Chapter VIII
Revolution and Freemasonry

We have now passed these protocols in general review. We have summarized their contents. We have pointed out that the document, as far as we know, cannot be "proved" in any legal sense. For the manner in which it was obtained and for its authorship alike there is the testimony of but one man—the Russian Nilus.

And if we consider the internal evidence fairly it amounts to this: that the document predicts a world revolution, and a world revolution carried out by a Jewish organization, and that the revolution now in progress—the Bolshevist Revolution—is in fact carried on mainly by Jews, and is an attempt at a world revolution.

There we must leave it. If our readers believe that such a prophecy could have been made without foreknowledge by some anti-Semitic fanatic, then, of course, they will not accept the document as genuine. If, on the other hand, they believe that such a hypothesis is untenable, then there is only the alternative that the document is genuine. If they believe the former they may sleep comfortably in their beds; if they believe the latter then they must regard the document as a very serious warning of a very terrible menace. They will, however, have this comfort—to be forewarned is to be forearmed.

But before we leave this subject there is one side of the question which we must consider more fully, and that is the passages in these protocols which refer to Freemasonry. The main passage occurs in Protocol 15:

"We shall create and multiply Freemasonic lodges in all the countries of the world, absorb in them all who are or who may become prominent in public activity, for in these lodges we shall find our principal intelligence office and means of influence. All these lodges we shall bring under one central administration known to us alone and to all others absolutely unknown, which will be composed of our Learned Elders. The lodges will have their representatives, who will serve to screen this central administration, and from whom will issue the watchword and programme. In these lodges we shall tie the knot which binds together all revolutionary and liberal elements."

Now, the attentive reader will connect this passage with certain other passages curiously similar which we have quoted in the course of these pages. There was, for example, the passage from Louis Blanc's History of the French Revolution:

"They created occult lodges reserved for ardent souls . . . shadowy sanctuaries whose doors were only open to the adept after a long series of proofs calculated to test the progress of their revolutionary education."

They will remember, also, that remarkable passage from Albert Pike's Masonic Ritual:

"Masonry has not only been profaned, but it has even served as a veil and pretext for the plottings of anarchy, by the secret influence of the avengers of Jacques de Molay."

They will remember, also, the passage quoted from the same author's Ritual of the Southern Jurisdiction of the United States:

"My brother, you desire to unite yourself to an Order which has laboured in silence and secrecy for more than five hundred years with a single end in view, and hitherto with only partial success—that what you are now engaged in . . . will expose you to danger, and that this Order means to deal with the affairs of nations and be once more a power in the world."

These words, let it be remembered, are part of the ritual of an Order of Freemasonry known to have been chiefly founded by Jews, and suspected of being still largely under Jewish influence.

We might carry our quotations further. The Grand Orient of France is generally believed to be under Hebraic influence. On April 2, 1889, the Grand Orient issued a circular which contained these words:

"Masonry, which prepared the Revolution of 1789, has the duty to continue its work."

Again, these protocols speak of the destruction of religion as a means of undermining society. Let us see what the Grand Orient says of religion:

"The triumph of the Galilean," says the President of the Grand Orient, Senator Delpech, on September 20, 1902, "has lasted twenty centuries. But now He dies in His turn. The mysterious voice announcing (Julian the Apostate) the death of Pan today announces the death of the imposter God, Who promised an era of justice and peace to those who believed in Him. Masons, we rejoice to state that we are not without our share in this overthrow of the false prophets."

Of these passages at least there is no doubt at all, for they are taken from the official literature of the Grand Orient. Let the reader decide for himself whether they are the mere vapourings of fanatical atheists or a part of the design of world revolution outlined in the protocols.

But the protocols asserted that they intended to multiply Preemasonic lodges as a preliminary to revolution. What is actually being done? We know that English Masonry generally is nonpolitical and loyal to British institutions. If therefore these conspirators are carrying out their plan in this country it must be by the introduction into England of the Oriental or Scottish Orders of Masonry, that is to say, Masonry of the revolutionary type.

Now in the year 1893 a French lodge called Les Libres Penseurs constituted itself into La Grande Loge Symbolique Ecossaise de France, Le Droit Humain. One of the peculiarities of this Order was that it admitted women as well as men, and the movement has come to be known as CoMasonry. And 'with this Co-Masonry was curiously mingled the cult of Theosophy. Those who have studied the movement find that the leading lights of Theosophy are usually members of the Co-Masonic lodges.

But to proceed. In 1900, this new Grand Lodge transformed itself into a Supreme Council of the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite.

There are now a hundred lodges working under the Supreme Council, and they are to be found in France, Belgium, England, Scotland, India, Holland, Java, Switzerland, Norway, South Africa, and South America. Those lodges of this Order which use the English language have a subsidiary Council of their own, but are nevertheless an integral part of the Continental Order. On the Council of the 33d Degree there are three English Co-Masons out of the total of nine, so that the British representatives are outnumbered by two to one.

It is hardly necessary to say that this movement is not recognized by the Grand Lodge of England, which has cut off all relations with the Grand Orient of France on the ground of its atheism and also of its subversive political tendencies. But the original French members of the Co-Masonic movement were too advanced even for the revolutionary Grand Orient of Paris.

As we have said, the British Co-Masonic lodges have a special Grand Council, and in England they have restored the Bible and the name of God to their ritual. . But six members of the Grand Council are carefully selected from above, and the representatives of the lower degrees are in a hopeless minority on the Council, while the Council itself is subject to the control of the 33d Degree sitting in Paris. Thus no new lodges can be founded without the sanction of the Supreme Council of Paris, and the petition must first be endorsed by the Council of England. It will thus be seen that this Co-Masonic organization has been very carefully thought out, and that its activities are subject to the control of an unseen hand in Paris.

Now we do not allege that all the members of the Co-Masonic movement are conspirators. On the contrary, we believe that many of them are either honest enthusiasts or "those light-minded people" to whom the protocols so contemptuously refer. What we do suggest is that the movement was probably inaugurated and may probably be directed to revolutionary ends.

We do not propose for the moment to say anything more of this Co-Masonic movement except this, that while some of its members seem to be respectable and innocent people, some others who are connected with it and who help to promote it are known also to be connected with the revolutionary and seditious movements which have recently disturbed and, indeed, endangered the British Empire. Of that we possess proofs. In the meantime we would confine ourselves to warning the public of both sexes to beware of such movements. They are put before them in an alluring form, but those who join them may discover too late that they are "the shadowy sanctuaries of revolution."

Nature and Effects of Revolution

It may now be useful to summarize what has gone before and also to make some general remarks upon the nature and effects of revolution. Our summary, then, is, first, that in all the revolutionary movements we have examined there are plain traces of design, and there is evidence also that this design is common to all revolutionary movements. In the second place, we have seen that certain Orders of Freemasonry have been active in this design, and that they have always been inspired by the same ferocious hatred of Christian Church and National State. And in the third place we have observed that a certain type of "advanced" or political Jews have been active, both in the Masonic organizations and in the revolutions themselves. They have not, it is true, led the forlorn hopes; they are seldom to be seen either on the barricades or on the scaffold, but they lurk behind, active and energetic in intrigue, and giving the impression of a purposeful activity.

We have seen how the Abbe Lemann, himself by race a Jew, was careful to distinguish between the advanced, or political, Jew, who nourished great ambitions for himself and for his race, but who had liberated himself from his religion, and the mass of Jews who are content to remain good citizens of the country of their adoption and satisfy the ideal side of their nature with the religion of their ancestors.

We may take it, then, that these ardent political spirits dream a political dream which is a modern development of the Messianic prophecies, and that they have also in their blood a traditional and racial hatred for the Christian nations which in ages past have not treated their people too well. We see this hatred in the realm of Jewish thought, in the revolutionary system of Alexander Hercen, the intellectual founder of Russian anarchy, in the explosive economics of Lassalle and Karl Marx, and in the passionate dreams of Heine. Heine gloats over the prospect of the

"German thunder that is coming slowly but will come—when you hear an uproar such as there never was in history, know then that the German thunderbolt has struck its mark . . . the Germans will then stage a play in comparison with which the French Revolution was but an idyll."

And, again, in his prediction of the role of Russia—

"We do not mind a little slavery more or less, for through Russia we shall be liberated from the remains of feudalism and clericalism." [From Count de Soissons article on 'Jews as Revolutionary leaven', January, 1920 Quarterly Review]

And, lastly, we have found that all these elements come together in a revolutionary propaganda both Semitic and Masonic, which has been, as a fact, behind revolutionary movements both in the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, and probably also in the eighteenth century.

We arrive at these conclusions altogether independently of the Nilus book, a book the credibility of which rests, as we have said, entirely upon internal evidence.

If these conclusions are well founded, a revolution is not the result of what we might call spontaneous social combustion but the result of design. Yet there is this caution to be made: a house does not spontaneously ignite, but it will burn fiercely if its materials are dry, combustible, and rotten. It will probably not catch fire at all if it is built of fireproof material and is inhabited by people who take proper precautions against fire.

So with a nation; the social organization cannot be fanned into the flames of revolution, no matter what secret societies are at work, unless the conditions are favourable to revolution. The conditions favourable to revolution have been diagnosed by statesmen and by historians. They are not, properly speaking, the business of these papers, which was simply to look for the incendiary design, not to devise a fireproof house.

Yet nevertheless we may suggest briefly the causes which predispose to revolution in all ages and in all nations. Wars certainly, and in particular unsuccessful wars, which leave soldiers unemployed, and produce in men a fitness for desperate deeds, are one cause. Bad trade, which throws men upon the streets and leaves them idle and ripe for mischief, which makes thousands of men think that any change is better than present conditions—that is another cause. We shall find if we look into it that practically every revolution is preceded by a period of bad trade and unemployment. Bad harvests and scarcity of food, producing hunger and envy in the masses of the people, axe another cause. Party rivalries and factions in the State, producing bands of men at enmity with the presiding Government, and willing to bring it down for their own purposes—these certainly constitute another cause.

The character of the Government itself, whether it suppresses too much the common liberties of the nation, or, on the other side, is too indulgent with treason and crime, or, again, is inspired by impracticable ideals which bring the State to disaster—here we have still another cause of revolution. And extravagant ideas in the minds of the people, whether of liberty so great that it injures others, or of wealth so easy that it resembles plunder, these, too, may induce to revolution.

Moreover, it has happened in history that an astute and unscrupulous ruler, as, for example, Frederick the Great, may promote a revolution in a neighbouring country for his own purposes, by propaganda and by what we now call peaceful penetration.

Certainly a country well governed by respected rulers, whose industries are prosperous, and whose subjects are reasonably happy, is the sort of national house that does not readily take fire. It is for our statesmen to consider whether England is at present in this case.

When all or any such disturbing conditions exist, then the wreckers work, then the shadowy sanctuaries of revolution become busy, and the people ripe for trouble are persuaded on every hand that their ills can be redressed by the destruction of society.

It is a terrible fallacy. A nation, and especially a modern nation, is a highly complex system of life. It has grown, it has developed, and it exists by the intricate interaction of millions of parts one with another.

Russia was a country which of all countries in Europe could best stand a revolution, for its industrial organization was comparatively low. Ninety per cent, of the people lived on the land in a manner almost self-contained. They could live, although the machinery of modern industrialism was brought to a stand. Yet even in Russia the inhabitants of the great towns and the middle and upper classes, all essential to the national life, have been almost altogether destroyed, except those aliens who were able to come to terms with the "terrible sect." The population of great cities has in many cases almost disappeared. Whole classes have been either destroyed or have fled the country.

But consider the situation of such a country as England in a revolution, where less than half the people live upon the land, and more than half depend upon great intricate industries in which they are all specialists, and the profits of which buy for them all their necessities. Let us consider, too, that in this country most of our food does not come from the farm in the country cart, but by ship and railway from great distances and from foreign countries. If the industrial machinery is brought to a stop, if the carrying machinery is paralyzed even for a fortnight, more than half the nation is deprived of the means of existence. As individuals they are helpless; they must starve. If they rush the shops and plunder the warehouses, if they rob their richer neighbours and forage through the country in plundering hordes, they may exist a little while longer, but the end is no less inevitable.

In any revolution which was really successful from the point of view of the revolutionaries, that is to say, in any revolution which paralyzed what is called the capitalistic organization by which we live, at lease half and probably three quarters of the population would die of starvation. Let us not say that it cannot happen because it has not happened so far. If a revolution occurs it must happen.

France was comparatively fortunate in the Reign of Terror, because her population at that time was chiefly agricultural, yet it is certain that a large part of the population died, whether by massacre or by starvation. Prudhomme estimates that the death-roll in France during the Terror, including losses through civil war, was 1,025,711. In Nancy alone, by the guillotine, shooting, and wholesale drownings and by pestilence, 32,000 people lost their lives. Taine says that there were nearly half a million victims of the Terror in the eleven provinces of the west alone.

We now know that the revolutionaries saw clearly that the population could not continue to exist, and were determined to reduce it. Courtois, in his report on the papers seized at Robespierre's house, speaks of a plan to annihilate twelve or fifteen millions of the French people. One of the Illuminati, Gracchus Babeuf, said that depopulation was indispensable.

Prudhomme asserts that the Terror was part of a plan of depopulation conceived by Marat and Robespierre. Carrier, one of the instruments of the Terror, said: "Let us make a cemetery of France rather than not regenerate her after our manner." Jean Bon Saint-Andre is reported (by Larevelliere-Lepeaux) to have asserted that in order to establish the Republic securely in France, the population must be reduced by more than one half.

And these massacres were indiscriminate. Modern analyses of the names of the victims show that they were not chiefly aristocrats, but were drawn in the main from among poor and obscure people, small shopkeepers. Of the 1366 victims of the Great Terror in Paris, the largest proportion was either from the middle or the working classes. Hundreds of working men and working women were guillotined for reasons that cannot now be ascertained. It is probable that many of them were denounced out of panic, and many others for reasons of blackmail. People killed in order not to be killed, and the tribunal demanded victims at the rate of so many a day in order to overawe those who remained.

Such things take place when the social order is in dissolution, when criminals and fanatics usurp the place of Government. And there is another terror added. For the enemies of a nation in revolution take the opportunity of attacking it, and invasion and internal war complete the destruction. No nation can without a terrible catastrophe destroy its social and industrial order and its national discipline.