited, they were quickly forgotten but the Jews had already devised other lies to propagate in their place, and a few of them, those which are the least incredible, are accepted as truth to this very day even though there has been plenty of evidenced compiled to show that they are also lies.

Now we shall present and offer our own comments on the 6th and final part of Bergmeister's booklet, which is subtitled:

6. The Contents confirm the Authenticity.

To prove the authenticity of the Protocols from their contents, would be beyond the scope of this treatise. There exists upon this subject a literature so extensive, and more particularly in the Expertise drawn up by Colonel Fleischhauer for the lawsuit in Berne, a mass of evidence so overwhelming, that I will confine myself to the following remarks only. It is not by any means first in the Protocols, but already in the books of the Jewish prophets that the political objectives of the Jewish people are laid down. Isaiah in particular, in chapters XL to LX promises quite undisguisedly world-domination to the chosen people. The same thing exactly is the aim of the Protocols, which may be said to differ only in the sense that they are a modern strategic plan, drawn up in a manner more suited to present-day conditions.

Here is an example of the most significant problem that Christians, or even Whites who claim not to be Christians, have when considering the Jews: that they continually accept the Jewish narrative concerning the writings which we call the Bible. For 1700 years or longer it has been taken for granted that these Jews of today are the “people of the book”, or the “chosen people”, Israel and Judah and Hebrews. The claims are accepted as religious dogma and anyone who questions them is immediately dismissed and marginalized, even by those who pretend to be aware of Jews and hate all things Jewish.

For example, David Duke recently attested in a discussion with Alex Jones that he had no dispute that the Jews were the people of the Old Testament. Making such an assertion, he demonstrates that he also believes this, which is in reality the biggest of all Jewish lies. But there is much resistance amongst most White Nationalists, whether they claim to be Christian or not, to actually study the Bible and ancient history in order to investigate whether the claims by the Jews are actually true. Many of these people express a lack of concern, dismissing it all as “Jewish”. But that lack of concern, and that unwillingness to study the matter, actually facilitates the greatest of Jewish lies, which once exposed, would unveil the devil for what he really is and discredit him forever.

The bottom line is this, from those of us who have studied all of the source material in great depth: the Jews are not properly Israel, Judah, or Hebrews. This is in spite of whether there are a few things which can be found in the Old Testament which seem to fit the Jews. A few things in any old book, taken out of context, can, by dishonest assessments, be made to fit practically anyone.

There are 450 years between the most recent books of the Old Testament and the first accounts related in the New Testament. Understanding those 450 years is extremely important to understanding this: that the writers of the New Testament understood that most of the original people of Israel and Judah had been scattered abroad and distributed throughout Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Asia and Europe long before their own time, and that none of them were Jews, while only a small portion of Israel and Judah remained in Judaea. These are indisputable facts supported by countless Assyrian, Persian and Babylonian inscriptions. However, as the New Testament writers also assert, many of the people in Judaea were not Israel and Judah at all, although they were claiming to be.

So we see the warnings of Christ in the Revelation where He says: “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Judaeans, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan”, and a little later he refers once again to “them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Judaeans, and are not, but do lie”. The original Greek word is Judaeans, not Jews, which is a Medieval contraction of the original. Likewise, the pagan Greek geographer, Strabo, who was writing before Christ was even born, had said in Book 16 of his Geography that the Idumaeans were “mixed up” with the Judaeans, and that they “shared in the same customs with them”. The Judaean historian Flavius Josephus explains how this had happened, and the writers of the New Testament and the prophets of the Old Testament also attest that the Judaeans of the time of Christ were indeed these Edomites, or Idumeans, the eternal enemies of the original Israelites (I.e. Ezekiel 35 and Malachi 1). It is these from whom we have the Jews of today. For this reason, we have called our ongoing series presenting the Protocols the “Protocols of Satan”.

We can confirm the truth of these assertions beyond all reasonable doubt through the materials which we have mentioned. This is why Jewry had persecuted Christianity, and also instigated the pagan Romans to persecute Christianity, for 300 years. Imagine the world today, and how these people who call themselves Jews have infiltrated every nation and now identify themselves with every nation which they have infiltrated. So we have Jews who claim to be Americans, or Germans, or Englishmen. Yet in the end they are always treacherous Jews. Why do those who understand this take it for granted that the Jews are the people of the Bible? They actually also take it for granted that these people known as Jews have done this infiltrating only recently. That is a failure on their part. In truth, the people known as Jews are not Judah or Israel at all, and they have been infiltrating and subverting every ancient kingdom and empire for as long as we have had kingdoms and empires.

The American Constitution left a legacy, as its preamble explicitly states, for the European Christians who signed it and for their posterity. None of its signers were Jews, yet today the Jews openly claim it for their heritage as well. How did that happen? The prophecies of Isaiah, properly examined, concern a people who were removed from the ancient kingdom of Israel nearly 800 years before Christ, and none of them were ever called Jews, or even Judaeans. But today the Jews also claim that heritage for themselves. Whites who continue to believe those lies concerning the Bible and the Jews will die in their ignorance, and are of no real use to our race.

Bergmeister's next conclusion is valid, but the Jews really get their religion from the Talmud, and not from the Bible:

Countless statements from Rabbinical sources, and by Jewish politicians, documentarily attested, agree in astonishing fashion with the general lines of the Protocols.

The following fact moreover cannot be refuted namely, that the political occurrences of the present day, taking place as they do under the influence of Jewish Freemasonry, are developing in exact accordance with the lines laid down in the Protocols, and that more particularly in Soviet Russia, under the leadership of Jewry, the Protocols have already become an accomplished fact. It is only necessary to think of the destruction of the Christian religion as ordered in the Protocols, of the destruction of all estates, of the moral poisoning of youth, and of the undermining of the family, of the enslavement of the working people, and of the famines created in a fashion so conscienceless, of the way in which Moscow organises agitation and incitement of the masses in all countries, more especially in the case of Spain, of the continuous strikes and economic crises in France, and of the subsidised and controlled revolutionary movements in Mexico and in China, to come to the only possible conclusion namely, that Jewry with the help of Bolshevism, Marxism and Freemasonry, is undeviatingly carrying out what is prescribed in the Protocols, in order to obtain for the Jewish people that world-domination which is promised to them by their God Jehovah.

And Bergmeister demonstrates his confusion once again, because the Jews are actually the eternal enemies of Jehovah, if we use that name for Yahweh, the God of the Bible. Only a Christian could understand that the same Isaiah who so many times prophesied of Christ, and whom Christ had so often quoted, would not in turn offer any blessings to the eternal enemies of that same Christ. The Jewish interpretations of Isaiah which Bergmeister is following are lies, and the prophet Isaiah would have despised these Jews.

The Bible does offer a narrative concerning the treachery of Jewry, however. This is summarized in the Revelation where it says that “Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 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”. This deception is what is described in the Protocols of Satan, and it is being fulfilled today where the Christian nations are being surrounded and now flooded with non-White aliens by those very Jews. Thereafter it says “and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them”, which is what Isaiah describes where he wrote that “In that day Jehovah 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.

Elements of this same prophecy are seen in the pagan Germanic literature concerning Ragnarock and the Midgard Serpent. The Midgard Serpent was born of giants, and the Hebrew Bible tells us that the ancestors of the enemies of Israel: the Edomites and Canaanites, were born of giants produced by the fallen angels. The Hebrew Bible, except for a few parts added by the Jews, actually both reflects and originates many Aryan myths and Aryan values.

Back to Bergmeister:

This fight for world-domination has been in full swing ever since Italian Fascism put an end to the destructive activities of Freemasonry, that most dangerous of all Jewish secret societies, and since Germany has declared openly that it is the Jew, and the Jew alone who is the driving force behind the destruction of political order among the different peoples. In complete accordance with the sense of Protocol 7, the dogs of war are to be let loose against those states who desire to free themselves from the Jewish reign of terror, such states as Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Poland.

Actually this is only the latest manifestation in a battle for world domination which has now endured for many thousands of years. The Bible describes that battle, and the enemies of God have confused the identities of the participants. But if I sit here today and I say “no Jew is an American”, or “no Jew is an Englishman”, I am applauded. However if I sit here and say “No Jew is a Hebrew”, or “No Jew is an Israelite”, and I am criticized, then those people who criticize me prove that they are actually the friends of the devil. Back to Bergmeister once again:

On the above subject the following forms an interesting extract from the “Revue internationale des sociétés secrètes, No 7 of the 1st of April 1937:

[Many references to this periodical may be found, but no original publications. We did find other references to other issues of this publication in articles not related to the Protocols, so there is no doubt that the periodical existed.]

A new war in defence of democracy and of alleged law is being prepared in all haste. An alliance of all the Jewish groups is already complete; it bears the official title of the alliance of the three great democracies, the English, the American, and the French.... Israel requires a new world war, and soon!... Israel is positively of the opinion that time is getting short. To them their world war is a necessity in order that, in the name of indivisible peace, all that portion of mankind who wish to cast off the Jewish yoke, may be laid low.”

The first world war was billed by the Jewish media as the “war to end all wars”, and in America in 1917 the American president, Woodrow Wilson, went before a joint session of Congress on April 2nd to seek a Declaration of War against Germany in order that the world “be made safe for democracy.” This was in spite of the fact that up to this point democracy was generally and correctly seen as a subversive political philosophy by the guardians of the American republic. However Wilson was a tool in the hands of those same Jews.

The Italians were on the side of the British and French in the first war, and the rise of fascism to counter Jewish domination through “democracy” was unforeseen. Mussolini and Hitler breaking their respective nations free of Jewish domination, that is the only reason why the second war was necessary. That it happened just as it is written here, where Bergmeister wrote this over two years before the war began, demonstrates that he was indeed correct. He continues, speaking about America, Britain and France:

It is just the three countries above mentioned who to-day are completely under Jewish-Masonic control. Practically every member of their respective governments is a Freemason. In their case also in all key positions, men of Jewish origin are to be found, or persons who either as a result of marriage, or of financial obligation, are open to Jewish influence. I will in general refrain from mentioning names. I should like however to point to one man only, in regard to whom Jewry are always proclaiming that he is not a Jew namely, Stalin. But Stalin in point of fact is married to a Jewess, and his all powerful Secretary of State is his brother-in-law Kaganowitsch. Only statesmen completely blind fail to recognise that the fate of the peoples entrusted to their charge no longer depends upon themselves, and that they will most certainly bring their peoples under the Jewish Bolshevist yoke if they do not first of all unite to fight the Jewish world danger. It is neither from Germany, Italy, nor Japan that danger threatens, but solely and only from the direction of Jewry, who in every country play a pretendedly patriotic role, but at the same time, by means of their international press, incite one country against the other, in complete accordance with the directions of Protocol 7:

Throughout all Europe, and by means of relations with Europe, in other continents also, we must create ferments, discords and hostility…. We must compel the governments of the Goyim to take action in the direction favoured by our widely-conceived plan, already approaching the desired consummation, by what we shall represent as public opinion, secretly prompted by us through the means of that so-called 'Great Power' - the Press, which with few exceptions that may be disregarded, is already entirely in our hands.”

Of course we shall discuss these things as we present the Protocols themselves. However the truth of Bergmeister's assertions cannot be questioned by any rational man. He continues:

The plan of Jewry as developed in the Protocols, becomes from year to year more clear and more terrible. Whoever still persists in refusing to recognise it, is either seriously incapable, or else guilty of a crime against his own people.

And once again I will take as my authority a Jew, who unconditionally stands for the authenticity of the Protocols, and who asserts that Jewish mentality alone could draw up a programme like that of the Protocols, so that if only on these grounds, it is not possible to doubt the authenticity of the document. The authority referred to is the late Arthur Trebitsch, author of “Deutscher Geist oder Judentum” [German Spirit or Judaism], published 1921, on page 74 of which we find the following:

Anybody who like the author, has long since realised, seen, and heard with ominous dread, all the thoughts, aims and intentions derived from the entirety of our economic, political and intellectual life, and expressed in those secret documents, can with absolute confidence assert that they present the most genuine and unalloyed expression of that versatile spirit which is striving towards world-domination; and that an Aryan mind, however far it might have been driven along the road of forgery and calumny by Anti-Semitic rancour, could never, under any circumstances have devised these methods of action, these underhand expedients and these swindles as a whole.”

And even Arthur Trebitsch was a late-comer. Wilhelm Marr lamented the triumph of Judaism over Germanism in Germany as early as 1879.


Bergmeister 's booklet is completed, however here at the end he records a conference which took place at Erfurt, that same university where Martin Luther and the German Humanists had begun over 400 years before. He says the following:

A Conference of the World Service, the international organisation for defence against Jewish aggression in all countries, took place in Erfurt from the 2nd to the 5th of September of this year. Distinguished experts, authors and political leaders, more especially from the following countries, took part: Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Great-Britain, Finland, Greece, Holland, Italy, Jugoslavia, Canada, Lettland, the U.S.A., Norway, Austria, Poland, Russia (Emigration), Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, South Africa, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.

After the commission appointed to enquire into the authenticity of the Protocols had rendered a report of its two years of activity, the Congress unanimously adopted the following.


That the present Conference of the World Service taking place at Erfurt from the 2nd to the 5th of September 1937, in which many experts, authors and political leaders from more than different countries are taking part, passes the following resolution relative to the authenticity of 'The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion':

That the verdict given in Berne on the 14th of May 1935 to the effect that the Protocols are a forgery, is a faulty verdict. That it only became possible in consequence of the Judge having erroneously based his judgement upon the expertises of the two Swiss experts recommended by the Jewish side C. A. Loosli and Professor A. Baumgarten, after he had heard the 16 witnesses for the Jewish side, and after having refused to hear any single one of the 40 witnesses brought by the Aryan side.

The verdict in Berne has not shaken the authenticity of the Protocols. For their authenticity the following irrefutable fact, among many others, bears witness namely, that Jewry in the social, political, and religious sphere, persistently model all their actions along the lines laid down in the Protocols.

'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' are accordingly the authentic programme of Jewish world politics.”

Of course, this conference had taken place under the auspices of the National Socialists. Therefore it may be fitting to record what Adolf Hitler had said concerning the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion in Book 11 of Mein Kampf:

How much the whole existence of this people is based on a permanent falsehood is proved in a unique way by 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', which are so violently repudiated by the Jews. With groans and moans, the Frankfurter Zeitung repeats again and again that these are forgeries. This alone is evidence in favour of their authenticity. What many Jews unconsciously wish to do is here clearly set forth. It is not necessary to ask out of what Jewish brain these revelations sprang; but what is of vital interest is that they disclose, with an almost terrifying precision, the mentality and methods of action characteristic of the Jewish people and these writings expound in all their various directions the final aims towards which the Jews are striving. The study of real happenings, however, is the best way of judging the authenticity of those documents. If the historical developments which have taken place within the last few centuries be studied in the light of this book [meaning the Protocols] we shall understand why the Jewish Press incessantly repudiates and denounces it. For the Jewish peril will be stamped out the moment the general public come into possession of that book and understand it.

If Hitler could only see us today, he would marvel at the depth of our stupidity as all of the Protocols have been accomplished, and collectively we still do not see the Jewish peril.

Now we shall move on from Dr Bergmeister to discuss other aspects of the story of the Protocols. As we had explained last week, we were somewhat disappointed that in his booklet Bergmeister did not sufficiently address the contents of an article written by the English journalist Philip Graves in August of 1921, some 6 months after the claims of Radziwill and du Chayla were first set forth by the Jews.

Graves had written that the Protocols, which he rather consistently refers to as the “Geneva Dialogues” had been composed with the aid of the “Dialogue aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu” (The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu) , a book written by the French lawyer Maurice Joly, the first edition of which appeared in Brussels in 1864, and the second in 1868. Therefore here we shall endeavor to discuss the Graves articles and the infamous Dialogue of Maurice Joly in relation to the Protocols. We hope to do this from several sources. Although we have facsimiles of the original copies of each of these works, since they are very lengthy we shall not present them here. The three-part Graves article by itself is nearly as long as the Bergmeister booklet, and Joly's dialogue is about 345 rather short pages of French, which I can not read. [We will publish copies of these at Christogenea along with this podcast.]

Speaking of the evidence presented at the Berne trial, the Russian historians Lev Aronov, Henryk Baran and Dmitry Zubarev wrote the following in reference to the Philip Graves articles, in their 2009 article entitled Princess Catherine Radziwill and 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion': the hoax as a lifestyle:

A few months later statements by Catherine Radziwill and du Shayla become much less important in the debate about the Protocols. In the summer of 1921 the British journalist Philip Graves (1876-1953) in Constantinople buys from a Russian emigrant, “Mr. H.”, a publication of the 19th century, in which it is easily discovered when compared with the text of the Protocols, that in the truest sense it is the basis for the creation of an anti-Semitic document. This edition - “Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu or Machiavelli's politics in the XIX century.” (published in 1864), was directed against the Second Empire of Napoleon III, a political satire by Maurice Joly (1829-1878). This direct evidence of the Protocols being a forgery - though it still remains unconvincing for fans of conspiracy theories - was published in the newspaper The Times in the issues from 16-18 August 1921 and upstaged the previous performances.

We do not believe that the sudden discovery by Philip Graves of the book by Joly, The Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, and the contention that it must have been the source for the Protocols, was coincidental, or even an accident. We rather believe that Jewry needed another story by which to discredit the Protocols, and that Radziwill and du Chayla served their purpose as useful distractions until something better and more substantial could be devised. Therefore the Joly book was suddenly discovered at this time because Jewry needed it, and whether it was legitimately Joly's work or not is immaterial, although we shall not question it in this regard. So we shall present a lengthy discussion in order to determine if the Joly material is really the final proof against any claims for the legitimacy of the Protocols.

To begin this endeavor, we shall present a discussion of the Protocols from Appendix 2 of the book Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, by Nesta Webster, which was evidently first published in 1924. When we first read of the Joly book in relation to the Protocols, we concluded that both must have come from the same source, rather than the Protocols having been taken from Joly. Nesta Webster will help vindicate that position.


Contrary to the assertions of certain writers, I have never affirmed my belief in the authenticity of the Protocols, but have always treated it as an entirely open question. [See my World Revolution, pp. 296-307. The misapprehension referred to above may have arisen from the resemblance between the title of my book and the series of articles which appeared in the Morning Post under the name of The Cause of World Unrest. In view of the fact that these articles were on some points at variance with my own theories, it seems hardly necessary to state that they were not my work. As a matter of fact, I did not know of their existence until they were in print, and later I contributed four supplementary articles signed by my name.] The only opinion to which I have committed myself is that, whether genuine or not, the Protocols do represent the programme of world revolution, and that in view of their prophetic nature and of their extraordinary resemblance to the protocols of certain secret societies in the past, they were either the work of some such society or of someone profoundly versed in the lore of secret societies who was able to reproduce their ideas and phraseology.

The so-called refutation of the Protocols which appeared in the Times of August 1922 [sic. 1921], tends to confirm this opinion. According to these articles the Protocols were largely copied from the book of Maurice Joly, Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu, published in 1864. Let it be said at once that the resemblance between the two works could not be accidental, not only are whole paragraphs almost identical, but the various points in the programme follow each other in precisely the same order. But whether Nilus copied from Joly or from the same source whence Joly derived his ideas is another question. It will be noticed that Joly in his preface never claimed to have originated the scheme described in his book; on the contrary he distinctly states that it "personifies in particular a political system which has not varied for a single day in its application since the disastrous and alas! too far-off date of its enthronement." Could this refer only to the government of Napoleon III, established twelve years earlier? Or might it not be taken to signify a Machiavellian system of government of which Napoleon III was suspected by Joly at this moment of being the exponent? We have already seen that this system is said by M. de Mazères, in his book De Machiavel et de l'influence de sa doctrine sur les opinions, les moeurs et la politique de la France pendant la Révolution [Machiavelli and the influence of his doctrine on the opinions, customs and politics of France during the Revolution], published in 1816, to have been inaugurated by the French Revolution, and to have been carried on by Napoleon I against whom he brings precisely the same accusations of Machiavellism that Joly brings against Napoleon III. “The author of The Prince,” he writes, “was always his guide,” and he goes on to describe the “parrot cries placed in the mouths of the people,” the “hired writers, salaried newspapers, mercenary poets and corrupt ministers employed to mislead our vanity methodically” - all this being carried on by “the scholars of Machiavelli under the orders of his cleverest disciple.” We have already traced the course of these methods from the Illuminati onwards.

Now precisely at the moment when Joly published his Dialogues aux Enfers the secret societies were particularly active, and since by this date a number of Jews had penetrated into their ranks a whole crop of literary efforts directed against Jews and secret societies marked the decade. Eckert with his work on Freemasonry in 1852 had given the incentive; Crétineau Joly [the Jesuit historian Jacques Crétineau-Joly, no known relation to Maurice Joly] followed in 1859 with L'Eglise Romaine en face de la Révolution [The Roman Church in front of the revolution], reproducing the documents of the Haute Vente Romaine [a secret society from 1814 through 1848]; in 1868 came the book of the German anti-Semite Goedsche [which in a fictional novel also supposedly plagiarized Joly and was compared to the Protocols], and in the following year on a higher plane the work of Gougenot Des Mousseaux, Le Juif, le Judaïsme, et la Judaïsation des Peuples Chrétiens [The Jew, Judaism and the Judaization of Christian Peoples]. Meanwhile in 1860 the Alliance Israëlite Universelle had arisen, having for its ultimate object “the great work of humanity, the annihilation of error and fanaticism, the union of human society in a faithful and solid fraternity” - a formula singularly reminiscent of Grand Orient philosophy; in 1864 Karl Marx obtained control of the two-year-old "International Working Men's Association," by which a number of secret societies became absorbed, and in the same year Bakunin founded his Alliance Sociale Démocratique on the exact lines of Weishaupt's Illuminism, and in 1869 wrote his Polémique contre les Juifs (or Etude sur les Juifs allemands) [Polemic against the Jews (or Study on German Jews)] mainly directed against the Jews of the Internationale. The sixties of the last century therefore mark an important era in the history of the secret societies, and it was right in the middle of this period that Maurice Joly published his book.

[The Jewish Virtual Library says of the Alliance Israëlite Universelle that it was the “first modern international Jewish organization, founded in 1860, centered in Paris. The foundation of the Alliance expressed the renewal of Jewish cohesiveness after a short period of weakening in the second half of the 18th and up to the forties of the 19th century. Its inception was stimulated by ideological trends and political events in the national and international spheres in the second half of the 19th century.”]

Now it will be remembered that amongst the sets of parallels to the Protocols quoted by me in World Revolution [we will hopefully discuss these in the near future], two were taken from the sources above quoted - the documents of the Haute Vente Romaine and the programme of Bakunin's secret society, the Alliance Sociale Démocratique. Meanwhile Mr. Lucien Wolf had found another parallel to the Protocols in Goedsche's book. “The Protocols,” Mr. Wolf had no hesitation in asserting, “are, in short, an amplified imitation of Goedsche's handiwork” [Spectator for June 12, 1920] and he went on to show that "Nilus followed this pamphlet very closely." The Protocols were then declared by Mr. Wolf and his friends to have been completely and finally refuted.

But alas for Mr. Wolfe's discernment! The Times articles came and abolished the whole of his carefully constructed theory. They did not, however, demolish mine; on the contrary, they supplied another and a very curious link in the chain of evidence. For is it not remarkable that one of the sets of parallels quoted by me appeared in the same year as Joly's book, and that within the space of nine years no less than four parallels to the Protocols should have been discovered? Let us recapitulate the events of this decade in the form of a table and the proximity of dates will then be more apparent:


Crétineau Joly's book published containing documents of Haute Vente Romaine (parallels quoted by me).


Alliance Israëlite Universelle founded.


1st Internationale taken over by Karl Marx.


Alliance Sociale Démocratique of Bakunin founded (parallels quoted by me).


Maurice Joly's Dialogue aux Enfers published (parallels quoted by Times).


1st Congress of Internationale at Geneva.


Goedsche's Biarritz (parallels quoted by Mr. Lucien Wolf).


Gougenot Des Mousseaux's Le Juif, etc.


Bakunin's Polémique contre les Juifs.

It will be seen, then, that at the moment when Maurice Joly wrote his Dialogues, the ideas they embodied were current in many different circles. It is interesting, moreover, to notice that the authors of the last two works referred to above, the Catholic and Royalist Des Mousseaux and the Anarchist Bakunin, between whom it is impossible to imagine any connexion, both in the same year denounced the growing power of the Jews whom Bakunin described as “the most formidable sect” in Europe, and again asserted that a leakage of information had taken place in the secret societies. Thus in 1870 Bakunin explains that his secret society has been broken up because its secrets have been given away, [James Guillaume, Documents de l'Internationale, I. 131.] and that his colleague [Serge] Netchaïeff has arrived at the conclusion that “in order to found a serious and indestructible society one must take for a basis the policy of Machiavelli.” [Correspondance de Bakounine, published by Michael Dragomanov, p. 325.] Meanwhile Gougenot Des Mousseaux had related in Le Juif [The Jew, Judaism and the Judaization of Christian Peoples], that in December 1865 he had received a letter from a German statesman saying:

Since the revolutionary recrudescence of 1848, I have had relations with a Jew who, from vanity, betrayed the secret of the secret societies with which he had been associated, and who warned me eight or ten days beforehand of all the revolutions which were about to break out at any point of Europe. I owe to him the unshakeable conviction that all these movements of "oppressed peoples," etc., etc., are devised by half a dozen individuals, who give their orders to the secret societies of all Europe. The ground is absolutely mined beneath our feet, and the Jews provide a large contingent of these miners…. [Le Juif, etc., pp. 367, 368.]

These words were written in the year after the Dialogues aux Enfers were published.

It is further important to notice that Joly's work is dated from Geneva, the meeting-place for all the revolutionaries of Europe, including Bakunin, who was there in the same year, and where the first Congress of the Internationale led by Karl Marx was held two years later. Already the revolutionary camp was divided into warring factions, and the rivalry between Marx and Mazzini had been superseded by the struggle between Marx and Bakunin. And all these men were members of secret societies. It is by no means improbable then that Joly, himself a revolutionary, should during his stay in Geneva have come into touch with the members of some secret organization, who may have betrayed to him their own secret or those of a rival organization they had reason to suspect of working under the cover of revolutionary doctrines for an ulterior end. Thus the protocols of a secret society modelled on the lines of the Illuminati or the Haute Vente Romaine may have passed into his hands and been utilized by him as an attack on Napoleon who, owing to his known connexion with the Carbonari [the word means charcoal burners, they were a group of secret revolutionary societies founded in Italy], might have appeared to Joly as the chief exponent of the Machiavellian art of duping the people and using them as the lever to power which the secret societies had reduced to a system.

This would explain Maurice Joly's mysterious reference to the "political system which has not varied for a single day in its application since the disastrous and alas! too far-off date of its enthronement." Moreover, it would explain the resemblance between all the parallels to the Protocols from the writings of the Illuminati and Mirabeau's Projet de Révolution of 1789 onwards. For if the system had never varied, the code on which it was founded must have remained substantially the same. Further, if it had never varied up to the time when Joly wrote, why should it have varied since that date? The rules of lawn tennis drawn up in 1880 would probably bear a strong resemblance to those of 1920, and would also probably follow each other in the same sequence. The differences would occur where modern improvements had been added.

Might not the same process of evolution have taken place between the dates at which the works of Joly and Nilus were published? I do not agree with the opinion of the Morning Post that "the author of the Protocols must have had the Dialogues of Joly before him." It is possible, but not proven. Indeed, I find it difficult to imagine that anyone embarking on such an elaborate imposture should not have possessed the wit to avoid quoting passages verbatim - without even troubling to arrange them in a different sequence - from a book which might at any moment be produced as evidence against him. For contrary to the assertions of the Times the Dialogues of Joly is by no means a rare book, not only was it to be found at the British Museum but at the London Library and recently I [Nesta Webster] was able to buy a copy for the modest sum of 15 francs. There was therefore every possibility of Nilus being suddenly confronted with the source of his plagiarism. Further, is it conceivable that a plagiarist so unskilful and so unimaginative would have been capable of improving on the original? For the Protocols are a vast improvement on the Dialogues of Joly. The most striking passages they contain are not to be found in the earlier work, nor, which is more remarkable, are several of the amazing prophecies concerning the future which time has realized. It is this latter fact which presents the most insuperable obstacle to the Times solution of the problem.

To sum up then, the Protocols are either a mere plagiarism of Maurice Joly's work, in which case the prophetic passages added by Nilus or another remain unexplained, or they are a revised edition of the plan communicated to Joly in 1864, brought up to date and supplemented so as to suit modern conditions by the continuers of the plot.

Whether in this case the authors of the Protocols were Jews or whether the Jewish portions have been interpolated by the people into whose hands they fell is another question. Here we must admit the absence of any direct evidence. An International circle of world revolutionaries working on the lines of the Illuminati, of which the existence has already been indicated, offers a perfectly possible alternative to the "Learned Elders of Zion." It would be easier, however to absolve the Jews from all suspicion of complicity if they and their friends had adopted a more straightforward course from the time the Protocols appeared. When some years ago a work of the same kind was directed against the Jesuits, containing what purported to be a "Secret Plan” of revolution closely resembling the Protocols, the Jesuits indulged in no invectives, made no appeal that the book should be burnt by the common hangman, resorted to no fantastic explanations, but quietly pronounced the charge to be a fabrication. Thus the matter ended. [Revolution and War or Britain's Peril and her Secret Foes, by Vigilant (1913). A great portion of this book exposing the subtle propaganda of Socialism and Pacifism is admirable; it is only where the author attempts to lay all this to the charge of the Jesuits that he entirely fails to substantiate his case.]

But from the moment the Protocols were published the Jews and their friends had recourse to every tortuous method of defence, brought pressure to bear on the publishers - succeeded, in fact, in temporarily stopping the sales - appealed to the Home Secretary to order their suppression, concocted one clinching refutation after another, all mutually exclusive of each other, so that by the time the solution now pronounced to be the correct one appeared, we had already been assured half a dozen times that the Protocols had been completely and finally refuted. And when at last a really plausible explanation had been discovered, why was it not presented in a convincing manner? All that was necessary was to state that the origin of the Protocols had been found in the work of Maurice Joly, giving parallels in support of this assertion. What need to envelop a good case in a web of obvious romance? Why all this parade of confidential sources of information, the pretence that Joly's book was so rare as to be almost unfindable when a search in the libraries would have proved the contrary? Why these allusions to Constantinople as the place "to find the key to dark secrets," to the mysterious Mr. X. who does not wish his real name to be known, and to the anonymous ex-officer of the Okhrana from whom by mere chance he bought the very copy of the Dialogues used for the fabrication of the Protocols by the Okhrana itself, although this fact was unknown to the officer in question? Why, further, should Mr. X., if he were a Russian landowner, Orthodox by religion and a Constitutional Monarchist, be so anxious to discredit his fellow Monarchists by making the outrageous assertion that “the only occult Masonic organization such as the Protocols speak of” - that is to say, a Machiavellian system of an abominable kind - which he had been able to discover in Southern Russia “was a Monarchist one”?

It is evident then that the complete story of the Protocols has not yet been told, and that much yet remains to be discovered concerning this mysterious affair.

In Part 1 of this series we had said in response to the London Times articles by Graves, that “The truth is just as likely that Joly, a lawyer who worked in the French Ministry of State in Paris for over ten years, knew what was circulating among high-level Masons and Jews in France, and in turn borrowed from it for his book, which was actually a satire against the political ambitions of Napoleon III. Joly, who was found dead in 1878 at the age of 49, is found to have also plagiarized other earlier works of literature.” Nesta Webster has certainly more than corroborated our position.

Webster did very well here, in our opinion at least. We will hear more from her on this topic soon. However she is always hesitant to express the Jewish problem. The truth is, that the secret societies did have plenty of Aryan members with internationalist aspirations. However the Jews have always been the leading internationalists, and it has too often been a share of Jewish money or power that those Aryan sellouts were after. The Jews created internationalism, and sought out Aryans whom they could corrupt to get their way. The Jews used the secret societies for the advancement of that agenda, as they continue using them today. The proof, however, always lies in the results.

Philip Graves Aug 16 1921.pdf — Downloaded 683 times
Philip Graves Aug 17 1921.pdf — Downloaded 596 times
Philip Graves Aug 18 1921.pdf — Downloaded 585 times