Cause of World Unrest - Nesta Webster

Chapter VI
A Program of Deceit and Violence

We have given some account of the extraordinary document printed by the Russian Nilus in the year 1905 as an appendix to his book. That document consists of twenty-four protocols, running to about thirty thousand words. In form, as we have said, it takes the shape of a series of lectures "at the meetings of the learned elders of Zion." The lecturer speaks sometimes as if the initiates whom he was addressing were the secret government of the Jews and sometimes as if they were the heads of a Jewish Masonic organization.

The general object of the conspiracy which the protocols discussed is the government of the world by a king of the blood of David. How that end is to be secured we shall see as we proceed, and we gather that Masonry is used by the organization as a cloak and a veil. Thus, for example, in Protocol 4 we find the passage:

"Who and what is in a position to overthrow an invisible force? And this is precisely what our force is. Exterior Masonry blindly serves as a screen for us and our objects, but the plan of action of our force, even its very abiding-place, remain for the whole people an unknown mystery/ '

But here we come to a very clear distinction. The speaker constantly refers with infinite contempt to what he calls the goyim or Gentiles, the Christian and non-Jewish peoples of the world; and he mentions an inner or Jewish Masonry, the true governing power, and an outer or Gentile Masonry, which blindly follows the lead of a direction it does not suspect. Thus, for example, in Protocol 11:

"For what purpose, then, have we invented this whole policy and insinuated it into the minds of the goyim (Gentiles) without giving them any chance to examine its underlying meaning? For what, indeed, if not to obtain in a roundabout way what is for our scattered tribes unattainable by a direct road? It is this which has served as the basis for our organization of secret Masonry, which is unknown to, and has aims which are not even so much as suspected by, these goyitn-cattle, attracted by us into the 'show* army of Masonic Lodges in order to throw dust into the eyes of their fellows."

When at last the final Revolution comes, Masonry is to be brought to an end as having served its purpose. "Those Gentile Masons who know too much" are either to be banished or kept under constant fear of exile. In the meantime, Masonry is to be organized and directed as a weapon against Church and State in accordance with their plan.

This plan is not new. It is followed from generation to generation. Thus, for example, in Protocol 1 we find:

"Before us is a plan in which is laid down strategically the line from which we cannot deviate without running the risk of seeing the labour of many centuries brought to nought."

In pursuance of this plan they brought about the French Revolution. From the first protocol:

"Far back in ancient times . . . we were the first to cry among the masses of the people the words 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.'"

"In all corners of the earth, the words 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity' brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these words were cankerworms at work boring into the well-being of the goyim, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity, and destroying all the foundations of the goyim States. As you will see later, this helped us to our triumph: it gave us the possibility, among other things of getting into our hands the master card—the destruction of the privileges, or, in other words, of the very existence of the aristocracy of the goyim, that class which was the only defence peoples and countries had against us. On the ruins of the natural and genealogical aristocracy of the goyim, we have set up the aristocracy of our educated class, headed by the aristocracy of money. The qualifications for this aristocracy we have established in wealth, which is dependent upon us, and in knowledge, for which our learned elders provide the motive force."

And, again, we find in Protocol 3 a definite claim:

"Remember the French Revolution, to which it was we who gave the name of 'Great'. The secrets of its preparation are well known to us, for it was wholly the work of our hands."

But not only does the speaker claim for his organization the authorship of the French Revolution. He states also that the liberal and constitutional movements which have agitated Europe and have weakened the authority of government have been set going in the same way and for the same purpose.

"The word 'Liberty' 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 turned mobs into blood-thirsty beasts."

He boasts that by means of Liberalism and Constitutionalism they had destroyed the power of Kings, and especially of the aristocracy, to protect the people.

"The people," he says, "under our guidance, have annihilated the aristocracy, who were their one and only defence and fostermother, for the advantage of the aristocracy is inseparably bound up with the well-being of the people."

The result of the destruction of the aristocracy is that the people have fallen into the grip of merciless money-getting scoundrels who have laid a pitiless yoke upon the neck of the workers.

Having effected so much by Liberalism they then come forward as "saviours of the worker," and propose to the workers that they should

"enter the ranks of our fighting forces—Socialists. An archists, Communists, to whom we always give support."

Besides these secret powers, the organization has another power, the power of gold.

"In our hands is the greatest power of our day—gold. In two days we can procure from our storehouses any quantity we please."

With command of capital the organization has the power to create financial and industrial crises, and as a means of bringing off the last and greatest revolution there is to be a great financial crisis which will reduce the workers to the verge of starvation and make them ripe for the most desperate acts.

"We shall raise the rate of wages, which, however, will not bring any advantage to the workers, for at the same time we shall produce a rise in prices of the first necessaries of life."

"In order that the true meaning of things may not strike the Gentiles before the proper time, we shall mask it under an alleged ardent desire to serve the working classes, and the great principles of political economy about which our economic theorists are carrying on an energetic propaganda."

We have given a general account of these protocols published by Nilus in 1905. Let us now examine them more in detail. The first protocol begins, as it were, in the middle of a sentence:

"... Putting aside fine phrases, we shall speak of the significance of each thought: by comparisons and deductions we shall throw light upon surrounding facts. ... It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terror, and not by academic discussions."

After the assertion that every man aims at power and most would sacrifice the general good for their own welfare, there follows the statement:

"Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to use as a bait to attract the masses of the people so as to crush those in authority. This task is the easier if the opponent himself has been infected with the idea of Liberty or Liberalism, and for the sake of an idea is willing to yield some of his power. It is precisely here that the triumph of our theory appears: the slackened reins of government are immediately, by the law of life, caught up and gathered together by a new hand, because the blind might of the nation cannot for a single day exist without guidance and the new authority merely fits into the place of the old already weakened by Liberalism."

The lecturer points out that this doctrine is no more immoral than the doctrine of foreign war, that "the political has nothing in common with the moral," that frankness and honesty are vices in politics, "for they bring down rulers from their thrones more certainly than the most powerful enemy," and that right lies in force.

"In any state in which there is a bad organization of authority, an impersonality of laws and of rulers who have lost their personality amid the flood of rights that are multiplying out of Liberalism I find a new right—to attack by the right of the strong and to scatter to the winds all existing forces of order and regulation, to reconstruct all institutions, and to become the sovereign lord of those who have left to us the rights of their power by laying them down voluntarily in their Liberalism. Our power in the present tottering of all forms of power will be more invincible than any other, because it will remain invisible until the moment when it has gained such strength that no cunning can any longer undermine it."

There follows a justification of "the programme of violence and make-believe," and of the use of "bribery, deceit, and treachery" to attain good ends. We read of the absurdity of the cry of Equality, since

" . . . Nature herself has established inequality of minds, of characters, and of capacities, just as immutably as she has established subordination to her laws."

The true strength of the dynastic rule, it is argued, was "that the father passed on to the son a knowledge of the course of political affairs in such wise that none should know it but members of the dynasty, and none could betray it to the governed." This secret "of the political" was lost, and this loss "aided the success of our cause."

"The abstraction of liberty has enabled us to persuade the mob in all countries that their government is nothing but a steward of the people, who are the owners of the country, and that the steward may be replaced like a worn-out glove."

"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."

Such is the cynical philosophy propounded in the first protocol. The second protocol begins with a reference to the value of economic wars, which place the Gentiles in the conspirators' hands. It speaks also of their international agents with their "millions of eyes ever on the watch"; it boasts that "we shall choose from among the public administrators with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience"; that these persons will not be trained in the arts of government, and that therefore they will easily become "pawns in our game—in the hands of our men of learning and genius, bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world."

The second protocol ends with the boast that "the Press has fallen into our hands"; and again, "through the Press we have gained a power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade."

Thus these two opening protocols express a philosophy of government more cynical than Machiavelli's, and they make also the disturbing claim that Liberalism and Modernism, if not created by the Jews, have been used by them as the means of misleading Christian nations and destroying their power of self-defence.