The Protocols of Satan, Part 30: Off With the Heads

  • Christogenea Saturdays
ChrSat20170520-Protocols_of_Satan_30.mp3 — Downloaded 2759 times


The Protocols of Satan, Part 30: Off With the Heads

Our last installment in these Protocols of Satan was subtitled Constitutional Vanity, and we endeavored to show that regardless of the imagined soundness of the document, that the United States Constitution was destined to be undermined on the part of private and commercial interests. One of the basic purposes of the document in the first place was to ensure that such private commercial interests would have free reign to operate in every State, and some of the most significant acts of early Presidents were in defense of private commercial interests at the general public expense.

One important point we hope to have made in our last presentation, was in relation to the statement in the Protocols that the rights of the people were fictitious, and that is indeed the case here in America as well as in Europe. When the Bill of Rights was introduced, it was not a part of the original Constitution. Rather, it was only amended to the Constitution by the first Congress. What Congress gives, Congress can ultimately take away, and our perceived rights have been successfully limited by Congress at diverse times, so they are not really rights at all. Rather than having been an after-thought approved by the Congress, such rights at the very least should have been an intrinsic part of the original document which created the Congress. The difference may seem trivial, but it is actually quite important.

In the conclusion of our last discussion, we presented a story from former U.S. Congressman and Tennessee war hero Davy Crockett, which showed the general attitudes of his own fellow politicians which had undermined many Constitutional principles, and how their attitudes contrasted to the steadfast understanding of one particular Southern farmer, Horatio Bunce. We thought the story was a perfect example of how the Constitution, which is basically a contract for trade and mutual defense between various States, utterly failed to preserve liberty to the people, and instead even helped to sell them into debt servitude.

In any event, the American Revolution differed from the contemporary and later revolutions of Europe in one key aspect: there was no class warfare among those who participated. The poor did not attack the wealthy, and property rights were generally respected among all classes. Neither did it seek to overthrow the religious order of the people. Even though it upheld some of the ideals of Liberalism, the French Revolution was far more nefarious in its purpose. That shall be our topic of discussion here this evening.

Here, without further delay, we shall once again read that latest portion from Protocol No. 3 from the text of Boris Brasol’s publication of The Protocols and World Revolution:

Protocol No. 3:

Under our guidance the people have exterminated aristocracy, which was their natural protector and guardian, for its own interests are inseparably connected with the well-being of the people. Now, however, with the destruction of this aristocracy the masses have fallen under the power of the profiteers and cunning upstarts, who have settled on the workers as a merciless burden.

We did not see this in the American Revolution. Although there was a more discreet endeavor to eliminate the titles and privileges of the aristocracy, the aristocrats themselves were left unharmed. But if we had to choose a starting-point revealing the truth of this boast in the Protocols, it would have to be even earlier, in 17th century England. We read the following concerning Cromwell and the Jews from The Nameless War by Captain A. H. M. Ramsay. To this point in his account of the Jews in England he had been quoting from Disraeli, and then complains that even Disraeli was not revealing enough of the Jewish hand manipulating the English politics of the period, so he resorted to other Jewish sources and says:

To do so we must turn to such other works as the Jewish Encyclopedia, Sombart's work, The Jews and Modern Capitalism, and others. From these we learn that Cromwell, the chief figure of the revolution, was in close contact with the powerful Jew financiers in Holland; and was in fact paid large sums of money by Manasseh Ben Israel; whilst Fernandez Carvajal, "The Great Jew" as he was called, was the chief contractor of the New Model Army.

In The Jews in England we read:- "1643 brought a large contingent of Jews to England, their rallying point was the house of the Portuguese Ambassador De Souza, a Marano (secret Jew). Prominent among them was Fernandez Carvajal, a great financier and army contractor."

In January of the previous year, the attempted arrest of the five members had set in violent motion the armed gangs of "Operatives" already mentioned, from the city. Revolutionary pamphlets were broadcasted on this occasion, as Disraeli tells us: "Bearing the ominous insurrectionary cry of 'To your tents, O Israel'." Shortly after this the King and the Royal Family left the Palace of Whitehall. The five members with armed mobs and banners accompanying them, were given a triumphal return to Westminster. The stage was now set for the advent of Carvajal and his Jews and the rise of their creature Cromwell.

Unfortunately, Ramsay also blindly accepted the misidentification of the Jews with ancient Israel. Then Captain Ramsay presents the contents of two letters which he reports were preserved in a German book, between Oliver Cromwell and a Jew named Ebenezer Perez:

16th June, 1647. From O.C. (i.e. Oliver Cromwell), by Ebenezer Pratt.

In return for financial support will advocate admission of Jews to England: This however impossible while Charles living.

Charles cannot be executed without trial, adequate grounds for which do not at present exist. Therefore advise that Charles be assassinated, but will have nothing to do with arrangements for procuring an assassin, though willing to help in his escape.

In reply was dispatched the following:-

12th July, 1647. To O.C. by E. Pratt.

Will grant financial aid as soon as Charles removed and Jews admitted. Assassination too dangerous. Charles shall be given opportunity to escape: His recapture will make trial and execution possible. The support will be liberal, but useless to discuss terms until trial commences."

The English Revolution and the fate of King Charles I would seemingly be a type, or warning, for what was to come to Europe in the centuries to come. When we examine the French and Bolshevik revolutions, a clear pattern develops: whenever the Jews come to power, the heads begin to roll. From the patterns of history, we should know who the culprits are, because they have worked from basically the same playbook over and again. No good cook would want to spoil a successful recipe.

While the following comments are rather late for this boast of the Protocols, on page 114 of his book The Protocols and World Revolution, Boris Brasol gives two citations which reflect this attitude of the Protocols in Communist jewish literature. The first is the Red Gazette, issue of August 31, 1918, No . 159., Published by the Petrograd Soviet of the Workmens’ & Soldiers’ Deputies, which was presided over by the Jew Apfelbaum, who was going by the name Zinoviev. It said “The interests of the revolution require the physical annihilation of the bourgeois class. It is time for us to start.” The second is from a statement by Leon Trotzky, made at the International Communist Congress in Moscow in March, 1919. It was quoted by the New York Evening Sun for its issue of March 18, 1919, and he is recorded as having said “Blood and mercilessness must be our slogans.”

We will discuss how these sentiments were put into effect in Bolshevik Russia shortly, however first we will discuss how this same thing had happened during the much earlier French Revolution, and even though it is difficult to pin the blame directly onto the Jews, it can be attributed to the secret societies, and especially the Jacobins, through which the Jews had been operating, and it also came in company with both the emancipation of the Jews in France and the attempted imposition of a virtually godless society for which the Jews have striven everywhere ever since their emancipation.

It is difficult to reckon just where to start when considering the French Revolution in comparison to the English, and then the Bolshevik and the objectives of the Protocols. The Jews had their grip on England, and they would have it on France as well, even though it was not nearly as easy to take over a Roman Catholic nation than it had been to deceive the Puritans.

In 1787 there was an Edict of Toleration issued on behalf of Calvinists, but it was not the first, which had been issued by Henry IV in 1598, but that was revoked by Louis XIV in 1685. Louis XIV had “prohibited in all of the lands and territories under his authority the public exercise of any religion other than the Catholic religion, [with] the hope of bringing around his people to the desirable unity of the same worship...” So Calvinists as well as other Protestants practised their faith privately, while Jews had a different set of privileges. In 1787 Calvinists alone were granted civil rights, including the right to practice their religion, but still had no political rights. However this was only the beginning of agitation.

Quoting from an article found at the section on the French Revolution at the Center for History and New Media which seems to have been based on material from The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History, translated, edited, and with an introduction by Lynn Hunt:

In 1789, 40,000 Jews lived in France, most of them in the eastern provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. In some respects, they were better treated than Calvinists under the laws of the monarchy; Jews could legally practice their religion, though their other activities were severely restricted. They had no civil or political rights, except the right to be judged by their own separate courts, and they faced pervasive local prejudice. The major Jewish communities – in the city of Bordeaux in the southwest and the regions of Alsace and Lorraine in the east – essentially constituted separate “nations” within the French nation (and nations separate from each other since their status differed in many ways). In 1787 and 1788 the Royal Society of Arts and Sciences of the city of Metz in eastern France set up an essay competition on the question, "Are there means for making the Jews happier and more useful in France?" Its 2,000 Jews gave Metz the single largest Jewish population in the east. Among the three winners declared in 1788 was Zalkind–Hourwitz (1738–1812), a Polish Jew….

We are not going to present Zalkind–Hourwitz’s insipid list of ways to make the Jews happy and useful, but it was basically an appeal to give Jews equal rights as citizens, and contained a list of excuses as to why the Jews should have political and civic rights in France. It is only notable that such an endeavor would be initiated in a chapter of the Royal Society of Arts and Sciences. In our series of presentations on the Jews in Medieval Europe, we had hoped to establish that the academies of science in Britain and in France had their origins in the lodges of Speculative Freemasonry and shared a common fascination with the Jewish Kaballah that many early alchemists and astronomers throughout Europe had also shared. The Kaballah was the avenue by which Jews eventually controlled both the lodges of Speculative Freemasonry and the science academies that evolved from them.

Another article at the Center for History and New Media is titled “Petition of the Jews of Paris, Alsace and Lorraine to the National Assembly”, made on January 28th, 1790. it says in part that “When the Jews of Paris and the eastern provinces presented their case to the National Assembly, they leaned heavily on the precedent of granting full rights to the Protestants and on the language of human rights philosophy. They insisted that the Jews should be treated no differently from anyone else and refuted one by one all the customary prejudicial arguments used against the Jews… Their petition shows the power of the language of rights: “All men of whatever religion . . . should all equally have the title and the rights of citizen.” Despite the pleas of the Jews, the assembly held off on granting them full political rights until September 1791.

On September 27th, 1791, there was a proposed motion titled “Admission of Jews to Rights of Citizenship”. A third article from our same source tells us that “After several tumultuous discussions about the Jewish communities still excluded from political rights, the National Assembly finally voted to regularize the situation of all the different Jewish communities on 27 September 1791. Adrien Jean François Duport (1759–98), a deputy of the nobility of Paris, proposed the motion. The deputies shouted down those who attempted to speak against it, and it quickly passed. A subsequent amendment indicated that swearing the civic oath implied a renunciation of previous Jewish privileges, that is, the right to an autonomous community ruled by its own members according to its own customs. The law required Jews to be individuals just like everyone else in France.”

Here is a translation of Duport’s motion:

I have one very short observation to make to the Assembly, which appears to be of the highest importance and which demands all its attention. You have regulated by the Constitution, Sirs, the qualities deemed necessary to become a French citizen, and an active citizen: that sufficed, I believe, to regulate all the incidental questions that could have been raised in the Assembly relative to certain professions, to certain persons. But there is a decree of adjournment that seems to strike a blow at these general rights: I speak of the Jews. To decide the question that concerns them, it suffices to lift the decree of adjournment that you have rendered and which seems to suspend the question in their regard. Thus, if you had not rendered a decree of adjournment on the question of the Jews, it would not have been necessary to do anything; for, having declared by your Constitution how all peoples of the earth could become French citizens and how all French citizens could become active citizens, there would have been no difficulty on this subject.

I ask therefore that the decree of adjournment be revoked and that it be declared relative to the Jews that they will be able to become active citizens, like all the peoples of the world, by fulfilling the conditions prescribed by the Constitution. I believe that freedom of worship no longer permits any distinction to be made between the political rights of citizens on the basis of their beliefs and I believe equally that the Jews cannot be the only exceptions to the enjoyment of these rights, when pagans, Turks, Muslims, Chinese even, men of all the sects, in short, are admitted to these rights.

Adrien Jean François Duport was a Jacobin and a Freemason. Here we see that he also had no care for the racial integrity of France, but advocated a France open to people of all religions and all races, and from that perspective he argued on behalf of the Jew. We lament France today, but the wicked ideals that have destroyed it have been operating there for a long time. According to Wikipedia, he was also a follower of mesmerism, and a Freemason initiated into the Lodge of the Friends in Paris. Here is a brief biography from the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica:

DUPORT, ADRIEN (1759-1798), French politician, was born in Paris. He became an influential advocate in the parliament, becoming prominent in opposition to the ministers Calonne and Loménie de Brienne. Elected in 1789 to the states-general by the noblesse of Paris, he soon revealed a remarkable eloquence. A learned jurist, he contributed during the Constituent Assembly to the organization of the judiciary of France. His report of the 29th of March 1790 is especially notable. In it he advocated trial by jury; but he was unable to obtain the jury system in civil cases. Duport had formed with Barnave and Alexandre de Lameth a group known as the “triumvirate,” which was popular at first. But after the flight of the king to Varennes, Duport sought to defend him; as member of the commission charged to question the king, he tried to excuse him, and on the 14th of July 1791 he opposed the formal accusation. He was thus led to separate himself from the Jacobins and to join the Feuillant party. After the Constituent Assembly he became president of the criminal tribunal of Paris, but was arrested during the insurrection of the 10th of August 1792. He escaped, thanks probably to the complicity of Danton, returned to France after the 9th of Thermidor of the year II., left it in exile again after the republican coup d’état of the 18th of Fructidor of the year V., and died at Appenzell in Switzerland in 1798.

A more recent Encyclopedia Britannica article gives a more radical view of Duport’s term in the legislature as this motion for the emancipation of the Jews was proposed, where it says in part: “Duport was elected for the nobility to the Estates-General of 1789. On June 25 he and 46 other representatives of the nobility joined the unprivileged Third Estate, which had already declared itself a revolutionary National Assembly. As one of the Assembly’s most brilliant lawyers, Duport played a major role in creating the judicial machinery that supplanted the legal system of the ancien régime.”

So it is important to note that the man who proposed the motion for the emancipation of the Jews in France, and whose party violently ensured its passage, was a Freemason and a Jacobin, of the party of Robespierre. Here we will present a segment of Nesta Webster’s World Revolution, the Plot Against Civilisation. While she does not mention the Jews in this section, and she does not mention Duport at all, she nevertheless explains the Jacobin role in the Revolution, the Reign of Terror, and shows their connections to the infamous Illuminati. But her excellent portrayal of Robespierre as a State Socialist, as a proto-Marxist years before Marx, and therefore the revelation that he had the same objectives that the Marxists and Bolsheviks carried everywhere after the Jews had finally gained their political rights, is the most significant indication of the identity of the true instigators of the revolution in France.

Beginning from page 36 in Chapter 2 of Nesta Webster’s book:

It was not, however, until after the overthrow of the monarchy on the 10th of August that the work of demolition began on the vast scale planned by Weishaupt. From this moment the rôle of Illuminism can be clearly traced through the succeeding phases of the Revolution, Thus it is from the 10th of August onwards that we find the tri-colour, banner of the usurper, replaced by the red flag of the social revolution, whilst the cry of “Vive notre roi d'Orleans!” (“Long live our King of Orleans”) gives way to the masonic watchword “Liberty Equality, Fraternity!” During the massacres in the prisons that followed in September the assassins were observed to make masonic signs to the victims and to spare those who knew how to reply. Amongst those not spared was the Abbé Lefranc, who had published a pamphlet unveiling the designs of Freemasonry at the beginning of the Revolution.

The proclamation issued by the Convention in December summoning the proletariats of Europe to rise in revolt against all ordered government was the first trumpet-call to World Revolution, and it was the failure to respond to this appeal that forced the Jacobins into a “national” attitude they had never intended to assume.

In November 1793 the campaign against religion, inaugurated by the massacre of the priests in September 1792 was carried out all over France. In the cemeteries the cherished motto of the Illuminati, “Death is an eternal sleep,” was posted up by order of the Illuminatus “Anaxagoras” Chaumette. The Feasts of Reason celebrated in the churches of Paris were the mere corollary to Weishaupt's teaching that “Reason should be the only code of Man”; and Robison states that the actual ceremonies which took place, when women of easy morals were enthroned as goddesses, were modelled on Weishaupt’s plan of an “Eroterion” or festival in honour of the god of Love. 1

[1 The idea seems to have been long current in Germany. “In 1751 an impious work, dedicated to Frederick II. (the Great), published as a frontispiece the scene of the adoration of a prostitute which was destined to be realised on the 20th of Brumaire 1793 on the altar of Notre Dame of Paris” (Deschamps, Les Sociétés secrètes, ii. 98, quoting Der Götze Der Humanität: Oder, Das Positive Der Freimaurerei [The Idol Of Humanity: Or, The Positive Of Freemasonry], Freiburg Herder, 1875, pp. 75-80).]

When Nesta Webster mentioned Anaxagoras Chaumette, she put his first name in quotations. When we discussed the early life of Martin Luther here some months ago, one aspect among the humanists of Luther’s time which we noted was that they despised their German names, and adopted Latin or Greek names instead. They were all very immoral men, who adopted every licentious practice they could find in Classical literature, using the literature to justify every perversion. It is no surprise to see the same calibre of men among the French revolutionaries.

Continuing with Webster from page 37, first we must note that where Weishaupt speaks of “the mercantile tribe”, in reference to France it can only be to a class of people, and not to Jews alone. There hardly seem to have been sufficient Jews in France at this time for them to have comprised the entire class of merchants:

It was likewise to Weishaupt's declamations against “the mercantile tribe” that the devastation of the manufacturing towns of France and the ruin of her merchants can be traced, whilst the campaign against education formed a further part of the scheme for destroying civilization. The Terrorists in burning down the libraries and guillotining Lavoisier, on the plea that “the Republic has no need of chemists,” were simply putting into practice Weishaupt's theory that the sciences were “children of necessity, the complicated needs of a state contrary to Nature, the inventions of vain and empty brains.” [Antoine Laurent de Lavoisier was a French nobleman and chemist. He was executed on May 8th, 1794.] “The system of persecution against men of talents was organized,” a contemporary declared – organized, as was the whole system of the Terror, by the Illuminati and carried out by men who had accepted the guiding principle of the sect. For it was Weishaupt's favourite maxim, “The end justifies the means,” that we find again in the mouths of the Jacobins under the form of “Tout est permis à quiconque agit dans le sens de la Révolution.” (“Everything is permitted to anyone who acts in the direction of the Revolution.”) The Reign of Terror was the logical outcome of this premise.

But this does not imply that all the Terrorists were Illuminati, that is to say, conscious adepts of Weishaupt. It is true that, as we have seen, all were Freemasons at the beginning of the Revolution, but it is probable that few were initiated into the inner mysteries of the Order. The art of Illuminism lay in enlisting dupes as well as adepts, and by encouraging the dreams of honest visionaries or the schemes of fanatics, by flattering the vanity of ambitious egoists, by working on unbalanced brains, or by playing on such passions as greed of gold or power, to make men of totally divergent aims serve the secret purpose of the sect. Indeed, amongst all the revolutionary leaders one man alone stands out as a pure Illuminatus – the Prussian Baron, Anacharsis Clootz.

In the utterances of Clootz we find the doctrines of Weishaupt expressed with absolute fidelity. Thus in his République Universelle the scheme of Weishaupt for welding the whole human race into “one good and happy family” is set forth at length: “One common interest! One mind! one Nation!” cries Anacharsis. “Do you wish,” he asks again, “to exterminate all tyrants at a blow? Declare then authentically that sovereignty consists in the common patriotism and solidarity of the totality of men, of the one and only nation…. The Universe will form one State, the State of united individuals, the immutable empire of the great Germany – the Universal Republic.” Or again: “When the Tower of London falls like the tower of Paris it will be all over with tyrants. All the people forming only one nation, all the trades forming only one trade, all interests forming only one interest,” etc. It was Clootz, moreover, who played the most active part in the campaign against religion. Was it not he who had invented the word to “septemberize,” regretting that they had not “septemberized” more priests in the prisons, and who openly declared himself the personal enemy of Jesus Christ”? The fact that he never revealed himself to be an Illuminatus and never referred to Weishaupt was in strict accordance with the rule of the Order, which we shall find adhered to by every adept in turn. “The Illuminati,” Professor Renner had declared before the Bavarian Court of Inquiry, “fear nothing so much as being recognized under this name,” and frightful punishment was attached to the betrayal of the secret. It is thus that historians, unaware of the sources whence Clootz drew his theories, or anxious to conceal the rôle of Illuminism in the revolutionary movement, describe him as an amiable eccentric of no importance. In reality Clootz was one of the most important figures of the whole Revolution if viewed from the modern standpoint, for it was he alone of all his day who embodied the spirit of anti-patriotism and Internationalism which, defeated in France of 1793, finally secured triumph on the ruins of the Russian Empire of 1917.

It was Clootz's Internationalism that ended by antagonizing Robespierre. When at the Jacobin Club the Prussian Baron declared that “his heart was French and sans-culotte” (without breeches, meaning common or lower-class) but at the same time proposed that as soon as “the French army came in sight of the Austrian and Prussian soldiers they should, instead of attacking the enemy, throw down their own arms and advance towards them dancing in a friendly manner,” [France in 1802, Letters of Henry Redhead Yorke, p. 72] Robespierre, “who was not without a certain penetration in his hatreds… acidly apostrophized him, saying that he distrusted all these foreigners who pretended to be more patriotic than the French themselves, that he suspected the good faith of a so-called sans-culotte who had an income of 100,000 livres,” [Biographie Michaud, article “Clootz”] and he ended by sending Clootz and his fellow-atheists Hébert, Chaumette, Ronsin, and Vincent to the scaffold.

Was Robespierre then not an Illuminatus? He was a Freemason, and Prince Kropotkine definitely states that he belonged to one of the lodges of the Illuminati founded by Weishaupt. But contemporaries declare that he had not been fully initiated and acted as the tool rather than as the agent of the conspiracy. Moreover, Robespierre was the disciple not only of Weishaupt but of Rousseau, and under the inspiration of the Contrat Social (Rousseau ‘s Social Contract) had elaborated a scheme of his own which held none of the aimless destructiveness of the Illuminati. Thus Robespierre clearly recognized the necessity for the vast social revolution indicated by Weishaupt; but whilst Weishaupt fixed his eye on the explosion and “smiled at the thought of universal conflagration,” Robespierre regarded anarchy simply as a means to an end – the reconstruction of society according to the plan he had evolved with the co-operation of [Louis Antoine Léon de] Saint-Just, which was simply an embryonic form of the system known later as State Socialism.

This statement will of course be challenged by Socialists, who have always – for reasons I shall show later – denied the Robespierrean origin of their doctrines. It is true of course that the word Socialism was not invented until some forty years later, but it would be absurd by means of such a quibble to disassociate Socialism from its earliest exponents. M. Aulard is no doubt perfectly right in saying that Robespierre's Declaration of the Rights of Man contains “all the essentials of French Socialism founded on the principles of 1789 and such as Louis Blanc popularized in 1848. It is for having proposed these Socialistic articles, it is for having proposed this charter for Socialism, and not for having vaguely declaimed against the rich and sounded the praises of mediocrity, that Robespierre after his death, as much in our own century as in the time of Babeuf, became the prophet of many of those amongst us who dreamt of a social renovation, and he remained so until the period when German influence made French Socialists temporarily forget the French origins of their doctrines.” [Aulard, Histoire politique de la Révolution Française (Political History of the French Revolution), iv. 47; see also Aulard, Etudes et leçons sur la Révolution Française (Studies and lessons on the French Revolution), ii. 51.]

Robespierre may indeed, in the language of Socialism, be described as more “advanced” than his French successors of the early nineteenth century, for he anticipated the Marxian theory of the class war, which was not again to find acceptance in France until adopted by the Guesdists and Syndicalists at the very end of the century. Robespierre's cherished maxim, “The rich man is the enemy of the sans-culotte” [Papiers trouvés chez Robespierre (Papers found by Robespierre), i. 15] contains the whole spirit of the class war. We have in fact only to transpose the phrases current in 1793 into their modern equivalents to recognize their identity with modern Socialistic formulas. Thus the magic phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” – of which it is doubtful whether any one understands the precise meaning – was expressed at that date by the words “Sovereignty of the People,” and formed the text of Robespierre's gospel. “The people,” he wrote, " must be the object of all political institutions.” [Discours et rapports de Robespierre (Speeches and Reports by Robespierre), edited by Charles Vellay, p. 8; see also p. 327.] All other classes of the community were to be entirely unrepresented or, preferably, not to be allowed to exist.

Even the theory of "wage slavery," later on proclaimed by Marx, was already current during the Reign of Terror, and on this point we have the evidence of a contemporary. “The plan of the Jacobins,” wrote the democrat Fantin Désodoards, “was to stir up the rich against the poor and the poor against the rich. To the latter they said: ‘You have made a few sacrifices in favour of the Revolution, but fear, not patriotism, was the motive.’ To the former they said: ‘The rich man has no bowels of compassion; under the pretext of feeding the poor by providing them with work he exercises over them a superiority contrary to the views of Nature and to Republican principles. Liberty will always be precarious as long as one part of the nation lives on wages from the other. In order to preserve its independence, it is necessary that every one should be rich or that every one should be poor.’” [Fantin Désodoards, Histoire philosophique de la Révolution Française (Philosophical History of the French Revolution), iv. 344.]

It will be seen then that the whole theory of the class war, and even the very phrases by which it was to be promoted, as also the necessity for abolishing the relationship of capital and labour, which is usually associated with Marx, were ideas that existed twenty-five years before his birth. We cannot doubt that it is to Robespierre and Saint-Just that they must be mainly attributed.

For my part I would doubt this, as they seem to be the pattern of the authors of the Protocols, in the eventual fulfillment of the objectives of the Talmud, and Robespierre was only their tool. He preached it, but did not necessarily originate it. Then he failed them with his own pride and vanity and temporarily derailed their plans for France. However when they made their next attempt at the same scheme, in Russia, they made certain that Jews were in command of the leading positions.

Later in her book, in a different context, Webster portrayed a better understanding of Clootz’s motives where she said:

“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.”

Continuing with Webster where we interrupted her on page 41 of her book:

Robespierre, as we know, definitely advocated the abolition of inheritance. “The property of a man,” he said, “must return after his death to the public domain of society”; and although he was known to declare that “equality of wealth is a chimera,” it was no doubt because he well knew that wealth can never be evenly distributed, and therefore that the only way to achieve equality is by the process known to-day as the nationalization of all wealth and property. “This,” says the editor of his discourses, Monsieur Charles Vellay, “is what the Revolution means to him – it is to lead to a sort of Communism, and it is here that he separates himself from his colleagues, that he isolates himself, and that resistance gathers around him.” In 1840 the Socialist Cabet, who had received the Robespierriste tradition direct from the contemporary Buonarotti, expressed the same opinion:

“All the proposals of the Comité de Salut Public (Committee of Public Safety) during the last five months, the opinions of Bodson and of Buonarotti – both initiated into the profound views of Robespierre, both his admirers, and both Communists, – give us the conviction that Robespierre and Saint-Just only blamed the untimely invocation of Community by declared atheists (i.e. Clootz, Hubert, etc.), and that they themselves marched towards Communism by paths they judged more suited to success.” [Histoire populaire de la Révolution Française (Popular History of the French Revolution), by Cabet (1840).]

Still more clinching evidence of Robespierre's real aim is, however, provided by the Communist Babeuf, who wrote these words in 1795: “He (Robespierre) thought that equality would only be a vain word as long as the owners of property were allowed to tyrannize over the great mass, and that in order to destroy their power and to take the mass of citizens out of their dependence there was no way but to place all property in the hands of the government.” [Sur le système de la dépopulation (On the System of Depopulation), p. 28.]

In the face of this statement how can any one deny that Robespierre was a State Socialist in precisely the sense in which we understand the term to-day? That the State was of course to be represented by Robespierre himself and his chosen associates it is needless to add, but what Communist or group of Communists have ever excluded the hypothesis of their own supremacy from their plan of a Socialist State? “L'Etat c'est nous” (“The State is us”) is the maxim of all such theorists.

On one point, however, Robespierre differed from most of the members of the same school of thought who came after him in that he showed himself a consistent Socialist, for he had the singleness of aim, aided by an entire want of moral scruples, to push his theories to their logical conclusion.

A Labour extremist in this country recently described the modern Bolsheviks as “Socialists with the courage of their opinions” and the same description might be applied to Robespierre and Saint-Just. Thus Robespierre did not talk hypocritically of “peaceful revolution”; he knew that revolution is never peaceful, that in its very essence it implies onslaught met with resistance, a resistance that can only be overcome by an absolute disregard for human life.” “I will walk willingly with my feet in blood and tears,” said his coadjutor Saint-Just; and this, whether he admits it or not, must be the maxim of every revolutionary Socialist who believes that any methods are justifiable for the attainment of his end.

The Reign of Terror was therefore not only the outcome of Illuminism but also the logical result of Socialistic doctrines. Thus, for example, the attacks on civilization carried out in the summer of 1793, the burning of the libraries and the destruction of treasures of art and literature, were all part of the scheme of Weishaupt, but they were also perfectly consistent with the Socialistic theory of the “sovereignty of the people.” For if one considers that in the least educated portion of the community all wisdom and all virtue reside, the only logical thing to do is to to burn the libraries and close down the schools. Of what avail is it to train the intellectual faculties of a child if manual labour alone is to be held honourable? Of what use to civilize him if in civilization is to be found the bane of mankind? It is idle in one breath to talk of the beauties of education and in the next to advocate the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and condemn all educated people as bourgeois. [Joseph de Maistre, Mélanges inédits (Unpublished Works) pp. 122, 124, 125, quoting contemporary documents.]

Of this strange contradiction the Jacobins of France, like the Bolsheviks of Russia, at first were guilty. Magnificent schemes were propounded to the Convention for “écoles normales,” (normal schools) “écoles centrales,” (central schools) etc.; regiments of professors were to be commandeered for the instruction of youth; but all these schemes came to nought, for by the end of 1794 public education was said to be non-existent, owing obviously to the fact that meanwhile the emissaries of the Comité de Salut Public (Committee of Public Safety) had busied themselves destroying books and pictures and persecuting all men of education.

This campaign against the bourgeoisie found its principle support in Robespierre. It was he who first sounded the call to arms which has since become the war-cry of the social revolution. “Internal dangers come from the bourgeois; in order to conquer the bourgeois we must rouse the people, we must procure arms for them and make them angry.” [Papiers trouvés chez Robespierre (Papers found by Robespierre), ii. 15.]

The natural consequence of this policy carried out against the mercantile bourgeoisie by the attacks on the manufacturing towns of France was of course to create vast unemployment. Already the destruction of the aristocracy had thrown numberless workers on the streets, so that by 1791 nearly all the hands that had ministered to the needs or caprices of the rich were idle, and thousands of hairdressers, gilders, bookbinders, tailors, embroiderers, and domestic servants wandered about Paris and collected in crowds “to debate on the misery of their situation.”

The situation must always arise, if the leisured classes are suddenly destroyed either by killing them off or by a ruthless conscription of capital. Socialists are fond of describing luxury workers as parasites; obviously then if one destroys the animal on which the parasite lives one must destroy the parasite too. It is possible that by a very slow and gradual redistribution of wealth luxury workers might be more or less absorbed into the essential trades, but even this is very doubtful. At any rate the attempt to abolish the luxury trades at a blow must inevitably lead to unemployment on a vast scale, for not only will the luxury workers themselves be idle, but, since all classes are interdependent, many of the workers in the essential trades who depend on them for a livelihood will be idle likewise. Any sudden dislocation of the industrial system must therefore mean national bankruptcy.

This is precisely what happened in France – as even Socialist writers admit. Malon in his Histoire du socialisme (History of Socialism) illustrates, by a picture of a scene in a Paris street, the situation described by Michelet in the words: “The Revolution was to open a career to the peasant but closed it to the workman. The first pricked up his ear at the decrees which placed the goods of the clergy on sale; the second, silent and sombre, dismissed from his workshop, wandered about all day with folded arms.” [Malon, Histoire du socialisme (History of Socialism), I. 267, 297.]

From here Nesta Webster elaborates in her description on the plight of the common people of France during the Reign of Terror, and we have already discussed at length how under the capitalist system the people were even more greatly enslaved than they had ever been under feudalism, however communism – setting itself as a savior, only reduces all people to the lowest common denominator, and in turn enslaves them to a new and common master, which is the State.

This description of Robespierre’s aims in the French Revolution follows the same exact pattern which unfolded over a hundred years later, during the Bolshevik Revolution, which was far more successful. Both Revolutions are summed up in the next paragraph of the Protocols:

Protocol No. 3:

We will present ourselves in the guise of saviors of the workers from this oppression when we suggest that they enter our army of Socialists, Anarchists, Communists, to whom we always extend our help, under the guise of the rule of brotherhood demanded by the human solidarity of our social masonry. The aristocracy which benefited by the labor of the people by right was interested that the workers should be well fed, healthy, and strong.

Here we have also seen that the same Jacobins who had advanced the Jewish emancipation were the people behind Robespierre, Saint-Just and their rise to power, and that they did not only promote equality, liberty and fraternity for all Frenchmen, but for all citizens of a universal one-world government. All of these things are objectives expressed by the authors of the Protocols, who boast of destroying all history and culture and replacing it with their own teachings of social studies and their so-called “program of the future”, as they boast in Protocol 16.

Another French Freemason was the physician, Dr. Joseph Ignace Guillotin. The device named for him had existed in Britain since the 14th century, however he introduced it to France just in time for the Reign of Terror. From an article titled Executions, the Guillotine and the French Revolution by someone named Michael R. Lynn, we read in part:

Joseph Guillotin, a medical doctor and member of the revolutionary National Assembly, championed the guillotine, proposing its use to the state in October 1789. The new guillotine was presented as a quick and rational means of execution, perhaps in answer to Enlightenment critics like Cesare Beccaria who had argued against torture and capital punishment in his book, On Crime and Punishment (1764).

The fear of beheading was always that the headsman might miss, thus requiring multiple swings of the ax before the deed was done. In fact, this fear had been so common that several centuries before Beccaria, Anne Boleyn, the second wife of England’s Henry VIII, had specifically requested that a French swordsman who was believed to be more skilled, perform her beheading. The guillotine purported to eliminate human error from the equation. It was also seen as egalitarian in that it could be used on nobles and commoners alike.

With the guillotine, death could now be nearly instantaneous, with considerably less pomp and circumstance. Executions by guillotine were certainly well attended, but they lacked some of the extended spectacle of earlier execution rituals. Now the executioner simply pulled a cord, the blade fell, and it was all over except, perhaps, for a display of the head to the crowd.

However, what the guillotine lacked in overall drama it certainly made up for in volume. During the period of the French Revolution, and especially during the Terror (1793-1794) when the state enacted martial law, use of the guillotine skyrocketed. Led by Maximillian Robespierre, the Committee on Public Safety enacted a series of decrees that established a system of Terror, enforced by the state, in an effort to root out counter-revolutionaries and save the new Republic from itself.

Under this system, at least 40,000 people were killed. As many as 300,000 Frenchmen and women (1 in 50 Frenchmen and women) were arrested during a ten month period between September 1793 and July 1794. Included in these numbers were, of course, the deaths of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. Although all social classes and professions were targeted, the death toll was especially high for both clergy and aristocrats. The numbers of those killed and taken into custody were probably even higher as the documented numbers don’t include people killed by vigilantes and other self-proclaimed representatives of the Republic.

Robespierre fittingly went to the guillotine himself in 1794. The figures here seem to be accurate, but not because the men dispensing the Reign of Terror had any great degree of restraint. Continuing a little further along with Nesta Webster, from page 46 of her book, after she discussed the failure of legislation to fix the French economy:

But towards the end of 1793 it became evident that there was no possibility of absorbing the residuum created, for the attacks on the manufacturing towns of France had dealt the final blow to trade and the Republic found itself faced by hundreds of thousands of working-men for whom it could not find employment. It was then that the Comité de Salut Public, anticipating the Malthusian theory, embarked on its fearful project – the system of depopulation.

That this plan really existed it is impossible to doubt in the face of overwhelming contemporary evidence. In The French Revolution (her own book on the subject) I quoted in this connection the testimony of no less than twenty-two witnesses – all revolutionaries [The French Revolution, pp. 426-428]; and since then I have found further corroboration of the fact in the letters of an Englishman, named Redhead Yorke, who travelled in France in 1802 and made particular inquiries on this question from the ally of Robespierre, the painter David:

“I asked him whether it was true that a project had been in contemplation to reduce the population of France to one-third of its present number. He answered that it had been seriously discussed and that Dubois Crancé [Edmond Louis Alexis Dubois-Crancé] was the author.”

In another passage Yorke states:

“Monsieur de la Métherie assured me that during the time of the Revolutionary Tribunals, it was in serious contemplation to reduce the population of France to 14,000,000. Dubois Crancé was a very distinguished and enthusiastic partisan of this humane and philosophical policy. [France in 1802, Letters of Redhead Yorke, edited by J.A.C. Sykes (Heinemann), 1906, pp. 102, 127.]

It will be noticed that there is here a discrepancy in the exact figures the population of France at that period being twenty-five millions, the proposal to reduce it to one-third was to bring it down to approximately eight millions. The difference then lies between the projects of reducing it by one-third or to one-third ,issues which Yorke evidently confused; but it was precisely on this point that the opinions of the Terrorists differed. Thus we are told that d’Antonelle of the Revolutionary Tribunal advocated the former and more moderate policy, but that a reduction to eight millions, that is to say to one-third, was the figure generally agreed on by the leaders.

The necessity for this lay not only in the fact that there was not even enough bread, money, or property to go round, but also, after the destruction of the aristocracy and bourgeoisie, not enough work.

“In the eyes of Maximilien Robespierre and his council,” says Babeuf “depopulation was indispensable because the calculation had been made that the French population was in excess of the resources of the soil and of the requirements of useful industry, that is to say, that with us men jostled each other too much for each to be able to live at ease; that hands were too numerous for the execution of all works of essential utility and this is the horrible conclusion, that since the superabundant population could only amount to so much... a portion of sans-culottes must be sacrificed that this rubbish could be cleared up to a certain quantity, and that means must be found for doing it.”

The system of the Terror was thus the answer to the problem of unemployment – unemployment brought about on a vast scale by the destruction of the luxury trades.

If the hecatombs [an old Greek word for the sacrifice of a hundred beasts] carried out all over France never reached the huge proportions planned by the leaders, it was not for want of what they described as “energy in the art of revolution.” Night and day the members of the Comité de Salut Public sat round the green-covered table in the Tuileries with the map of France spread out before them, pointing out towns and villages and calculating how many heads they must have in each department. Night and day the Revolutionary Tribunal passed on, without judgment, its never-ending stream of victims, whilst near by the indefatigable Fouquier [the French prosecutor Antoine Quentin Fouquier de Tinville] bent over his lists for the morrow, and in the provinces the proconsuls Carrier, Fréron, Collot d’Herbois, Lebon toiled unremittingly at the same Herculean task.

Compared to the results they had hoped to achieve, the mortality was insignificant; compared to the accounts given us by “the conspiracy of history” it was terrific. The popular conception of the Reign of Terror as a procession of powdered heads going to the guillotine seems strangely naive when we read the actual records of the period. Thus during the great Terror in Paris about 2800 victims perished, and out of these approximately 500 were of the aristocracy, 1000 of the bourgeoisie, and 1000 working-class. These estimates are not a surmise, since they can be proved by the actual register of the Revolutionary Tribunal published both by Campardon and Wallon, also by the contemporary Prudhomme, and they are accepted as accurate by the Robespierriste historian Louis Blanc. [Citing Prudhomme, Crimes de la Révolution Table VI and Louis Blanc, Histoire de la Révolution, xi. 155.]

According to Prudhomme the total number of victims drowned, guillotined, or shot all over France amounted to 300,000 and of this number the nobles sacrificed were an almost negligible quantity, only about 3000 in all. [Prudhomme, Crimes de la Révolution Table VI.]

At Nantes 500 children of the people were killed in one butchery, and according to an English contemporary 144 poor women who sewed shirts for the army were thrown into the river. [Playfair's History of Jacobinism, p. 789.]

Such was the period during which Carlyle dared to assure us that “The Twenty-Five Millions of France” had “never suffered less.”

But this frightful mortality was not the only dreadful ruin, misery, starvation were the feature of the Terror lot of all but the band of tyrants who had seized the reins of power, and this state of affairs continued long after the reign of Robespierre ended. The conception of France rising like a phoenix from that great welter of blood and horror is as mythical as the allegory from which it is taken and has existed only in the minds of posterity. Not a single contemporary who lived through the Revolution has ever pretended that it was anything but a ghastly failure. The conspiracy of history alone has created the myth.

The Jews in their control of media and popular perception created the myth of a wonderful French Revolution, which was indeed a ghastly failure, and the first holocaust of the so-called Age of Liberty. A hundred and twenty years later, in Russia, we see a repeat of the systematized terror, mass arrests, mass killings, prison massacres, the campaign against religion, the specific hatred for Christianity, the church closings and massacres of the priests, the attacks on Christian education, the use of food supplies as a weapon against the people, and the destruction of the bourgeoisie. Then, on the philosophical side of the Bolshevik Revolution, we see the imposition of a one-world humanist government, the eradication of racial distinctions and borders, rabid anti-patriotism and internationalism, economic collectivism and State Socialism.

There are other parallels between the French and Russian revolutions. The absolute monarch, King Louis XVI, was forced in 1791 to accept a Constitutional Monarchy and to share power with a legislature. A year later a Republic was declared, and the king was deposed and eventually he and his wife were executed. In Russia, a moderate provisional government replaced the monarchy, and seven months later that in turn was replaced with violence by the Bolsheviks. Executions of the king, his family, and the greater part of the nobility began shortly thereafter. Among the first things which Robespierre had done when he came to power, was to take down the monuments of the State, and replace them with monuments to his own gods. Of course, the Bolsheviks did that same thing, replacing the statues of Russian heroes with statues of themselves. That same thing is happening here in America today, on a much slower scale, and most of us are too ignorant to see the patterns.

So the authors of the Protocols are accurate in their boast, that “Under our guidance the people have exterminated aristocracy, which was their natural protector and guardian.” When we resume next week, we will continue from that point in the fulfillments which followed the publication of the Protocols.