Freemasonry and Judaism - Leon de Poncins

Closing Thoughts: General Conclusion

The aim of this work has been to show the revolutionary influence of two powers which are generally little known. But it is not because they have been hitherto unknown to the public that we should permit ourselves to fall into the contrary exaggeration and accuse them of being the only cause of the evil.

Briefly we may state in its main lines the following conclusion:

The revolution has many and various causes: some are normal and well-known — industrialism, over-population, lack of general well-being, universal anarchy due to the disappearance of all spiritual power — and have been sufficiently described by others. To deal with them would be to exceed the limits of this work. All that we shall say about them is that they have produced a general uneasiness, which has been exploited by a certain category of persons and organizations in order to spread revolution, and which has been created, in case of need, when it did not already exist.

There is a greater amount of artificiality in revolution than is believed. This is not solely to be imputed to the Jews. It is not certain that they form its most numerous elements, but, thanks to their racial qualities, they are the strategists and the directors of the movement from which they almost alone derive advantages.

The Jews are not attacked because they are Jews. We should not dream of being alarmed by their material and, above all, moral expansion if it did not inevitably entail our own destruction. They are always crying out about persecution but in this case who is the persecuted party? If they call the fact of our defending ourselves against them anti-Semitism, then there are in the world many people who are unconsciously anti-Semites. The responsibility rests with us not with them. The powers of evil have always existed. It is true that since the 18th century they have grouped and organized themselves internationally, and that they have at the same time, taken a more insidious form: destruction by means of ideas. Nevertheless, so long as States followed the two guiding lines of absolute monarchy by divine right and of religion, the powers of evil were unable to prevail against them; on the day when they abandoned those principles these powers triumphed.

Socialism and democracy are the greatest snares of modern limes. This is sufficiently asserted by revolutionaries themselves. As for the republican form of government, so extolled to-day, it would be quite tenable in theory if it did not inevitably fall under the Judeo-Masonic domination. Judeo-Masonry does not hide this, moreover, since it admits openly that it preaches the republic in order to seize power more easily and to have a free field. That is why Judeo-Masonry dreads above all an absolute power which alone can bar its road.

The gravity of the present situation is not in the material ravages caused by revolution, it is in the democratic, materialist and revolutionary state of mind which reigns today and influences every one, consciously or unconsciously. It is the Jewish mentality which has invaded the world, and Judaism only became a destructive element when we allowed ourselves to be impregnated with it. This last point cannot be too strongly emphasized.

The Jewish problem is a prohibited subject, of which it is forbidden to speak, but the situation is too grave for us to remain silent. It is inadmissible that we should quietly let our brothers of Russian race be butchered without doing anything to defend them.

We have seen what Judaism has done with Russia. A similar fate threatens us all. Only the means differ according to countries. In Russia it is Bolshevism; in France it is slow disintegration through the Judeo-Masonic republic. In England and America it is ever growing penetration and influences in all classes and in government; elsewhere other means are employed, but the aim, the triumph of the revolution — with its consequence: the material and spiritual domination of Judaism — is the same everywhere.

The first phase of the defensive struggle is then to throw the full light of day on the Judeo-Masonic question. If, as they maintain, the Jews and the Masons are perfectly innocent, they should be the first to wish for a public elucidation for which, up to the present, they have never sought.

After that it would be necessary to take defensive measures; such measures need not be violent. It would be for those competent to define them.

Actually there is only one really important question in the world, and that is the fight against the revolution and above all against the revolutionary idea. It is an international question, and a narrow chauvinism must not be permitted to prevent the indispensable union of all healthy elements in the world against the common enemy.

It is for us a question of life or death. Time presses, for the longer we delay the more the ruins will accumulate.

How can we fight against the revolutionary danger? Let us indicate only the general line to follow:

In continental Europe — It is necessary to act simultaneously both in a direct and indirect manner — the latter being the more efficacious.

In an indirect manner by converting ourselves instead of converting the adversary.

To achieve this we must in the first place abandon the deadly principles of 1789 which the Jews and Masons have inculcated in us, we must give up parliamentarism, demagogy and atheism regarded as a state religion; we must return to traditions, to absolute monarchy, to religions principles compulsorily taught in the schools, to the social hierarchy, to all that puts a check on the one hand, on the blind forces of popular destruction, and on the other hand, on the unlimited power of gold; in so doing we may perhaps free ourselves from this brutalizing present day economic mentality of Jewish origin: business and gold the supreme aim of existence to the detriment of all culture, all beauty, all moral elevation, then the social organism will become normal again and the Judeo-Masonic microbe will be powerless against it.

The question is international. It is a struggle between two diametrically opposed civilizations. One or the other of them will triumph or perish in the world. Ideas are not divided by water-tight partitions. There cannot exist permanently side by side a materialistic socialist civilization in Moscow and a Christian civilization in the west; one of the two principles must triumph.

The theory which consists in propagating revolution in neighbouring countries in order to weaken them at the benefit of one's own is suicidal. Germany has had bitter experience of it. It is ominous to record that conservative governments could applaud the success of the Russian revolution and that, even today, they do not consider the danger of Bolshevist contamination more serious than that of commercial or military rivalry. We may note on this subject the clear-sightedness of the Netherlands minister whose report on Bolshevism we have quoted in an Earlier page.

All other considerations should be subordinated to the fight against the revolutionary spirit. I am one of those who believe that only an absolute monarchy can fight it successfully and that it is necessary to support the establishment or re-establishment of monarchy in whatever country it maybe. Sociologists and philosophers tell us that political forms are the simple manifestation of the mentality of the people and that to begin the work of reform in the political sphere is to put the cart before the horse, to start from consequences and not from principles, and to build on sand.

I do not entirely share that opinion for two reasons: Firstly, monarchy is not only a political form; it almost inevitably implies a whole political, social and religious system which is opposed both in spirit and by interest, to revolutionary principles. The hatred of revolutionaries for monarchy shows that they fully realize this.

Secondly, the mentality of a people is not a spontaneous product. It is moulded and created by various means, of which the school and the press are the two principal ones. Therefore it is first of all necessary to become master of these two factors of public opinion. The political question is then the method of reaching the essential principles of which religion forms the basis, for Christian religion and tradition have been for two thousand years the power which has held civilized society together in the western world.

Simultaneously we must act directly by taking defensive measures against Free Masonry and Judaism.

Against Free Masonry? It is fairly simple. It is sufficient to prohibit all secret societies. By acting thus we do not destroy it but prevent it doing harm. Mussolini and the Hungarian government were the first to act thus. Their example will certainly be followed.

To defend ourselves against Judaism is much more difficult. Some people, and not the least important, consider the problem insoluble. No perfect solution exists, that is to say, one which efficaciously protects the Gentiles without harming the Jews. The only truly efficacious solution would be the definitive extermination of the Jews or the non-Jews. It is useless to dwell on this solution, let us turn to others.

Assimilation? From the very essence of Judaism it is impossible, the history of the Jewish people testifies to that.

Take away from the Jews their civil and political rights? That would be a half measure both profoundly exasperating and insufficient to protect us efficaciously. Do not let us forget that we have to protect ourselves against the Judaic spirit as much as against individuals. Moreover that would not be a measure against Jewish financial power.

Zionism? That is to say give the Jewish race a country of its own.

That would be probably the most just and best solution. But is it practically possible? We may doubt it. In any case the Jews do not wish it at any price, or rather they wish it, but understood in the following fashion:

"The new Judea moreover would not contain the whole of the Jews; the majority of them would continue to sojourn in the land of their adoption, but they would receive from the common home the necessary impulsion, the creation of a Jewish centre would give them back life and unity.

"That is in all its purity the dream of present day Zionists.

Commenting upon these words G. Batault says:

"If such is the whole dream of Zionism, if that were really Zionism, it would appear to be a veritable plot against the Gentiles, against the nations, and it would justify as a reaction of defense against it the counter-plots and counter-attacks of anti-Semitism. What, in fact, would those Jews constitute, who would continue to sojourn in their land of adoption but who would receive their necessary impulsion from the common home centre, except a permanent conspiracy against the safety of states?

"If the reconstituted Jewish people wishes to rank itself as a nation among the nations, then it is the duty and the interest of each one to help it to do so. If it contemplates, on the contrary, organizing itself internationally in order to ruin and dominate the nations, then it is the duty of the latter to rise up and forbid it.

It is moreover permissible to doubt whether the Jews could prosper as a nation on their own territory with a national government. Their primitive abilities developed by 3,000 years of heredity, have made of them a race marvelously apt at utilizing what others produce but rarely capable of original production; and that is so in all branches. The day when instead of living upon others the Jews will only have themselves to depend on, they will find it very disagreeable.

Moreover the spirit of revolt, inherent in Judaism, not being able to exercise itself against Gentile Governments will turn against its ownself. However, that is their business, and it would only be just that they should utilize their destructive abilities between themselves after having so long directed them against Christians. Zionism could be a touchstone for honest Judaism. If the Jews are what they say, then they ought to accept with gratitude the offer of a reconstitution of their nation. If they do not wish it then the anti-semites are right, and it is necessary to take defensive measures without delay.

In fact, and for many reasons, the first attempt of Zionism in Palestine has failed, but that does not prove that the idea is bad. That the Jewish problem bristles with difficulties is beyond doubt, but it is not by practising the policy of the ostrich and by ignoring it that we shall be able to solve it. By continuing thus we shall come to the following result: There will be a momentary triumph of the Revolution either in a violent form as in Russia, or in a slow form as in France. The consequence will be a first realization of Jewish world hegemony.

This will all be followed by a reaction against the inevitable abuses of the Jews and by a wave of anti-semitism in a form more violent than the world has yet seen. The second part of the programme is in preparation in Russia and in the zone of Eastern Europe which has tasted Jewish domination. And the final result means destruction on each side.

In the English speaking countries conditions are more favourable than in continental Europe for materially checking the present unceasing growth of the danger. Taking the case of England and noting that what has to be said of the situation there applies also in great part to America — it has to be recognized, as a starting point, that the great mass of the British people are ignorant of the very existence of a Jewish question; and are also ignorant of the fact that there is a strict censorship over them as to what they can read on this and certain related subjects. It can be claimed that what is contained in this book is evidence enough that there is a Jewish question, and a very serious one too, even for England; but the ignorance of the people generally makes the first obstacle to any programme for meeting the danger. To get over this one must defy the censorship over newspaper and book publishing, over news agencies, over important sections of film and play production, and over many politicians.

The first and immediate aim is then to overcome the systematic obstruction made to any divulgation of the real state of things. The problem must be laid down before the country and openly discussed. England does not lack competent men who will then advise what to do.