The Protocols of Satan, Part 4: Secret Societies and the Source of the Protocols

Christogenea Saturdays, September 5th, 2015 - The Protocols of Satan, Part 4: Secret Societies and the Source of the Protocols

A few years ago I had participated in a series of programs with Sword Brethren that consisted of discussions based on Nesta Webster's book World Revolution. They could probably be greatly improved upon, as they were rather informal. We stopped with Syndicalism and chapter 9, I believe. Chapter 10 concerns primarily the Revolution of 1917, and instead we went on to present the British whitepaper on the Bolshevik Revolution known as Russia No. 1, never getting back to Nesta Webster.

Here we are not going to present the entire chapter, as our area of interest at the moment is confined to the Protocols of the so-called “Learned Elders of Zion”. Therefore it is our intention to present what Nesta Webster has to offer us in that regard. But we must also say a few things about the author herself. Nesta Webster, being very well read in the areas relevant to our study, had meticulously researched in several languages all of the primary sources that she could locate for her subject, and she offers copious citations. Often, and especially in this field of study, primary sources are impossible to obtain, so she resorted to what she believed were the most reliable and authentic secondary sources. However she was very altruistic, she was very reserved in her conclusions, and she seems not to have recognized the Jew as a truly alien character who is forever opposed to Christian society as a matter of his nature. However for us that is a benefit, because she cannot be accused of having motives which were merely based on hatred of any race or religion.

Furthermore, Nesta Webster, the consummate Anglophile, makes Germany out to be the aggressor and the enemy of England in the first World War, not distinguishing between the Germans and their perception of the War as a defensive war, and the Jews within Germany and their use of that war for the purposes of their own advantage. Of course Germans were happy to have the Jews within Germany on their own side during the war, but that changed after the Balfour Declaration was signed, and Webster either ignores or perhaps was ignorant of the treachery of the Jews in Germany after that point, treachery which Hitler much later recounts in Mein Kampf. Of course, during the course of the first World War Germany was also happy – even if it was very naive – to have Jews upset the government of the Czar in the October Revolution, since Germany was fighting a war on two fronts and that revolution would solve the problem on one of those fronts. So while Germany helped to create a beast and could not see the danger which would eventually result from it, the beast was created in a time of dire necessity. The creation of that same beast was also assisted by the New York bankers, a connection which Webster seems to have missed entirely. That road would have had to have led her back to the Rothschilds, and would have upset her entire paradigm.

Nesta Webster also seems to have been oblivious to the fact that Jewish families were at the head of all of the banking houses of the City of London, that these Jews had a principle hand in the guidance of English policy since the time of William of Orange, and that Jews had already intermarried with much of the English nobility. So she seems to also be oblivious to the actions of the Jewish bankers and crypto-Jewish nobles of England who were just as responsible for the success of the Bolsheviks as the Germans were, although they had used American bankers as their conduit in assisting the cause of Lenin and Trotsky. At this point, I do not know that she has written on any of this elsewhere. She did write a book entitled Surrender of an Empire, where she bears the attitude that the British Empire was being surrendered by traitors from within, but she did not understand that it was never really British in the first place. The British Empire belonged to the merchants and bankers of the City, and not to the British people. Like many Americans today, Webster seems to have been blinded by her own patriotism and prejudices.

Because she does not seem to regard Jews as a distinct racial entity, with certainty having missed their role in earlier English history almost entirely, Nesta Webster also wrongly attributes to Germans the “German Socialism” known to us as Marxism, which without doubt was a product of the Jews in Germany, although they had their Christian followers. This is precisely what the Protocols say would be the case, and - as we shall see - Webster herself quotes, where the Protocols say that “We intend to appear as though we were the liberators of the labouring man…. We shall suggest to him to join the ranks of our armies of Socialists, Anarchists, and Communists. The latter we always patronize, pretending to help them out of fraternal principle and the general interest of humanity evoked by our socialistic masonry” and “Most people who enter secret societies are adventurers, who want somehow to make their way in life, and who are not seriously minded. With such people it will be easy for us to pursue our object, and we will make them set our machinery in motion.” Germany's history up until the time when the NSDAP had risen to counter the Jews was the result of those very objectives spelled out in the Protocols. Those particular objectives had already been fulfilled in Germany by the time of the 1848 Revolution, but Webster seems not yet to have it all put together. Real German Socialism is represented by Adolf Hitler's National Socialism, and it is absolutely contrary to the Jewish Socialism which is better labeled as Marxism.

Nesta Webster lived until 1960, but wrote very little of consequence after the 1930's. While she never repented from what we would consider a wrong-sided position on the nature and causes of the first World War, she did become a fascist and was friendly to Adolf Hitler, of whom she said “once in control of his country, abandoned his aggressive attitude toward the Allies [which was really on account of Versailles]. But at the same time he put down Bolshevism and took the control of Germany out of the hands of the Jews.” That was in a booklet she wrote in 1938 titled Germany and England. Only then, so far as we have seen, did she admit Jewish control of England, and she expressed shame that England would come to war with Germany on the same side as the Bolsheviks, whom she had always known were Jews. We can only assume that it was her patriotism which blinded her to the fact that there was a Jewish problem in England much earlier, from the time of Cromwell, and she never revised her past positions when she finally discovered the extent to which the problem existed in her own time.

However what Nesta Webster does give us is very good, and in relation to the Protocols and the workings of the secret societies on the Continent, it permits us to discern for ourselves and to document the truth of the matters at hand.

In the earlier segments of this presentation, we have already seen that the book by the French lawyer and bureaucrat Maurice Joly, The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, was first set forward as the source for the Protocols by the English newspaper columnist Philip Graves in a three-part series which he had written for the London Times in August of 1921. Nesta Webster has admitted that there are many similarities, and some exactly similar wording, between the Protocols and the Dialogue of Joly, and that is not a topic of our dispute since it is indeed perfectly true. But many books and articles, especially on the internet, to this day take it for granted that Graves was correct in his conclusion, that the Protocols were a plagiarism of Joly, and that therefore the case of the origin of the Protocols is closed. However nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, as we have already heard Nesta Webster explain in her book Secret Societies and Subversive Movements as we closed the last segment of this presentation, here we may see that Joly's work in the Dialogues cannot be entirely original itself, and that his book could not have been the source of the Protocols as it is so often and so shallowly asserted, but that he himself must have obtained many of the thoughts and objectives which he attributed to the character of Machiavelli in the Dialogues from a source or sources similar to the actual source of the Protocols.

Nesta Webster had already explained that while there are striking similarities and even several precise statements which Joly's book has in common with the Protocols, that many things which the two works do not have in common with one another, they do have in common with the writings of some of the subversive groups of 18th and 19th century European politics, as well as many of the writings of the Jewish Bolsheviks of the early 20th century. This was Webster's conclusion in Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, which was published in 1924, and when we presented it she cited as her source another of her books, which is World Revolution. This earlier book was published in the United States by Maynard, Small & Co, the same publisher of the first English edition of Serge Nilus' work on the Protocols which came out that same year, 1921. She addresses Nilus, and therefore she must have known of his work from earlier non-English sources.

However familiar she already was with Nilus, World Revolution was first published in London by Constable & Co. earlier that year. So it must have been written before Webster ever could have seen the Philip Graves articles published in August of 1921, which had allegedly first announced the discovery of the parallels between the Protocols and the Dialogues of Joly. Later, when Webster wrote Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, she acknowledged not having known of the similarities between Joly's Dialogues and the Protocols before the Graves articles were published. So where in this chapter of World Revolution Webster was illustrating the similarities between the Protocols and some of the writings of the 19th century secret societies and other revolutionaries, she certainly did not have a defense of the Protocols as her concern, because the Protocols were not yet under attack by the Jews. If she had known about Graves or the similarities with Joly's Dialogues, it would have served her interests to include that material here, where it is instead certain that she was still ignorant of it. Rather, she was presenting these similarities from a neutral point of view in an attempt to illustrate that so many seemingly disparate subversive groups actually had the same objectives, which by itself should prove that some grander conspiracy lurked in the background.

As we shall see here, before 1921 Nesta Webster had already discovered similarities between the Protocols and earlier writings of the Bolsheviks, certain of the secret societies, and other European revolutionaries, and therefore she was able to correctly assert that the similarities in Joly's work only further substantiated her own opinions. Once we are aware of Maurice Joly's own background and the work of Nesta Webster which we shall present here from chapter 10 of World Revolution, we must conclude that the Protocols are not discredited by the discovery of Joly's Dialogues. Rather, the assertions concerning their origin in the Illuminati and the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy are only further substantiated by the discovery of the similarities with Joly's Dialogues.

In her writings Webster often quotes from what we may consider to be primary sources, such as books of the correspondence of Bakunin or the actual writings of the Bolshevik leaders. To give some background on a couple of Nesta Webster's secondary sources for her comparison of the points of the Protocols to those of many of the 19th century secret societies, we will begin by quoting from page 22 of World Revolution, where Nesta Webster first begins quoting from John Robison's Proofs of a Conspiracy, and she says in part:

In April of the following year, 1785, four other Illuminati, who like Knigge had left the society, disgusted by the tyranny of Weishaupt, were summoned before a Court of Inquiry to give an account of the doctrines and methods of the sect. The evidence of these men — Utschneider, Cossandey, Grunberger, and Renner, all professors of the Marianen Academy — left no further room for doubt as to the diabolical nature of Illuminism. "All religion," they declared, "all love of country and loyalty to sovereigns, were to be annihilated, a favourite maxim of the Order being: Tous les rois et tous les prttres Sont des fripons et des traitres. (All kings and priests are all rogues and traitors.)

Moreover, every effort was to be made to create discord not only between princes and their subjects but between ministers and their secretaries, and even between parents and children, whilst suicide was to be encouraged by inculcating in men's minds the idea that the act of killing oneself afforded a certain voluptuous pleasure. Espionage was to be extended even to the post by placing adepts in the post offices who possessed the art of opening letters and closing them again without fear of detection. Robison, who studied all the evidence of the four professors, thus sums up the plan of Weishaupt as revealed by them:

The Order of the Illuminati adjured Christianity and advocated sensual pleasures. "In the lodges death was declared an eternal sleep; patriotism and loyalty were called narrow-minded prejudices and incompatible with universal benevolence"; further, "they accounted all princes usurpers and tyrants, and all privileged orders as their abettors... they meant to abolish the laws which protected property accumulated by long-continued and successful industry; and to prevent for the future any such accumulation. They intended to establish universal liberty and equality, the imprescriptible rights of man... and as necessary preparations for all this they intended to root out all religion and ordinary morality, and even to break the bonds of domestic life, by destroying the veneration for marriage vows, and by taking the education of children out of the hands of the parents."

Reduced to a simple formula the aims of the Illuminati may be summarized in the following six points:

1. Abolition of Monarchy and all ordered Government.
2. Abolition of private property,
3. Abolition of inheritance.
4. Abolition of patriotism.
5. Abolition of the family (i.e. of marriage and all morality, and the institution of the communal education of children).
6. Abolition of all religion.

[In this book, Nesta Webster quotes very frequently from the Abbé Barreul and the Scotsman John Robison. Explanations of their backgrounds as well as the text of John Robison's Proofs of a Conspiracy and Part 3 of Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism by Abbé Barreul, subtitled Code of the Illuminati, are available at the website sacred-texts.com, although we certainly do not agree with all of their conclusions.

We found a PDF copy of John Robison's Proofs of a Conspiracy at Archive.org, which is a facsimile of a copy of the book that was taken from the library of John Adams and is signed by his great-grandson, William Henry Adams, and we will post it with this podcast along with the Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism by the Abbé Barruel.]

In chapter 10 of World Revolution Webster is concerned primarily with the forces behind the Bolshevik Revolution, and treats the Protocols as a result of that concern. So in her endeavor she tries to identify the first sources of the philosophy of Bolshevism, and comparing the writings of prominent Bolsheviks with those of Marx but also with certain figures of the French Revolution, she concludes that “Bolshevism then is not Syndicalism, it is State Socialism, it is Marxism, it is Communism, in a word it is Babouvisme.” In her research, she evidently could not help but notice the similarity of these philosophies with the philosophical outline given in the Protocols, and that is why she presents such information about them as she does in this chapter.

François Noël Babeuf was the son of a French army officer, a major who, deserting the French army for the army of Austria, had later sunk into poverty. In 1785 Babeuf was working to assist noblemen and priests in the assertion of their feudal rights. But by 1789 he was demanding the abolition of feudal rights as he had become a Jacobin and a leading figure in the French Revolution. However it is not clear whether the transition to the total communism which he came to profess and write so much about [although it was not yet called communism] had come before or after he had joined the Jacobins, the society to which he had belonged and which was, supposedly, founded that same year that his first political article was published in 1789.

But while we have not fully studied the origination of Babeuf's philosophy, evidently Webster had, and she had concluded that it too originated with the secret societies, which we would nevertheless suspect. After her comparison of the similarities between Babeuf and the Bolsheviks, she says “the Third International [which began in 1919] in its 'New Communist Manifesto' in fact admits its direct descent from Babeuf. How are we to explain the continuity of idea? Simply by the fact that both systems are founded on the same doctrines - those of Illuminism, and that the plan now at work in Russia has been handed down through the secret societies to the present day. The Bolshevik revolution has in fact followed out the code of Weishaupt in every point - the abolition of monarchy, abolition of patriotism, abolition of private property and of inheritance, abolition of marriage and morality, and abolition of all religion.” But Webster seems to be ignorant to the fact that the Bolsheviks remained friendly to one religion: Judaism, and they allowed the synagogues of the Jews to remain open throughout the entire history of the Soviet system, while the Christian Churches were used for theaters and warehouses.

However Webster was certainly not totally oblivious to the role of the Jews. Further along in her chapter she says this:

But now we come to the further question - who are the modern Illuminati, the authors of the plot? What is their ultimate object in wishing to destroy civilization? What do they hope to gain by it? It is this apparent absence of motive, this seemingly aimless campaign of destruction carried on by the Bolsheviks of Russia, that has led many people to believe in the theory of a Jewish conspiracy to destroy Christianity. And indeed, if one examines the present régime of Russia apart from the revolutionary movement of the last 140 years, this provides a very conclusive solution to the problem. To the unprejudiced observer Bolshevism in Russia may well appear to be a wholly Jewish movement.

For many years before the present revolution the Jews had played a leading part in the forces of disruption in that country. The correspondent of The Times at Odessa in 1905 described the riots that took place there at the end of October when “excited Jewish factory girls donned red blouses and ribbons and openly flaunted them in the faces of the Cossacks.” Out of a population of 430,000 inhabitants over one-third were Jews, and about 15,000 took part in the rioting. “The main part of these demonstrators were students and Jews; ... excited Jews unblushingly exhibited Republican emblems,” red flags were unfurled, the Russian national flag was dishonoured by having all colour except the strip of red torn from it, the Emperor’s portrait was mutilated. In the fight that ensued over 400 Jews and 500 Christians were killed. The writer of this article further showed the demonstration to have been organized at headquarters; “amongst other Socialistic fraternities the Central Jewish organization located in Switzerland sent emissaries from its branches in Warsaw and Poland to Odessa.” [The Times for November 22, 1905, article entitled “The Reign of Terror at Odessa.” The Chief Rabbi Gaster wrote in The Times of November 25 to contradict these statements, but brought forward no proofs to the contrary.]

Mr. Wickham Steed, in his book The Hapsburg Monarchy, quotes a letter written in this same year of 1905 by a semi-Jew on the question of the Jews in Hungary, in which this remarkable passage occurs:

There is a Jewish question and this terrible race means not only to master one of the grandest warrior nations in the world, but it means, and is consciously striving, to enter the lists against the other great race of the north (the Russians), the only one that has hitherto stood between it and its goal of world-power. Am I wrong? Tell me. For already England and France are, if not actually dominated by Jews, very nearly so, while the United States, by the hands of those whose grip they are ignorant of, are slowly but surely yielding to that international and insidious hegemony. Remember that I am half a Jew by blood, but that in all I have power to be I am not. [The Hapsburg Monarchy (1913), p. 169. “In Austro-Hungary”, the author observes on p. 155, “the spread of Socialism has been largely the result of Jewish propaganda. Dr. Victor Adler, the founder and leader of the Austrian party, is a Jew, as are many of his followers. In Hungary the party was also founded and inspired by the Jews.”]

Twelve years later this prophecy was terribly fulfilled. For, whatever the Jewish Press may say to the contrary, the preponderance of Jews amongst the Bolsheviks of both Hungary and Russia has been too evident to need further proof. The Executive of the Communist Government established in Hungary in March 1919 consisted in a Directorate of Five which included four Jews - Bela Kun, Bela Vago, Sigmund Kunfi, and Joseph Pogany. The Secretary was another Jew - Alpari. Szamuelly, also a Jew, was the head of the Terrorist troops. [See the pamphlet, In the Grip of the Terror, by Lumen, printed by Jordan Gaskell. Agents, W. H. Smith & Son, 186 Strand.] In Russia Jews have again predominated. An article in The Times for March 29, 1919, stated that:

Of the twenty or thirty commissaries or leaders who provide the central machinery of the Bolshevist movement not less than 75 per cent are Jews.... If Lenin is the brains of the movement, the Jews provide the executive officers. Of the leading commissaries, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kameneff, Stekloff, Sverdloff, Uritsky, Joffe, Rakovsky, Radek, Menjinsky, Larin, Bronski, Zaalkind, Volodarsky, Petrofl, Litvinoff [A prominent member of the Jewish Bund in 1907 and Bolshevist “ambassador” to England.], Smirdovitch, and Vovrowsky are all of the Jewish race, while among the minor Soviet officials the number is legion. [On this point see the remarkable pamphlet, Who rules Russia? published by the Association Unity of Russia, 121 East 7th Street, New York (1920), where the exact names and number of Jews in the different departments of the present Russian Government are given.]

In fact the Jewish Press has on occasions admitted this influence in Bolshevism. Thus in The Communist, a newspaper published in Kharkoff (number for April 12, 1919), we find Mr. M. Cohan boasting that,

...without exaggeration, it may be said that the great Russian social revolution was indeed accomplished by the hands of the Jews.... It is true that there are no Jews in the ranks of the Red Army as far as privates are concerned, but in the committees and in Soviet organizations, as Commissars, the Jews are gallantly leading the masses of the Russian proletariat to victory.... The symbol of Jewry, which for centuries has struggled against capitalism, has become also the symbol of the Russian proletariat, which can be seen even in the face of the adoption of the Red five-pointed star, which in former times, as it is well known, was the symbol of Zionism and Jewry. [Quoted in American edition of The Protocols, p. 88.]

This star from the beginning of the Bolshevik revolution has decorated the caps of Lenin’s guards.

Webster goes on to describe the Bolshevik activities amongst certain Jews in England, but seems to ignore the statement she quotes above from Wickham Steed, where he admits in The Hapsbug Monarchy: “For already England and France are, if not actually dominated by Jews, very nearly so, while the United States, by the hands of those whose grip they are ignorant of, are slowly but surely yielding to that international and insidious hegemony.” Wickham Steed certainly seemed to have quickly noticed the Jewish grip on the West, as the 3rd edition of that book was published in London in 1914. Then she concludes:

In the face of all this overwhelming evidence on the role of the Jews in the revolutionary movement, what wonder that the amazing Protocols of the Elders of Zion, first published in Russian by Sergye Nilus in 1902 [The copy in the British Museum is dated 1905, but there is said to have been an earlier edition in 1902.] and in English under the title of The Jewish Peril in 1920, came as a revelation and appeared to provide the clue to the otherwise insoluble problem of Bolshevism? Here was the whole explanation - a conspiracy of the Jewish race that began perhaps at Golgotha, that hid itself behind the ritual of Freemasonry, that provided the driving force behind the succeeding revolutionary upheavals, that inspired the sombre hatred of Marx, the malignant fury of Trotzky, and all this with the fixed and unalterable purpose of destroying that Christianity which is hateful to it. Is this theory true? Possibly. But in the opinion of the present writer it has not been proved - it does not provide the whole key to the mystery.

We think she should have read the Talmud, but that too is an investigation for another time. The following table is from Nesta Webster's World Revolution, pages 298 through 305.

In conclusion to this comparison of the Protocols with the literature of the Jewish Bolsheviks and the rhetoric of the 19th century secret societies, Nesta Webster says the following on page 306 of her book:

The foregoing parallels prove, therefore, a clear connection between the Protocols and former Secret Societies working for World Revolution, and also between the Protocols and Bolshevism. But they do not necessarily establish their authenticity. One possibility immediately suggests itself. Might they not be a forgery compounded by some one versed in the lore of Secret Societies? Supposing Nilus to have been a student of this subject and also, as he was known to be, a pronounced anti-Semite, it would not have been difficult for him to reconstruct the programme of World Revolution from earlier models, weaving into them at the same time the idea of a Jewish conspiracy. Why, then, was this very obvious explanation not put forward by the Jews? Why, on the contrary, when it was suggested by the present writer in a newspaper article, did it meet merely with resentment? Here was a loophole indeed! But instead of using it the advocates of Jewry contented themselves with angry expostulations, or fell back on absurd explanations, as that the Protocols were invented by the Russian police or by the “Tzarist reactionaries” in London, or that they were copied from a notorious forgery by Goedsche - why choose a forgery when such admirable authentic models were at hand? - or again, the attempt was made to draw a red herring across the track by dwelling on Nilus’s personality and his own literary work, which had no bearing whatever on the question. The point was to prove whether the document which he purported to have discovered was genuine or not.

The truth is, then, that the Protocols have never been refuted, and the futility of the so-called refutations published, as also the fact of their temporary suppression, have done more to convince the public of their authenticity than all the anti-Semite writings on the subject put together.

The only line of defence, namely, that this document was the work of illuminized Freemasonry, and not of a purely Jewish association, has been rejected by the advocates of the Jews themselves, and the only conclusion that we can draw is either that the Protocols are genuine and what they pretend to be, or that these advocates put forward by the Jews have some interest in concealing the activities of Secret Societies in the past.

The question then arises: Were the Jews concerned in the organization of Illuminism and its subsequent developments? At present this is not clearly proved. [Webster addresses this further in a note to follow below.] It is true that Cagliostro was probably a Jew, that Kolmer who partly indoctrinated Weishaupt may have been a Jew [Webster is oblivious to more recent allegations that Weishaupt himself was a Jew], that a certain Simonini wrote to the Abbé Barruel in 1806 declaring that “the freemasons and the illuminés were founded by two Jews” - whose names the author has forgotten [Deschamps, Las Sociétés secrètes, iii. 659] - that the Jewish financiers of Frankfurt may have contributed to the funds of the Illuminati or of the Duc d'Orléans, but all this rests so far on no contemporary documentary evidence. The “illuminés” referred to by Simonini may well have been the Martinistes founded, as it is known, by the Jew Paschalis and frequently referred to under this name. We should require more than such vague assertions to refute the evidence of men who, like Barruel and Robison, devoted exhaustive study to the subject and attributed the whole plan of the Illuminati and its fulfilment in the French Revolution to German brains. Neither Weishaupt, [Baron von] Knigge, nor any of the ostensible founders of Illuminism were Jews; moreover, as we have seen, Jews were excluded from the association except by special permission. None of the leading revolutionaries of France were Jews, nor were the members of the conspiracy of Babeuf.

[Since these words were written, and at the moment of this book going to press, a number of La Valle France has appeared (date of March 31 - April 6, 1921) in which it is stated that five Jews were concerned in the organization and inspiration of the Illuminati – [Naphtali Hirz] Wessely, Moses Mendelssohn, and the bankers Itzig. Friedlander, and Meyer. But the contemporary authority for this statement is not given.]

Webster fails to realize that it was only the Jews who made any permanent profit from any of these things, and especially of the French Revolution. The answer to the ancient Latin question - Cui bono – and the plan as it is outlined in the Protocols themselves, should be convincing enough in spite of a lack of contemporary documentary evidence. While she is usually good with her citations, here she does not cite where Robison or Barreul had reached such conclusions. However it is immaterial, since both of those author's works were published before the Emancipation of the Jews by Napoleon in 1806. We would argue that Jews would not have taken any overt political action to any large extent before that time.

The claim of the “Elders of Zion” to have inspired all revolutionary outbreaks since 1789 is not therefore at present substantiated by history, and it is not until the Alta Vendita from 1820 onwards that they can be proved to have taken an active part in the movement. Yet Monsignor Dillon, who clearly recognizes their importance as agents of this secret society, nevertheless attributes its efficient organization to “Italian genius.” From this date onward their role is, however, more apparent. In Germany before 1848 Disraeli himself declared them to be taking the lead in the revolutionary movement, and with the First Internationale they come forward into a blaze of light. Henceforth along the line of State Socialism their influence is no longer doubtful.

In turn, we should assert that it was simply not politically expedient, and it was certainly not safe, for Jews to be taking an open role in the subversive societies before they had gained their emancipation, something which Webster does not seem to have under consideration.

But whilst the question of Jewish organization from the beginning of the World Revolution remains obscure, the workings of illuminized Freemasonry are clearly visible. It is strange that in the controversy that has raged over the Protocols so little attention has been paid to the fact that the so-called “Elders of Zion” were admittedly masons of the 33rd degree of the Grand Orient. Considered from this point of view, all their statements regarding the past history of the Revolution are substantiated by facts. For if by “we” is meant “illuminized Freemasons,” then the assertion that “it is we who were the first to cry out to the people ‘Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity’” is clearly accurate. Nothing can be truer than that since the French Revolution “the nations have been led from one disappointment to another,” and that “the secrets of its preparatory organization were the work of our hands” - the hands of the Freemasons and Illuminati. If, then, the Protocols are genuine, they are the revised programme of illuminized Freemasonry formulated by a Jewish lodge of the Order. But whilst the influence of the Jews cannot be proved throughout the early history of the society, German inspiration and organization is apparent from the very beginning. It was the German Weishaupt who founded the Illuminati with the aid of his German colleagues, it was the German Knigge who effected its alliance with French Freemasonry, German emissaries who introduced it to the lodges of the Grand Orient; it was this German Illuminism that inspired the campaign of universal corruption waged by the Alta Vendita and the anarchic fury of Bakunin; and again it was pan-Germanism, working by the methods of the Illuminati, that assured the success of Marx and Engels and secured control of all Socialist organizations up to the present day.

But Engels was an avowed atheist, and Marx was a Jew. However Webster's objectivity, and her reluctance to lay it all at the door of the Jews, even when she realizes that the lodge of the Grand Orient was most certainly the original source of the plans laid out in the Protocols, is of greater value to us today than if she had been a plain anti-Semite, something she certainly cannot be accused of at this time. Instead, she supplies to us all the evidence that the Jews were the catalysts of world revolution amidst a greater number of willing European dupes, and she also fully demonstrates for us that the Protocols are real, and reveals for us their true origin.

Furthermore, Mikhail Bakunin was an avowed atheist. Anacharsis Clootz was an avowed atheist, as were the The Hébertists who came to power during the Reign of Terror. Robespierre was a Jacobin and supposedly a deist, but his god was certainly a pagan god. Baron von Knigge's religion is harder to pin down, but since he wrote things such as “General System for the Public, Towards a Foundation of all Knowledge of People of all Nations, Conditions, and Religions”, he was hardly a Christian and was rather an internationalist universalist who wanted to do away with religion. He was a humanist who was very sympathetic towards Jews and others. Baron von Knigge was a very close associate of Adam Weishaupt, and helped him organize the Illuminati, its structure and rituals. Weishaupt is said to be a Jesuit, but he was no Christian. He too wanted to do away with all religion, and morality as well. Just as in the days of Martin Luther there were countless pagans and humanists as priests and monks, Erasmus being supreme among them, Weishaupt was a pagan humanist whose god was Reason.

In our ongoing discussion of Martin Luther in Life and Death, which we still plan to continue here in the future, we showed that it was the pagans and humanists among the European noble and intellectual classes who were the defenders of the Jews, especially in the Reuchlin Affair, which we had discussed at length, in which they ardently defended the Kabalah and the Talmud of the Jews. The situation was still the same in the 19th century, and we see that the Protocols themselves promote that same idea, that the Jews recruit all of the Goyim they can to their cause. While now the churches are finally won over to their cause, the Jews had clearly used the atheists and pagans as their step-stool.