extracted from 'The
Controversy of Zion' by Douglas Reed
2004
from
Scribd
Website
While Zionism thus took shape in the Eastern
ghettoes during the last century and at the start of this one emerged as a
new force in international affairs (when the British Government offered it
Uganda), the world-revolution, in those same Talmudic areas, prepared its
third "eruption".
The two forces moved forward together in
synchronization (for Zionism, as has been shown, used the threat of
Communism in Europe to gain the ear of European rulers for its territorial
demand outside Europe). It was as if twin turbines began to revolve,
generating what was in effect one force, from which the new century was to
receive galvanic shocks.
According to Disraeli and Bakunin the world-revolution had come under Jewish
leadership around the middle of the century, and its aims then changed.
Bakunin's followers, who sought to abolish the State as such because they
foresaw that the revolutionary State might become more despotic than any
earlier despotism, were ousted and forgotten.
The world-revolution therewith took the shape of
Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, which aimed at the super-State
founded in slave-labour and in "the confiscation of human liberty" (as de
Tocqueville wrote in 1848).
This change in leadership and aims determined the course of the 20th
Century.
However, the methods by which the existing order was to be
destroyed did not change; they continued to be those revealed by
Weishaupt's
papers published in 1787. Many publications of the 19th Century showed that
the original Illuminist plan continued through the generations to be the
textbook of the revolutionaries of all camps, as to method.
These works propagated or exposed the destructive plan in various ways,
sometimes allegorical, but always recognizable if compared with the
original, Weishaupt's documents. In 1859 Crétineau Joly assailed Jewish
Leadership of "the secret societies". His book reproduced documents
(communicated to him by Pope Gregory XVI) of the Italian secret society, the
Haute Vente Romaine; their authenticity is beyond question.
The Haute Vente Romaine was headed by an
Italian prince who had been initiated by one of Weishaupt's own intimates (Knigge)
and was a reincarnation of the Illuminati.
The outer circle of initiates, the dupes, were
persuaded that,
"the object of the association is something
high and noble, that it is the Order of those who desire a purer
morality and a stronger piety, the independence and unity of their
country".
Those who graduated into the inner degrees
progressively learned the real aims and swore to destroy all religion and
legitimate government; then they received the secrets of assassination,
poison and perjury first disclosed by Weishaupt's documents.
In 1862 Karl Marx (whose Communist Manifesto is recognizably
Illuminist) founded his First International, and Bakunin formed his
Alliance Sociale Democratique (the programme of which, as Mrs.
Nesta Webster has shown by [210] quoting correlative
passages, was Illuminism undiluted).
In the same year Maurice Joly published
an attack on Napoleon III, to whom he attributed the identical methods of
corrupting and ruining the social system (this book was written in
allegorical form).
In 1868 the German Goedsche reproduced the same
ideas in the form of an attack on Jewish leadership of the revolution, and
in 1869 the French Catholic and Royalist Gougenot Des Mousseaux took
up the same theme. In that year Bakunin also published his Polemic
Against The Jews...
In all these works, in one form or another, the continuity of the basic idea
first revealed by Weishaupt's documents appears: namely, that of destroying
all legitimate government, religion and nationhood and setting up a
universal despotism to rule the enslaved masses by terror and violence. Some
of them assailed the Jewish. usurpation of, or succession to the leadership
of the revolution.
After that came a pause in the published literature of the conspiracy first
disclosed in 1787, until in 1905 one Professor Sergyei Nilus, an
official of the Department of Foreign Religions at Moscow, published a book,
of which the British Museum in London has a copy bearing its date-stamp,
August 10, 1906.
Great interest would attach to anything that
could be elicited about Nilus and his book, which has never been translated;
the mystery with which he and it have been surrounded impedes research. One
chapter was translated into English in 1920. This calls for mention here
because the original publication occurred in 1905, although the violent
uproar only began when it appeared in English in 1920.
This one chapter was published in England and America as, "The
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion":
"I cannot learn whether this was the original chapter heading or
whether it was provided during translation. No proof is given that the
document is what it purports to be, a minute of a secret meeting of
Jewish "Elders". In that respect, therefore, it is valueless."
In every other respect it is of inestimable
importance, for it is shown by the conclusive test (that of subsequent
events) to be an authentic document of the world-conspiracy first disclosed
by Weishaupt's papers.
Many other documents in the same series had
followed that first revelation, as I have shown, but this one transcends all
of them. The others were fragmentary and gave glimpses; this one gives the
entire picture of the conspiracy, motive, method and objective. It adds
nothing new to what had been revealed in parts (save for the unproven,
attribution to Jewish elders themselves), but it puts all the parts in place
and exposes the whole.
It accurately depicts all that has come about in
the fifty years since it was published, and what clearly will follow in the
next fifty years unless in that time the force which the conspiracy has
generated produces the counter-force.
It is informed by a mass of knowledge (particularly of human weaknesses)
which can only have sprung from the accumulated experience and continuing
[211] study of centuries, or of ages.
It is written in a tone of lofty superiority, as
by beings perched on some Olympian pinnacle of sardonic and ancient wisdom,
and of mocking scorn for the writhing masses far below ("the mob"... "alcoholized
animals"... "cattle"... "bloodthirsty beasts") who vainly struggle to elude
the "nippers" which are closing on them; these nippers are "the power of
gold" and the brute force of the mob, incited to destroy its only protectors
and consequently itself.
The destructive idea is presented in the form of a scientific theory, almost
of an exact science, argued with gusto and eloquence. In studying the
Protocols I am constantly reminded of something that caught my eye in
Disraeli's dictum, earlier quoted.
Disraeli, who was careful in the choice of
words, spoke of "the destructive principle" (not idea, scheme, notion, plan,
plot or the like), and the Protocols elevate the theory of destruction to
this status of "a fundamental truth, a primary or basic law, a governing law
of conduct" (to quote various dictionary definitions of "principle").
In many passages the Protocols appear, at first
sight, to recommend destruction as a thing virtuous in itself, and
consequently justifying all the methods explicitly recommended to promote it
(bribery, blackmail, corruption, subversion, sedition, mob-incitement,
terror and violence), which thus become virtuous too.
But careful scrutiny shows that this is not the case. In fact the argument
presented begins at the end, world power, and goes backward through the
means, which are advocated simply as the best ones to that end. The end is
that first revealed in Weishaupt's documents, and it is apparent that both
spring from a much earlier source, although the Protocols, in time, stand to
the Weishaupt papers as grandson to grandsire.
The final aim is the destruction of all religion
and nationhood and the establishment of the super State, ruling the world by
ruthless terror.
When the Protocols appeared in English the minor point, who was the author
of this particular document, was given a false semblance of major importance
by the enraged Jewish attack on the document itself. The asseveration of
Jewish leadership of the revolutionary conspiracy was not new at all; the
reader has seen that Disraeli, Bakunin and many others earlier affirmed it.
In this case the allegation about a specific
meeting of Jewish leaders of the conspiracy was unsupported and could have
been ignored (in 1913 a somewhat similar publication accused the Jesuits of
instigating a world-conspiracy resembling that depicted alike in the
Protocols and in Weishaupt's papers;
the Jesuits quietly remarked that this was
false and the matter was forgotten).
The response of official Jewry in 1920 and
afterwards was different. It was aimed, with fury, at the entire substance
of the Protocols; it did not stop at denying a Jewish plot, but denied that
there was any plot, which was demonstrably untrue. The existence of the
conspiracy had been recognized and affirmed by a long chain of high
authorities, from Edmund Burke, George [212]
Washington and Alexander Hamilton to Disraeli, Bakunin and the
many others mentioned in an earlier chapter.
Moreover, when the Protocols
appeared in English conclusive proof had been given by the event in Russia.
Thus the nature of the Jewish attack could only
strengthen public doubts; it protested much too much.
This attack was the repetition of the one which silenced those earlier
leaders of the public demand for investigation and remedy, Robison, Barruel
and Morse, but on this occasion it was a Jewish attack. Those three men made
no imputation of Jewish leadership, and they were defamed solely because
they drew public attention to the continuing nature of the conspiracy and to
the fact that the French revolution was clearly but its first "eruption".
The attack on the Protocols in the 1920's proved
above all else the truth of their contention; it showed that the standing
organization for suppressing public discussion of the conspiracy had been
perfected in the intervening 120 years. Probably so much money and energy
were never before in history expended on the effort to suppress a single
document.
It was brought to England by one of the two leading British correspondents
of that day in Moscow, Victor Marsden of the Morning Post (the
significant story of the other correspondent belongs to a later chapter). Marsden was an authority on Russia and was much under the enduring effect of
the Terror. He was in effect its victim, for he died soon after completing
what he evidently felt to be a duty, the translation of the Protocols at the
British Museum.
Publication in English aroused worldwide interest. That period (1920 and
onward) marks the end of the time when Jewish questions could be impartially
discussed in public. The initial debate was free and vigorous, but in
following years the attack succeeded in imposing the law of lese majesty in
this matter and today hardly any public man or print ventures to mention the
Protocols unless to declare them "forged" or "infamous" (an act of
submission also foretold in them).
The first reaction was the natural one.
The Protocols were received as
formidable evidence of an international conspiracy against religion,
nationhood, legitimate government and property. All agreed that the
attribution to Jewish authorship was unsupported, but that the subject
matter was so grave, and so strongly supported by events subsequent to the
original publication, that full enquiry was needed.
This remedy, "investigation", was the one
advocated by many leading men 120 years earlier. In this instance the attack
was in effect again on the demand for investigation, not simply on the
allegation against "the Elders of Zion".
The Times (of London) on May 8, 1920 in a long article said,
"An impartial investigation of these
would-be documents and of their history is most desirable... Are we to
dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of
such a book as this work unchecked?"
The Morning Post (then the oldest and
[213] soberest British newspaper) published twenty-three
articles, also calling for investigation.
In The Spectator on August 27, 1921, Lord Sydenham, a foremost
authority of that day, also urged investigation:
"The main point is, of course, the source
from which Nilus obtained the Protocols. The Russians who knew Nilus and
his writings cannot all have been exterminated by the Bolsheviks. His
book... has not been translated, though it would give some idea of the
man...
What is the most striking characteristic of the Protocols?
The
answer is knowledge of a rare kind, embracing the widest field. The
solution of this 'mystery', if it is one, is to be found where this
uncanny knowledge, on which prophecies now literally fulfilled are
based, can be shown to reside".
In America Mr. Henry Ford, declaring that
"the Protocols have fitted the world situation up to this time; they fit
it now", caused his Dearborn Independent to publish a series of articles
of which a million and a half reprints were sold.
Within two years the proprietor of The Times was certified insane (by an
unnamed doctor in a foreign land; a later chapter will describe this
episode) and forcibly removed from control of his publications, and The
Times published an article dismissing the Protocols as a plagiarism of
Maurice Joly's book. The proprietor of the Morning Post became the
object of sustained vituperation until he sold the newspaper, which then
ceased publication.
In 1927 Mr. Henry Ford published an apology
addressed to a well-known Jew of America; when I was in the United States in
later years I was told by credible informants that he was persuaded to do
this, at a moment when a new-model Ford automobile was about to be marketed,
by hostile threats from dealers on whom the fortunes of his concern
depended.
The campaign against the Protocols has never ceased since then. In
communized Russia all copies discoverable had been destroyed at the
revolution and possession of the book became a capital crime under the law
against "anti-semitism".
In the direct sequence to that, though
twenty-five years later, the American and British authorities in occupied
Germany after the Second World War constrained the Western German government
to enact laws against "anti-semitism" on the Bolshevik model; and in 1955 a
Munich printer who reproduced the Protocols had his business confiscated.
In England at the time of publication the sale
of the book was temporarily stopped by authority, under the pressure
described, and in the course of the years the attack on it continued so
violent that publishers feared it and only small local firms ever ventured
to print it. In Switzerland, between the wars, a Jewish suit was brought
against the book as "improper literature"; the case was won, but the verdict
was set aside by a higher court.
The state of affairs thus brought about after 1920, and continuing today,
was foretold by the Protocols in 1905:
"Through the press we have gained the power
to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade... The principal
factor of [214] success in the political" (field) " is the
secrecy of its undertaking; the word should not agree with the deeds of
the diplomat...
We must compel the governments... to take
action in the direction favored 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 a few exceptions that
may be disregarded, is already entirely in our hands...
We shall deal with the press in the
following way:... we shall saddle and bridle it with a tight curb; we
shall do the same also with all productions of the printing-press, for
where would be the sense of getting rid of the attacks of the press if
we remain targets for pamphlets and books?... No one shall with impunity
lay a finger on the aureole of our government infallibility. The pretext
for stopping any publication will be the alleged plea that it is
agitating the public mind without occasion or justification...
We shall have a sure triumph over our
opponents since they will not have at their disposition organs of the
press in which they can give full and final expression to their views
owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press..."
Such is the history of the Protocols thus
far.
Their attribution to Jewish "Elders" is
unsupported and should be rejected, without prejudice to any other evidence
about Jewish leadership of the world-revolution as such. The Jewish attack
on them was bent, not on exculpating Jewry, but on stopping the publication
on the plea that it was "agitating the public mind without occasion or
justification".
The arguments advanced were bogus; they were
that the Protocols closely resembled several earlier publications and thus
were "plagiaries" or "forgeries", whereas what this in truth showed was the
obvious thing: that they were part of the continuing literature of the
conspiracy. They might equally well be the product of non-Jewish or of
anti-Jewish revolutionaries, and that is of secondary importance.
What they proved is that the organization first
revealed by Weishaupt's documents was in existence 120 years later, and was
still using the methods and pursuing the aim then exposed; and when they
were published in English the Bolshevik revolution had given the proof.
In my opinion the Protocols provide the essential handbook for students of
the time and subject. If Lord Sydenham, in 1921, was arrested by the
"uncanny knowledge" they displayed, "on which prophecies now literally
fulfilled are based", how much more would he be impressed today, in 1956,
when much more of them has been as literally fulfilled.
Through this book any man can see how the
upheavals of the past 150 years were, and how those of the next fifty years
will be brought about; he will know in advance just how "the deeds" of his
elected representatives will differ from their "word".
In one point I am able from my own experience to test Lord Sydenham's dictum
about fulfilled prophecies.
The Protocols, speaking of control of published
information, say:
"Not a single announcement will reach the
public [215] without our control. Even now this is already
being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few
agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world.
These agencies will then be entirely ours and will give publicity only
to what we dictate to them".
That was not the situation in 1905, or in Lord
Sydenham's day, or in 1926, when I became a journalist, but it was
developing and today is the situation.
The stream of "news" which pours into the public
mind through the newspapers comes from a few agencies, as if from half a
dozen taps. Any hand that can control those valves can control "the news",
and the reader may observe for himself the filtered form in which the news
reaches him.
As to the editorial views, based on this supply
of news, the transformation that has been brought about may be comprehended
by referring to the impartially critical articles published in The Times,
Morning Post, Spectator, Dearborn Independent and thousands of other
journals some twenty-five years ago. This could not happen today. The
subjugation of the press has been accomplished as the Protocols foretold,
and by the accident of my generation and calling I saw it come about.
Comparative study of the Protocols and of the Weishaupt papers leads
to the strong deduction that both derive from a common and much older
source. They cannot have been the product of any one man or one group of men
in the period when they were published; the "uncanny knowledge" displayed in
them obviously rests on the cumulative experience of eras.
In particular, this applies (in Weishaupt's
papers and the Protocols alike) to the knowledge of human weaknesses, which
are singled out with analytical exactitude, the method of exploiting each of
them being described with disdainful glee.
The instrument to be used for the destruction of the Christian nation-states
and their religion is "the mob".
The word is used throughout with searing
contempt to denote the masses, (who in public are flattered by being called
"the people").
"Men with bad instincts are more in number
than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are
attained by violence and terrorization... The might of a mob is blind,
senseless and unreasoning force ever at the mercy of a suggestion from
any side".
From this the argument is developed that "an
absolute despotism" is necessary to govern "the mob", which is "a savage",
and that "our State" will employ "the terror which tends to produce blind
submission". The "literal fulfillment" of these precepts in communized
Russia must be obvious to all today).
This "absolute despotism" is to be vested in the international super-State
at the end of the road. In the meanwhile regional puppet-despots are
depicted as essential to the process of breaking down the structure of
states and the defenses of peoples:
"From the premier-dictators of the present
day the peoples suffer patiently and bear such abuses as for the least
of them they would have beheaded twenty kings.
What is the explanation...?
It is explained by the fact that these
dictators whisper to the peoples through their agents that through these
abuses [216] the are inflicting injury on the States with the
highest purpose -to secure the welfare of the peoples, the international
brotherhood of them all, their solidarity and equality of rights.
Naturally they do not tell the peoples that
this unification must be accomplished only under our sovereign rule".
This passage is of especial interest.
The term "premier-dictator" would not generally
have been understood in 1905, when the peoples of the West believed their
elected representatives to express and depend on their approval.
However, it became applicable during the First
and Second World Wars, when American presidents and British prime ministers
made themselves, in fact, "premier-dictators" and used emergency powers in
the name of,
"the welfare of peoples... international
brotherhood... equality of rights".
Moreover, these premier-dictators, in both wars,
did tell the peoples that the ultimate end of all this would be
"unification" under a world government of some kind.
The question, who would govern this world
government, was one which never received straightforward answer; so much
else of the Protocols has been fulfilled that their assertion that it would
be the instrument of the conspiracy for governing the world "by violence and
terrorization" deserves much thought.
The especial characteristic of the two 20th Century wars is the
disappointment which each brought to the peoples who appeared to be
victorious.
"Uncanny knowledge", therefore, again seems
to have inspired the statement, made in 1905 or earlier, "Ever since
that time" (the French Revolution) "we have been leading the peoples
from one disenchantment to another", followed later by this: "By these
acts all States are in torture; they exhort to tranquility, are ready to
sacrifice everything for peace; but. we will not give them peace until
they openly acknowledge our international Super-Government, and with
submissiveness".
The words, written before 1905, seem accurately
to depict the course of the 20th Century.
Again, the document says,
"it is indispensable for our purpose that
wars, so far as possible, should not result in territorial gains".
This very phrase, of 1905 or earlier, was made
the chief slogan, or apparent moral principle, proclaimed by the political
leaders of America and Britain in both world wars, and in this case the
difference between "the word" and "the deed" of "the diplomat" has been
shown by results.
The chief result of the First War was to
establish revolutionary-Zionism and revolutionary-Communism as new forces in
international affairs, the first with a promised "homeland" and the second
with a resident State.
The chief result of the Second War was that
further "territorial gains" accrued to, and only to, Zionism and Communism;
Zionism received its resident State and Communism received half of Europe.
The "deadly accuracy" (Lord Sydenham's words) of the Protocol's forecasts
seems apparent in this case, where a specious phrase used in the Protocols
of 1905 became the daily language of American presidents and British prime
ministers in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945.
The reason why the authors of the Protocols held this slogan to be so
important, in beguiling the peoples, is also explained.
If the nations embroiled in [217]
wars are denied "territorial gains", the only victors will then be,
"our international agentur... our
international rights will then wipe out national rights, in the proper
sense of right, and will rule the nations precisely as the civil law of
States rules the relations of their subjects among themselves".
To bring about this state of affairs compliant
politicians are needed, and of them the Protocols say:
"The administrators whom we shall choose
from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for
servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of
government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the
hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers,
specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of
the whole world".
The reader may judge for himself whether this
description fits some of "the administrators" of the West in the last five
decades; the test is their attitude towards Zionism, the world-revolution
and world-government, and subsequent chapters will offer information in
these three respects.
But "deadly accuracy" appears to reside even
more in the allusion to "advisers".
Here again is "uncanny knowledge", displayed more than fifty years ago. In
1905 the non-elected but powerful "adviser" was publicly unknown. True, the
enlightened few, men like Disraeli, knew that "the world is governed by very
different persons from what is imagined by those who are not behind the
scenes", but to the general public the passage would have been meaningless.
In the First and Second World Wars, however, the non-elected, unofficial but
imperious "adviser" became a familiar public figure. He emerged into the
open (under "emergency powers") and became known to and was passively
accepted by the public masses; possibly the contempt which the Protocols
display for "the mob" was justified by this submission to behind-the-scenes
rule even when it was openly exercised.
In the United States, for instance, "advisers on
Jewish affairs" became resident at the White House and at the headquarters
of American armies of occupation.
One financier (who publicly recommended drastic
measures for "ruling the affairs of the world") was adviser to so many
presidents that he was permanently dubbed "Elder Statesman" by the press,
and visiting prime ministers from England also repaired to him as if to a
supreme seat of authority.
The Protocols foretold this regime of the "advisers" when none understood
what was meant and few would have credited that they would openly appear in
the high places.
The Protocols repeatedly affirm that the first objective is the destruction
of the existing ruling class ("the aristocracy", the term employed, was
still applicable in 1905) and the seizure of property through the incitement
of the insensate, brutish "mob".
Once again, subsequent events give the
"forecast" its "deadly accuracy":
"In politics one must know how to seize the
property of others without hesitation if by it we secure submission and
sovereignty... The words, 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity', brought to
our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole [218] legions
who bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these words were
canker-worms boring into the wellbeing of the people, putting an end
everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity and destroying all the
foundations of the States...
This helped us to our greatest triumph; it
gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands
the master card, the destruction of privileges, or in other words the
very existence of the aristocracy... that class which was the only
defense peoples and countries had against us. On the ruins of the
natural and genealogical aristocracy... we have set up the aristocracy
of our educated class headed by the aristocracy of money.
The qualifications of this aristocracy we
have established in wealth, which is dependent upon us, and in
knowledge... It is this possibility of replacing the representatives of
the people which has placed them at our disposal, and, as it were, given
us the power of appointment... We appear on the scene as alleged
saviors of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to
enter the ranks of our fighting forces; Socialists, Anarchists,
Communists...
By want and the envy and hatred which it
engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands we shall wipe out
all those who hinder us on our way... The people, blindly believing
things in print, cherishes... a blind hatred towards all conditions
which it considers above itself, for it has no understanding of the
meaning of class and condition...
These mobs will rush delightedly to shed the
blood of those whom, in the simplicity of their ignorance, they have
envied from their cradles, and whose property they will then be able to
loot. 'Ours' they will not touch, because the moment of attack will be
known to us and we shall take measures to protect our own...
The word 'freedom' brings out the
communities of men to fight against every kind of force, against every
kind of authority, even against God and the laws of nature. For this
reason we, when we come into our kingdom, shall have to erase this word
from the lexicon of life as implying a principle of brute force which
turns mobs into bloodthirsty beasts...
But even freedom might be harmless and have
its place in the State economy without injury to the wellbeing of the
peoples if it rested upon the foundation of faith in God... This is the
reason why it is indispensable for us to undermine all faith, to tear
out of the minds of the masses the very principle of Godhead and the
spirit, and to put in its place arithmetical calculations and material
needs..."
"... We have set one against another the personal and national
reckonings of the peoples, religious and race hatreds, which we have
fostered into a huge growth in the course of the past twenty centuries.
This is the reason why there is not one State which would anywhere
receive support if it were to raise its arm, for every one of them must
bear in mind that any agreement against us would be unprofitable to
itself. We are too strong, there is no evading our power.
The nations cannot come to even an
inconsiderable private agreement without our secretly having a hand in
it... In order to put public opinion into our hands we must bring it
into a state of bewilderment by giving expression from all sides to so
many contradictory opinions and for such length of time as will suffice
to make [219] the peoples lose their heads in the labyrinth
and come to see that the best thing is to have no opinion of any kind in
matters political, which it is not given to the public to understand,
because they are understood only by him who guides the public.
This is the first secret.
The second secret
requisite for the success of our government is comprised in the
following: to multiply to such an extent national failings, habits,
passions, conditions of civil life, that it will be impossible for
anyone to know where he is in the resulting chaos, so that the people in
consequence will fail to understand one another...
By all these means we shall so wear down the
peoples that they will be compelled to offer us international power of a
nature that by its possession will enable us without any violence
gradually to absorb all the State forces of the world and to form a
Super-Government. In place of the rulers of today we shall set up a
bogey which will be called the Super-Government administration.
Its hands will reach out in all directions
like nippers and its organization will be of such colossal dimensions
that it cannot fail to subdue all the nations of the world".
That the Protocols reveal the common source of
inspiration of Zionism and Communism is shown by significant parallels that
can be drawn between the two chief methods laid down in them and the chief
methods pursued by Dr. Herzl and Karl Marx.
The Protocols repeatedly lay emphasis on the
incitement of "the mob" against the ruling class as the most effective means
of destroying States and nations and achieving world dominion. Dr. Herzl, as
was shown in the preceding chapter, used precisely this method to gain the
ear of European rulers.
Next, Karl Marx.
The Protocols say,
"The aristocracy of the peoples, as a
political force, is dead... but as landed proprietors they can still be
harmful to us from the fact that they are self-sufficing in the
resources upon which they live. It is essential therefore for us at
whatever cost to deprive them of their land... At the same time we must
intensively patronize trade and industry... what we want is that
industry should drain off from the land both labour and capital and by
means of speculation transfer into our hands all the money of the
world..."
Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto
exactly followed this formula.
True he declared that Communism might be summed
up in one sentence, "abolition of private property", but subsequently he
qualified this dictum by restricting actual confiscation to land and
implying that other types of private property were to remain intact. (In the
later Marxist event, of course, all private property was confiscated, but I
speak here of the strict parallel between the strategy laid down before the
event alike by the Protocols and Marx).
A passage of particular interest in the present, though it was written
before 1905, says,
"Nowadays if any States raise a protest
against us, it is only proforma at our discretion and by our direction,
for their antisemitism is indispensable to us for the management of our
lesser brethren".
A distinctive feature of our era is the way the
charge of "anti-semitism" is continually transferred from one [220]
country to another, the country so accused becoming automatically the
specified enemy in the next war. This passage might cause the prudent to
turn a skeptical eye on today's periodical reports of sudden "antisemitic"
turns in communized Russia, or elsewhere.
The resemblance to Weishaupt's documents is very strong in the passages
which relate to the infiltration of public departments, professions and
parties, for instance:
"It is from us that the all-engulfing terror
proceeds. We have in our service persons of all opinions, of all
doctrines, restorating monarchists, demagogues, socialists, communists,
and utopian dreamers of every kind. We have harnessed them all to the
task: each one of them on his own account is boring away at the last
remnants of authority, is striving to overthrow all established form of
order.
By these acts all States are in torture;
they exhort to tranquility, are ready to sacrifice everything for peace;
but we will not give them peace until they openly acknowledge our
international Super-Government, and with submissiveness".
The allusions to the permeation of universities
in particular, and of education in general, also spring directly from
Weishaupt, or from whatever earlier source he received them:
"...We shall emasculate the universities...
Their officials and professors will be prepared for their business by
detailed secret programs of action from which they will not with
immunity diverge, not by one iota. They will be appointed with especial
precaution, and will be so placed as to be wholly dependent upon the
Government".
This secret permeation of universities (which
was successful in the German ones in Weishaupt's day, as his documents show)
was very largely effective in our generation.
The two British government officials who after
their flight to Moscow were paraded before the international press in 1956
to state that they had been captured by Communism at their universities,
were typical products of this method, described by the Protocols early in
this century and by Weishaupt in 1787.
Weishaupt's documents speak of Freemasonry as the best "cover" to be used by
the agents of the conspiracy.
The Protocols allot the function of "cover" to
"Liberalism":
"When we introduced into the State organism
the poison of Liberalism its whole political complexion underwent a
change. States have been seized with a mortal illness, blood-poisoning.
All that remains is to await the end of their death agony".
The term "utopian dreamers", used more than
once, is applied to Liberals, and its original source probably resides in
the Old Testamentary allusion to "dreamers of dreams" with "false prophets",
are to be put to death.
The end of Liberalism, therefore, would be
apparent to the student even if the Protocols did not specify it:
"We shall root out liberalism from the
important strategic posts of our government on which depends the
training of subordinates for our State structure".
The "Big Brother" regimes of our century, are
accurately foretold in the [221] passage,
"Our government will have the appearance of
a patriarchal paternal guardianship on the part of our ruler".
Republicanism, too, is to be a "cover" for the
conspiracy.
The Protocols are especially contemptuous of
republicanism, in which (and in liberalism) they see the weapon of
self-destruction forged out of "the mob":
"... then it was that the era of republics
became possible of realization; and then it was that we replaced the
ruler by a caricature of a government, by a president, taken from the
mob, from the midst of our puppet creatures, our slaves. This was the
foundation of the mine which we have laid under the peoples".
Then the unknown scribes of some time before
1905 describe the position to which American presidents have been reduced in
our century.
The passage begins,
"In the near future we shall establish the
responsibility of presidents".
This, as the sequence shows, means personal
responsibility, as distinct from responsibility curbed by constitutional
controls; the president is to become one of the "premier-dictators" earlier
foreseen, whose function is to be to break down the constitutional defenses
of states and thus prepare "unification under our sovereign rule".
During the First and Second World Wars the American presidents did in fact
become "premier-dictators" in this sense, claiming that "the emergency" and
the need for "victory" dictated this seizure of powers of personal
responsibility; powers which would be restored to "the people" when "the
emergency" was past.
Readers of sufficient years will recall how
inconceivable this appeared before it happened and how passively it was
accepted in the event.
The passage then continues:
"The chamber of deputies will provide cover
for, will protect, will elect presidents, but we shall take from it the
right to propose new, or make changes in existing laws, for this right
will be given by us to the responsible president, a puppet in our
hands... Independently of this we shall invest the president with the
right of declaring a state of war.
We shall justify this last right on the
ground that the president as chief of the whole army of the country must
have it at his disposal in case of need... It is easy to understand
that in these conditions the key of the shrine will lie in our hands.
and that no one outside ourselves will any longer direct the force of
legislation...
The president will, at our discretion,
interpret the sense of such of the existing laws as admit of various
interpretation; he will further annul them when we indicate to him the
necessity to do so, besides this, he will have the right to propose
temporary laws, and even new departures in the government constitutional
working, the pretext both for the one and the other being the
requirements for the supreme welfare of the state.
By such measures we shall obtain the power
of destroying little by little, step by step, all that at the outset
when we enter on our rights, we are compelled to introduce into the
constitutions of states to prepare for the transition to an
imperceptible abolition of every kind of constitution, and then the time
is come to turn every government into our despotism". [222]
This forecast of 1905 or earlier particularly
deserves Lord Sydenham's tribute of "deadly accuracy".
American presidents in the two wars of this
century have acted as here shown. They did take the right of declaring and
making war, and it has been used at least once (in Korea) since the Second
World War ended; any attempt in Congress or outside to deprive them of this
power, or curb them in the use of it meets with violently hostile attack.
So the Protocols continue.
The peoples, on their progress "from one
disenchantment to another", will not be allowed "a breathing-space". Any
country "which dares to oppose us" must be met with war, and any collective
opposition with "universal war".
The peoples will not be allowed "to contend with
sedition" (here is the key to the furious attacks of the 1790's, 1920 and
today on all demands for "investigation", "Witchhunting", "McCarthyism" and
the like). In the Super-State to come the obligation will fall on members of
one family to denounce dissident s within the family circle (the Old
Testamentary dispensation earlier mentioned).
The "complete wrecking of the christian
religion" will not be long delayed. The peoples will be kept distracted by
trivial amusements ("people's palaces") from becoming troublesome and asking
questions.
History will be rewritten for their delusion
(another precept since fulfilled in communized Russia), for,
"we shall erase from the memory of men all
facts of previous centuries which are undesirable to us, and leave only
those which depict all the errors of the national governments".
"All the wheels of the machinery of all
States go by the force of the engine, which is in our hands, and that
engine of the machinery of States is Gold".
And the end of it all:
"What we have to get at is that there should
be in all the States of the world, beside ourselves, only the masses of
the proletariat, a few millionaires devoted to our interests, police and
soldiers...
The recognition of our despot... will come
when the peoples, utterly wearied by the irregularities and
incompetence... of their rulers, will clamor:
'Away with them and give us one king
over all the earth who will unite us and annihilate the causes of
discords, frontiers, nationalities, religions, State debts, who will
give us peace and quiet, which we cannot find under our rulers and
representatives' ".
In two or three of these passages I have
substituted "people" or "masses" for "Goyim ", because the use of that word
relates to the unproven assertion contained in the book's title, and I do
not want to confuse the issues; evidence about the identity of the authors
of the conspiracy must be sought elsewhere than in an unsupported
allegation.
The authors may have been Jewish, non-Jewish or
anti-Jewish. That is immaterial. When it was published this work was the
typescript of a drama which had not been performed; today it has been
running for fifty years and its title is The Twentieth Century. The
characters depicted in it move on our contemporary stage, play the parts
foretold and produce the events foreseen.
Only the denouement remains, fiasco or fulfillment.
It is a grandiose plan, and [223] in
my estimation cannot succeed. But it has existed for at least 180 years and
probably for much longer, and the Protocols provided one more proof in a
chain of proofs that has since been greatly lengthened. The conspiracy for
world dominion through a world slave state exists and cannot at this stage
be abruptly checked or broken off; of the momentum which it has acquired it
now must go on to fulfillment or failure.
Either will be destructive for a time, and hard
for those of the time in which the dénouement comes.