THE JEWISH ZIONIST MESSIAH:
“The mashiach [Jewish messiah] will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15)…The world after the messiah comes is often referred to in Jewish literature as Olam Ha-Ba (oh-LAHM hah-BAH), the World to Come…In the Olam Ha-Ba, the whole world will recognize the Jewish G-d as the only true G-d, and the Jewish religion as the only true religion (Isaiah 2:3; 11:10; Micah 4:2-3; Zechariah 14:9).”
— From “Mashiach: The Messiah”, Judaism 101 —–
“With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.”
— David Ben-Gurion, first Prime Minister of the Jewish State of Israel.

HISTORY DIDN’T START IN THE 20/21st CENTURY!
For the past 2000 years we have had a problem with a mindset that strives to destroy us.

EYES WIDE OPEN!
The First Protocol of the Elders of Zion is 3000 years old!
It was there for all to see, but because of brainwashing, people couldn’t see it!
Genesis chapter 47 clearly shows the modus operandi that Jews have used to control the non-Jew.
By playing the MIDDLEMAN to the RULER and the RULED, he is able to use the non-Jews to enrich the Jew and his tribe.

GENESIS 47:1-28
Joseph went to Pharaoh and told him,
“My father and brothers with their flocks and herds and everything they own have come from Canaan. Right now they are in Goshen.”
He had taken five of his brothers with him and introduced them to Pharaoh. Pharaoh asked them,
“What kind of work do you do?”
“Your servants are shepherds, the same as our fathers were. We have come to this country to find a new place to live. There is no pasture for our flocks in Canaan. The famine has been very bad there. Please, would you let your servants settle in the region of Goshen?”
Pharaoh looked at Joseph.
“So, your father and brothers have arrived—a reunion! Egypt welcomes them. Settle your father and brothers on the choicest land—yes, give them Goshen. And if you know any among them that are especially good at their work, put them in charge of my own livestock.”
Next Joseph brought his father Jacob in and introduced him to Pharaoh. Jacob blessed Pharaoh. Pharaoh asked Jacob,
“How old are you?”
Jacob answered Pharaoh,
“The years of my sojourning are 130—a short and hard life and not nearly as long as my ancestors were given.”
Then Jacob blessed Pharaoh and left.
Joseph settled his father and brothers in Egypt, made them proud owners of choice land—it was the region of Rameses (that is, Goshen)—just as Pharaoh had ordered. Joseph took good care of them—his father and brothers and his entire father’s family, right down to the smallest baby. He made sure they had plenty of everything.
The time eventually came when there was no food anywhere. The famine was very bad. Egypt and Canaan alike were devastated by the famine. Joseph collected all the money that was to be found in Egypt and Canaan to pay for the distribution of food. He banked the money in Pharaoh’s palace. When the money from Egypt and Canaan had run out, the Egyptians came to Joseph.
“Food! Give us food! Are you going to watch us die right in front of you? The money is all gone.”
Joseph said,
“Bring your livestock. I’ll trade you food for livestock since your money’s run out.”
So they brought Joseph their livestock. He traded them food for their horses, sheep, cattle, and donkeys. He got them through that year in exchange for all their livestock.
When that year was over, the next year rolled around and they were back, saying,
“Master, it’s no secret to you that we’re broke: our money’s gone and we’ve traded you all our livestock. We’ve nothing left to barter with but our bodies and our farms. What use are our bodies and our land if we stand here and starve to death right in front of you? Trade us food for our bodies and our land. We’ll be slaves to Pharaoh and give up our land—all we ask is seed for survival, just enough to live on and keep the farms alive.”
So Joseph bought up all the farms in Egypt for Pharaoh. Every Egyptian sold his land—the famine was that bad. That’s how Pharaoh ended up owning all the land and the people ended up slaves; Joseph reduced the people to slavery from one end of Egypt to the other.
Joseph made an exception for the priests. He didn’t buy their land because they received a fixed salary from Pharaoh and were able to live off of that salary. So they didn’t need to sell their land.
Joseph then announced to the people:
“Here’s how things stand: I’ve bought you and your land for Pharaoh. In exchange I’m giving you seed so you can plant the ground. When the crops are harvested, you must give a fifth to Pharaoh and keep four-fifths for yourselves, for seed for yourselves and your families—you’re going to be able to feed your children!”
They said,
“You’ve saved our lives! Master, we’re grateful and glad to be slaves to Pharaoh.”
Joseph decreed a land law in Egypt that is still in effect, A Fifth Goes to Pharaoh. Only the priests’ lands were not owned by Pharaoh.
And so Israel settled down in Egypt in the region of Goshen. They acquired property and flourished. They became a large company of people. Jacob lived in Egypt for seventeen years. In all, he lived 147 years:
THIS WAS THE FIRST CHAPTER OF THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION
***********
FREEMASON/ILLUMENATI/COMMUNISM:
THE RITE OF MIZRAIM
(Founded 1805)
This rite had 90 degrees. It was founded in 1805 at Milan by Le Changeur, Clavel, Marc Bedarride and Joly, and was introduced into France in 1816.
Its trials of initiation were long and difficult, and founded on what is recorded of the Egyptian and Eleusinian mysteries.
Heckethorn states that this rite is essentially autocratic there being no obligation on the Grand Master to account for his actions.
In the Rosicrucian for January 1871 we read the following notice (page 136).
Quote
“We have great pleasure in announcing that this philosophic Masonic Rite (Ancient and Primitive Rite of Mizraim) has been recently established in England under authority derived from the Grand Council of Rites for France, and that the Conservators General held a meeting at Freemasons Tavern, on Wednesday, the 28th December. The principal chairs were filled by Ill. Bros. Wentworth Little 90°; the Rt. Hon. The Earl of Limerick 90°; and S. Rosenthal 90°; by whom the ‘Bective’ Sanctuary of Levites — the 33rd of the Rite — was duly opened… It was then announced that the following brethren had accepted office in the Rite: The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Bective, Sovereign Grand Master, etc., etc.”
The Rite of Mizraim was amalgamated with that of Memphis in 1775, when John Yarker, as stated by Freke Gould{1} “sanctioned the communication of the degrees of Mizraim to members of the Rite of Memphis, the former having no separate governing body in this country” (England).
According to an official statement, repeated in every number of the Kneph: “France (having) abandoned the Rite, and the Ill. Gd. Hierophant, J. E. Marconis, 33°, 97°, having died in 1868, Egypt took full possession. The Craft Gd. Lodge, our Ancient and
Primitive Rite, and the Ancient and Accepted Rite, executed a tripartite Treaty to render mutual aid, and restored the Sov. Gd. Mystic Temple — Imp. Council Cen., 96°, presided over by a Gd. Hierophant, 97°, in 1775.”
Essentially Jewish, the historical activities of this order to date are interesting.
Some years ago, a document to which the reader must be referred, The Protocols of the Wise Men or Elders of Zion{2}, was brought to light. Abstracted from a Jewish Lodge of Mizraim in Paris, in 1884, by Joseph Schorst, later murdered in Egypt, it embodied the programme of esoteric Judaism. Schorst was the son of a man who, in 1881, had been sentenced in London to ten years penal servitude for counterfeiting.
Before studying these Protocols however, the reader should be made acquainted with a few facts.
This document was first published in 1905 at Tsarskoe
1. Robert Freke Gould, The History of Freemasonry, vol. II, p. 135.
2. L. Fry, Waters Flowing Eastward.
Selo (Russia), embodied in a book called The Great Within the Small written by Sergius A. Nilus.
In January 1917, a second edition, revised and documented, was ready, but before it could be put on the market for distribution and sale, the revolution had taken place (March 1917), and the Provisional Government had been replaced by that of Kerensky who himself gave the order to have the whole edition of S. A. Nilus’s book destroyed. It was burnt.
A few copies however had been distributed, one of them found its way to England, one to Germany and one again to the United States of America in 1919. In each of these three countries, a few people determined to make a close study of the document with the result that it was soon published everywhere.
In England, it was and still is published by an organization called “The Britons”.
In Germany, a remarkable work was done by Gottfried zum Beck.
In France, it was published by Mgr. Jouin of the Revue Internationale des Sociétés Secrètes and by the fearless M. Urbain Gohier of Vieille France.
In the United States, two anonymous editions were published, one by Small Maynard of Boston, and the other, later, by the Beckwith Company.
Then editions appeared in Italian, Russian, Arabic and even Japanese.
No sooner had the document been made public than loud protests were heard coming from all sections of dispersed Israel.
Writers and lecturers were recruited to deny the assertion and shatter the growing belief of a Jewish conspiracy for the political, economic and legislative dominion of the world.
The method of intimidation used to suppress discussion of The Protocols has always been the same. It consists in suggesting that the person guilty of interest in the subject is crazy or becoming so. As the average mortal prefers to be thought sane by his fellow men, the trick generally works.
A short review of the affray must be made. First and foremost came a strong denial made by a Jew, Lucien Wolf, who wrote the pamphlet: The Jewish Bogey and the Forged Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, (1920).
Israel Zangwill, another Jew, also wrote against the veracity of the Protocols. Then, in America, followed articles by William Hard, in the Metropolitan, ridiculing belief in the document.
More serious was the painstaking campaign undertaken against the publication of the Protocols by the chiefs of the U. S. Kahal or Kehillah, who intimidated the editor, George H. Putnam, and forced him to stop the publication of the book by threats to call his loans and thus ruin him financially. The Beckwith Co. was eventually induced by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League to enclose in every copy of the edition they published a small pamphlet containing the denial of the contents of the Protocols.
Among the Gentiles found ready to deny the truth of the Protocols was a certain du Chayla, also a Mrs. Hurlbut and the notorious Princess Catherine Radziwill who had previously reached the pinnacle of self-advertisement by having had herself sentenced to a term of imprisonment in South Africa for forgery in 1902. It seemed as if all the denials against the Jewish authorship of the Protocols had been made, when finally in 1921 the London Times made the sensational discovery through one of its correspondents in Constantinople, a Mr. X. — of a French book which they called the Dialogues of Geneva, published anonymously at Brussels in 1865. It was this book, the
Times affirmed, which had been plagiarized by the author of the Protocols. The publication of this discovery by the Times seemed to have closed all further discussion tending to prove the Jewish authenticity of the Protocols and very little has been heard since on the subject.
Yet, to use the words of the Zionist, Max Nordau, during his violent quarrel with another Zionist, Asher Ginzberg: Audeatur et altera pars. It is this other side of the story which the reader is now asked to hear.
The book The Times called The Geneva Dialogues bears in reality the following title: Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu. It had been published anonymously in Brussels in 1864. The introduction ends thus:
“Geneva, October 13, 1865”.
It was soon discovered by the police of Napoleon III that the author of the book was a certain lawyer, Maurice Joly, who was arrested, tried, and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment (April 1865), as it was averred that he had written his book as an attack against the government of Napoleon III to which he had lent all the Machiavelian plans revealed in the Dialogues.
A short sketch of the author’s life is necessary in order to understand the spirit of his book.
Maurice Joly (1831-1878), was born at Lons-le-Saulnier. His mother, née Florentine Corbara Courtois, was a Corsican of Italian origin and a Roman Catholic. Her father, Laurent Courtois, had been paymaster-general of Corsica. He had an inveterate hatred of Napoleon I.
Joly’s father was Philipe Lambert Joly, born at Dieppe, Normandy.
He had a comfortable fortune and had been attorney general for the department of Jura for a period of 10 years under Louis Philippe. Maurice Joly was educated at Dijon and began his law studies there, but in 1849 he left for Paris.
There, thanks to his maternal grandfather’s Masonic associations, he secured, just before the Coup d’Etat in 1851, a post in the Ministry of the Interior under M. Chevreau.
In 1860 only, he terminated his law studies, — he wrote several articles, showed a certain amount of talent and ended by founding a paper called Le Palais for lawyers and attorneys. The principal stockholders were Jules Favre, Desmaret, Leblond, Adolphe Crémieux, Arago, and Berryer.
Joly was a Socialist. He wrote of himself:
“Socialism seems to me one of the forms of a new life for the peoples emancipated from the traditions of the Old World. I accept a great many of the solutions offered by Socialism but I reject Communism either as a social factor or as a political institution. Communism is but a school of Socialism. In politics I understand extreme means to gain one’s ends — in that, at least, I am a Jacobin.”
Friend of Adolphe Crémieux, he shared in his hatred of Napoleon III. He hated absolutism as much as he hated Communism and as, under the influence of his Prime Minister Rouher, the French Emperor led a policy of reaction, Maurice Joly qualified it as Machiavelian and depicted it as such in his pamphlet.
In one of his books he wrote of it:
“Machiavelli represents the policy of Might compared to Montesquieu’s, which represents the policy of Right — Machiavelli will be Napoleon III who will himself depict his abominable policy”. (From Maurice Joly — Son passé, son programme — by himself, 1870).
And here comes the important point which the Times omitted to put before its readers when it made the sensational discovery about the Dialogues of Geneva in 1921!
Maurice Joly, who hated Communism and, in 1864, ascribed the Machiavellian policy of Might over Right to the Imperialism of Napoleon III, was evidently ignorant of the fact that he himself was no innovator, for, long before he ever entered the journalistic or political world, the very theory which he had tried to expose and refute had been the guiding principle of a group of ardent revolutionists, promoters of Communism, and worthy followers of Illuminatis and Babouvists, the group of Karl Marx, Jacoby, etc. the agitators of the 1848 revolution.
Long before Maurice Joly’s book Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu had made its appearance, another book bearing much the same title had been published in Berlin in 1850. It was called
Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Rousseau by Jacob Venedy and was published by Franz Dunnicker, Berlin.{3}
Jacob Venedy, the author, was a Jew, born in Cologne, May 1805, died February 1871. Owing to his revolutionary activities, he was expelled from Germany and sought refuge in France. While living in Paris, in 1835, he edited a paper of subversive character called Le Proscrit which caused the police to send him away from Paris.
He then lived at Le Hâvre. Later, due to the intercession of Arago and Mignet, friends of Adolphe Crémieux, he was once more allowed to return to Paris. Meanwhile, he had published a book, Romanisme, Christianisme et Germanisme, which had won for him the praise of the French Academy. Venedy was a close friend and associate of Karl Marx. He had spent the years 1843-44 in England which at that time was the refuge and abode of all the master minds of the 1848 revolution. In 1847 Venedy was in Brussels with Karl Marx who had founded there the secret organization called “The Communist League of Workers”, which was eventually brought out into the open under the name of “The International Society of Democracy” (Société Internationale de la Démocratie).
3. L. Fry, Waters Flowing Eastward.
In 1848, after the February Revolution, Venedy returned to Germany, still in the company of Karl Marx. He soon afterwards became one of the chiefs of the revolutionary Committee of Fifty, organized at Frankfort-on-Main in March 1848. Venedy was sent as “Commissar” into the Oberland to stand against Ecker. In Hesse-Homburg he was elected a member of the Left and took his place in the Committee of Fifty. It was at this time that in Berlin he published his book Machiavelli, Montesquieu and Rousseau, upholding the ideas of Machiavelli and Rousseau for the slavery and demoralization of the people.
When order was once more re-established in Germany, Venedy was expelled from Berlin and Breslau. He was an active member of the Masonic Order Bauhütte which was affiliated to the Carbonari. (See Die Bauhütte for Feb. 25, 1871).
It is to be regretted that the Times, which had started an investigation to trace the authorship of The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion, and lift it off the shoulders of Jewry upon which it rested, should have missed looking into the literary and revolutionary activities of Jacob Venedy.
Following the apparent contradiction between Jacob Venedy and Maurice Joly, one showing the Machiavelli and Rousseau policy as that of triumphant Communism, whilst the other makes it the policy of Reaction and Imperialism, one is apt to overlook the link between the two. The student of the 1830-1848 period of history is here confronted by a remarkable fact.
Fould, the Rothschilds of Paris, London and Vienna, Montefiore, Disraeli, the Goldsmids, were not less Jews than Karl Marx, Moses Hess, Jacoby, Lassalle, Venedy, Riesser. The Liberal Conservatism of Disraeli, the reactionary Imperialism of Fould and the revolutionary Communism of Karl Marx all point towards the same aim, namely, the establishment of Jewish power, whether under a Constitutional Monarchy, an Empire, or a Republic. And although their respective activities seem to stand so far apart, yet they are all linked, all tending towards the same end.
One of the most striking instances is the case of Adolphe Crémieux who played a prominent part in the period we are now concerned with, and who was connected with all parties and actually helped form the centre which united them all, viz. The ALLIANCE ISRAÉLITE UNIVERSELLE, which was, in fact, the central Kahal for Universal Jewry.
The life of Adolphe Crémieux and the activities of his Jewish contemporaries, belonging to widely divergent social spheres, illustrate forcibly the concerted plan of Judaism to reach its secret Messianic hope of world domination.
Until about 1848, it seemed somewhat difficult to show conclusively the link between Judaism and Illuminism, Communism and Capitalism, but a close study of the life of Adolphe Crémieux, and that of his confidential agent, Léon Gambetta, throws full light on the subject.
Whereas in Gentile life, there is an unbridgeable abyss between Conservatism and Anarchy, Religion and Atheism, there is no such chasm in the Jewish Mentality. There, all currents, no matter in what direction they may seem to flow, are finally united and channelled in one unique direction.
If it has been somewhat difficult for historians of the French Revolution to see the close link between Judaism and Illuminism, we repeat that no such difficulty exists for the student of the 1848 revolutionary period, after he has followed the life of Adolphe Crémieux and the activities of his Jewish contemporaries.
The main difference is that the term “Illuminism” used in the 18th century is replaced by the wide term Freemasonry which embraces all the existent secret societies.
Adolphe Isaac Crémieux (1796-1880) came from a Jewish family of the South of France, that had members in Aix, Nîmes and Marseilles.{4}
In his youth, Crémieux was an enthusiastic admirer of Napoleon I; yet in 1831, he pronounces the funeral eulogy of the ill-famed revolutionist of 1789, the Abbé Grégoire. He chose law as his profession and was admitted to the Bar at Nîmes in 1817.
Briefly, Crémieux’s life may be viewed from three sides:
1st, his racial Jewish activities, 2nd, his Masonic activities, 3rd, his political influence.
Crémieux’s racial Jewish activities are exemplified by the part he took in the Damascus Affair with Moses Montefiore, a Jew of England, when Jewry successfully but unconvincingly silenced the accusation of ritual murder committed upon the Catholic priest, Father Thomas, at Damascus, in 1840.
He had a prominent share in the foundation and development of the Alliance Israélite Universelle. Officially founded in 1860, this international union of disseminated Jewry had as we know, existed for centuries, but after the Damascus affair, the Jewish leaders knew that they had attained sufficient power to feel enabled to show to the whole world that although the civil rights they enjoyed had been granted them by different countries, the real allegiance of each and every one of them was due to their Jewish nationality.
4. Gaston Crémieux, another member of the same family (1836-1871) was an active Socialist and Revolutionary. He participated in the Paris Commune and was court-martialled and executed in 1871.
The Masonic activities of Adolphe Crémieux were many and powerful. His connection with Louis Bonaparte and his brother, who both were affiliated to the Carbonari, would suggest that he was also connected with this secret society. But it is a fact that Crémieux belonged to the Lodge of Mizraim, the Scottish Rite, and also the Grand Orient. He was in the Supreme Council of the Order of Mizraim and, at the death of Viennet, in whose person the Grand Orient and the Scottish Rite had been united, Crémieux succeeded him as Grand Master.
The political activities of Crémieux are also manifold and varied. In his youth, he had been an admirer of Napoleon I and later became an intimate friend as well as the legal adviser of the Bonaparte family and joined their party which was undermining the government of Louis Philippe, son of Philippe “Egalité”.
In 1848, he was one of the most ardent supporters of Louis Napoleon and took an active part in the overthrow of Louis Philippe. He had been one of the foremost speakers in the association known as the Campagne des Banquets which had done so much to promote the Revolution of Feb. 1848.
He became a member of the provisional government and was appointed Minister of Justice. He strongly advocated the candidature of his friend, Louis Napoleon, for the post of President of the French Republic. Crémieux had had hopes of being made Chief Executive under Louis Napoleon and thus play in France the same role which Disraeli played in England; that is ruling the country from behind the scenes. Both Disraeli and Crémieux had the same financial backing, namely the wealth of the Rothschilds and Montefiores, who, in London, were friends of Disraeli and, in Paris, friends of Crémieux.
Crémieux was therefore keenly disappointed when General Cavaignac was appointed Prime Minister in the Republican Government of Louis Napoleon, and as revenge, he directed his activities against the Prince President, his former friend. He became so hostile to him that in 1851, after the Coup d’Etat of December 2, by which Louis Napoleon recreated the Empire and assumed the title of Napoleon III, Crémieux was imprisoned at Vincennes and Mazas. After his release, he made himself the champion and defender of the Communist associates of Karl Marx, the revolutionaries Louis Blanc, Ledru Rollin, Pierre Leroux and others.
His untiring efforts were directed against the Empire in general and Napoleon III in particular, and he consorted with all the Emperor’s enemies, among them, Maurice Joly, the author of the Dialogue between Machiavelli and Montesquieu.
After the overthrow of Napoleon III and the defeat of France at the hands of Germany in 1871, and the establishment of the Republic, Crémieux once more took an open part in the political affairs of the country.
He pushed to the front his former secretary Gambetta and effectively directed him in his shady negotiations with Bismarck, the latter himself being guided by the Jew Bamberger (1852-1899), a former revolutionist of 1848, but who, having found refuge in France, had been for many years manager in Paris of the Jewish Bank Bischoffsheim and Goldschmidt. He was one of Crémieux’s friends, and the war could not affect the ties linking the Jews united in the Alliance Israélite Universelle.
From 1871 until his death, it can be safely asserted that Crémieux, as President of the Alliance Israélite Universelle and Grand Master of the Scottish Rite, exercised a tremendous influence upon the anti-religious campaign which followed the Franco-Prussian War. In this as in all his lifelong activities, Crémieux was only obeying the teachings of the Talmud and trying to destroy every religion but that contained in Judaism. His favourite theme was that there should be only one cult — and that cult should be Jewish. At a general assembly of the Alliance Israélite Universelle, on May 31, 1864, Crémieux had said:
“The Alliance is not limited to our cult; it voices its appeal to all cults and wants to penetrate in all the religions as it has penetrated into all countries. Let us endeavour boldly to bring about the union of all cults under one flag of Union and Progress. Such is the slogan of humanity.”{5}
One cult, one flag! Are the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion or the speeches of Machiavelli in Joly’s book anything but a lengthy exposition of the ideas briefly expressed by Crémieux? His activities are one of the clearest examples of Jewish Internationalism and Jewish efforts for the realization of the Messianic ideal.
The Alliance Israélite Universelle issued from the Rite of Mizraim plus Universal Freemasonry, subsidized by International Finance, would spell the doom of Christian civilization, the destruction of nationalism, the death of nations upon whose ruin has been erected a new Temple of Solomon, containing the treasures and material wealth of the whole world, and over which is placed the six pointed star of ZIONISM.{6}
5. “Union and Progress” was the name given to several revolutionary associations and also to several Masonic Lodges.
6. The means for the attainment of Crémieux’s ambition are set forth in a book entitled Paris, Capitale des Religions, by Jean Izoulet.
Lion Gambetta (1838-1882), an Italian Jew, obtained French naturalization on Oct. 29, 1859, and in 1862 became the secretary of Crémieux.
He was Deputé in 1869, Dictator of National Defence, head of the War Office and Minister of the Interior after the Commune of 1870 and Dictator again after the Coup d’Etat of the President of the Republic Marshal MacMahon in 1877.
The following quotation from a letter which he wrote to his father on June 22, 1863 is interesting.
“My chief, Maître Crémieux, treats me as if I was his adopted son, and if within three years’ time he is elected a deputy (which is quite possible) my career will be settled once and for all. I must devote myself to law and politics, and then I may hope to triumph over all obstacles and finally to attain great honours.”{7}
7. P. B. Gheusi, Gambetta, Life and Letters, p. 207.
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/H … … izraim.htm
COMMUNISM FERMENTED IN SECRET SOCIETIES
France provided impetus for the 18th century revolutionary underground. Secret societies provided the organisational basis for revolutionary groups. The American scholar J H Billington, in his study on revolution as ‘faith’ states that:
‘so great was the impact of freemasonry in the revolutionary era that some understanding of the Masonic milieu seems the essential starting point for any serious enquiry into the occult roots of the revolutionary tradition’.[1]
Philippe Buonarroti, the Italian exponent of the French Revolution, was initiated into Masonry in 1786. In 1808 he formed Les Sublimes Maîtres Parfaits. Like the Order of the Illuminati, grafted on to Freemasonry in 1776, within this was an inner circle organised to realise political aims. Dr J M Roberts believes Buonarroti might have joined an Illuminati-influenced lodge in 1786.[2]
Buonarroti had a major influence on the revolutionist Auguste Blanqui, and through his book Conspiration pour l’Egalité dite de Babeuf, suivie du procès auquel elle donna lieu, was a seminal influence on the 1848 revolutions that swept Europe. Roberts describes Buonarroti as having established a ‘career as the Grand Old Man of secret societies, advising republican revolutionaries in Italy right down to a young Mazzini…’[3]
With Francois Babeuf, Buonarroti had co-founded the Society of the Pantheon, one of the first of the revolutionary secret societies to emerge from the French Revolution. In 1796 the plan for a second revolution was discovered and two hundred arrests were made. Babeuf and a colleague were executed. Buonarroti was imprisoned in 1797.[4]
Buonarroti organised a communistic group of Philadelphe Masonry within the Lodge Amis Sincères.
Roberts states:
“What may be termed the first international political secret society, the Sublimes Maîtres Parfaits, was founded by Buonarroti, perhaps in 1808. Only freemasons were admitted to it. The Elect were aware that they were to work for a republican form of government; only the Areopagites knew that the final aim of the society was social egalitarianism, and the means to it the abolition of private property”. [5]
Regarding Napoleon as having ‘delivered the coup de grâce to the revolution’, as he termed it Buonarroti went to Geneva where,
“The Masonic lodges provided the ambience in which Buonarroti formulated in 1811 his first full blueprint for a new society of revolutionary republicans: the Sublime Perfect Masters… Both the society’s name and the three levels of membership proposed for it had been adopted by Masonry. Indeed, Buonarroti sought to work through existing Masonic lodges…” [6]
Buonarroti’s blueprint for the revolutionary conspiracy was ‘rich in Masonic symbolism’, and provided the ‘prototype for revolutionary organisation’.[7]
ANARCHISM
From the Illuminism that worked through Masonry, Jacobinism and the societies of Buonarroti, several major doctrinal strands merged that were designed to provide a ‘scientific’ doctrine for revolution: Communism and Anarchism.
Proudhon coined the term ‘anarchy’. He was initiated into Masonry in 1847 according to a biographer.[8]
Masonry provided the basis for the revolutionary cells that were to organise the revolutionary outbreaks that spread throughout Europe in 1848:
Michael Bakunin (1814-1876) and Pierre Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865), both Freemasons. When revolution again swept Europe in the mid-nineteenth century, it was the Masonic model of organization which provided an organizational blueprint for Bakunin’s International Brotherhood and the Revolutionary Alliance. [9]
Bakunin acknowledged the role of Masonry in the revolutionary events of the late 18th to mid 19th centuries:
“Today, having sadly become a jabbering old intriguer, it is useless and worthless, sometimes malevolent and always ridiculous, whereas before 1830 and especially before 1793 it was active, powerful, and genuinely beneficent, uniting through its organizations the choicest minds and the most ardent hearts, the most fiery wills and the boldest personalities, with but a very few exceptions. We know that nearly all the main actors of the first Revolution were Freemasons and that when that Revolution erupted it found, thanks to Freemasonry, friends and powerful allies in every other country. This certainly contributed to its triumph…”[10]
MARXISM AND THE ORDER OF MEMPHIS
Marx’s Communist League and The Communist Manifesto did not emerge from a void. Communism was the culmination of several centuries of agitation, theorising and propaganda within secret societies.
Louis Blanqui, a follower of Buonarroti, organised the League of the Just. German émigrés in Paris formed their own branch called the League of Outlaws, which became the Communist League, and in 1847 asked Marx to write The Communist Manifesto. It is from Blanqui that the dictum now credited to Marx, the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, originated.[11]
In 1810 a revived Order of Memphis was established in France working 90°. It was recognised by the Grand Orient de France in 1826, and underwent a further revision in 1838 under Jacques Étienne Marconis, establishing lodges in Paris and Brussels and claiming adherents in England.
Prof. Mark Lause, a labour historian, offers an overview of this association in a paper entitled ‘Walking Like an Egyptian’.[12] Lause states of the years following the French Revolution and the rise of revolutionary secret societies:
“Since the French Revolution, those eager to build political organization found freemasonry a ready model. Doubtlessly, some revolutionaries had always sought the protective appearance of freemasonry. An Italian participant in the French Revolution, Filippe Michele Buonarotti survived decades of repression, prison, and intense police scrutiny to launch a series of secret societies that remained viable well into the 1830s. Towards the close of this period, a student named Louis Auguste Blanqui entered this conspiratorial world, and remained influential within it as late as the 1870s. Blanqui’s Société des Saisons urged an ongoing revolutionary overthrow of ruling classes until the process left the working class alone to exercise power”.[13]
Some of the German émigrés in Paris, founding the League of Outlaws, adopted the doctrines of Blanqui. The League was brought to Germany under the influence of Johann Hoeckering, who had been a protégé of Buonarroti. From here the League of the Just, which became the Communist League, was formed.
Among these secret societies was The Order of Memphis, which was part of an important Masonic current in France that included Mizraim, Martinism, the Scottish Rite and Grand Orient. The association between the Order and the revolutionists was apparent to the authorities, which considered banning it along with the League of Just and the Blanquists. In 1839 the authorities decided not to ban the Order, but it was declared dormant in 1841 to avoid a future possibility. The Order maintained its existence under its Paris organisation, Loge des Philadelphes, which had a leadership that ranged from Republicans to Blanquists. After the February 1848 Paris riots, the Order resurfaced but was banned and moved its headquarters to London. This Order was influential in the formation of the First International.
The revolutionary Provisional Government mobilised the Parisian workers into co-operative enterprises, the National Workshops. Fearing the empowerment of the workers, however, the Provisional Government shut down the workshop project. Lause states that Louis Blanc, spokesman for the National Workshops, was the ‘most prominent member’ of the Conseil Supreme de l’Ordre Maconnique de Memphis, which became the major revolutionary faction.
Lause writes:
“These radical masons rode the crest of radicalism into ‘the June Days’, when the government force of 40,000 moved against an indeterminate numbers of workers, leaving between 4,000 and 5,000 dead with an unknown number of wounded. The state of siege continued in October, and the dictatorship that emerged banned the Order of Memphis, which moved its Supreme Council to London”.[14]
This outgrowth led directly to the founding of the First International.
Lause states:
“Over the next fourteen or fifteen years, the order eased the alliance with revolutionaries of other nations. It fostered what became the International Association in March 1855. The Order of Memphis provided almost all of the French members of the General Council of the later International Workingmen’s Association”.[15]
MARX’S LODGE
Dr Bob James[16] draws similar conclusions to that of Nicolaevsky and Lause regarding Freemasonry and the rise of socialism:
‘It’s neither accidental nor an aberration that reformers Garibaldi, Mazzini, Charles Bradlaugh and Karl Marx were all Freemasons, as were many “labour movement” people in Australia’.
James identifies the associations between the First Internationale and the Lodge of which Marx was an initiate, along with other influential revolutionists. Citing O York[17] on the ‘secret history of the First International’, James writes:
The IWMA [Industrial Working Men’s Association] in Geneva sought and found a temple worthy of their cult…a Masonic Temple…, which they [Marx, et al.] rented. They put the name of ‘Temple’ on their cards and bills.
Bradlaugh[18] acknowledges having been initiated into the Loge des Philadelphes which is believed to have been Marx’s lodge, his ‘brothers’ including Blanc, Garibaldi and Mazzini. Founded in London in 1850, its initial members were émigrés from recognised foreign Orders, which perceived Freemasonry as:
‘An institution essentially philanthrophical, philosophical and progressive. It has for its objects the amelioration of mankind without any distinction of class, colour or opinion, either philosophical, political or religious; for its unchangeable motto: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’.[19]
FIRST INTERNATIONAL
While conspiracy theorists state that Marx was in the employ of the Illuminati through the League of the Just, which is referred to as an Illuminatist front this theory is usually conjectural.[20]
It is, however, an example of the conjecture being justified, as the association of Marx with Illuminism can be established from reliable sources.
Mizraim Masonry had a direct association with the formation of the First International and with the emergence of Marxism. Lause, pointing out that ‘conspiracy theories’ have been ‘dismissively’ treated by historians, states,
“Nevertheless, there was at least one kernel of truth in the shadows of suspicion. Certainly, the tangled history of freemasonry has largely mirrored the political and social views of those drawn to the craft, and some of those drawn to the more peculiar pseudo-Egyptian forms of the order reflected views that were accordingly distinctive”.[21]
B I Nicolaevsky had been a member of the Social Democratic Party in Russia, and Director of the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow after the Bolshevik Revolution, but was deported from Russia in 1922. He then served as Director of the International Institute of Social History in Amsterdam, and Curator of the Menshevik Collection at the Hoover Institute. He is therefore a source of rare authority. Nicolaevsky states of the Masonic role in forming the First International that there existed in France an ‘underground, revolutionary Masonry’ whose role in the forming of the First International was ‘enormous’.[22]
Nicolaevsky is at pains to point out that these revolutionary lodges were not ‘real Masonry’, however, this is a matter that goes to the heart of the dispute between the English United Grand Lodge and the Grand Orient, Scottish Rite, et al. Certainly the Masonic connections with the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries, the most prominent being Kerensky, head of the Provisional Government prior to the Bolshevik revolt in 1917, are well established. Nicolaevsky identifies this revolutionary Masonry with the Memphis Rite, which he states is that of the Philadelphe Lodge founded by Buonarroti:
The Lodge of the Philadelphians was formally part of an association that, at the beginning of the 1850’s, bore the name of the Order of Memphis. The history of this order is obscure. Historians of masonry do not accord it much attention or sympathy, and as a matter of fact, much of its history is contradictory and incomprehensible. An odd mixture of pseudo-Eastern mysticism and obvious leftist political sympathies on the part of the leaders of the order leaves a strange impression. As a rule, the left wing of Freemasonry tried to lead the movement away from mysticism in the name of rationalism and free thought, and insisted on simplification of the statutes.
The Philadelphians had a completely different outlook. Not only did they trace their forebears to ancient Egyptian priests and to the legendary Chaldean magi who went to Bethlehem to pay tribute to the Christ child, but they preserved the 96 grades of initiation and the post of Le Grand Hierophante at their head. At the same time, almost from the moment the Philadelphians appeared on the scene during the July Monarchy, they tended to draw support from left-wing, even extreme-left-wing, elements.
The historian is faced with the paradox that whereas Jean-Etienne Marconi, founder and head of the order for many years, was utterly indifferent to politics, the Supreme Council of the order for 1855 was composed entirely of Republicans and Socialists who sat with the extreme left in the National Assembly of 1848-49.[23]
The Philadelphians in London were established by French émigrés who also established La Commune Revolutionnaire. The Philadelphians, did not openly engage in political activities, unless one regards the banquets it organized as such activities. For political occasions it created special organizations, which formally led an independent existence but in fact were under the complete control of the Lodge, which used them as political instruments. [24]
Hence, the Lodge portrayed itself as a harmless society, in the manner of English United Grand Lodge Masonry, even assuming the name of ‘Grand Lodge’, but formed fronts for political purposes. Nicolaevsky refers to Young Europe, of which Mazzini’s Young Italy, and Young Germany, Young Hungary, etc. were national chapters, which instigated the 1848 revolutions throughout Europe, as being products of this crypto-Masonic underground, which laid the foundation for the Communist movement. The failure of the 1848 Revolution obliged a return to the previous cell structure of the secret societies.
Similar combinations of old forms of organizational structures and political activity were widespread in France during the Restoration and the July Monarchy, when revolutionaries generally belonged either to the Carbonari, Young Europe, and similar groups, or to groups of latter-day Babouvists; all these organizations were, to a greater or lesser extent, essentially conspiratorial in nature. It was only during the years immediately preceding the Revolution of 1848, principally under the influence of the English Chartist movement that new forms of organizational structures as well as social and political activities began to emerge. The new organizations shifted their attention to the open propagation of Socialist and Communist ideas and to the building of mass organizations of laborers in the city and on the land. Throughout Western Europe, the general trend was away from relatively small groups of active revolutionary conspirators who were isolated from their environment, and toward mass political parties, political clubs, and labor unions. On the eve of the revolution of 1848, the new-style organizations increasingly tended to supplant the old, conspiratorial groups, which were under the influence of masonic principles of organization. The new-style organizations were thrown back two or three decades by the defeat of the 1848-49 revolution, and the old type of organization came once again to the fore. This trend was particularly marked among the French refugees from the Second Empire.[25]
The influence of the Commune Revolutionnaire, founded in 1852, under Louis Blanc, came to the fore. Blanc was a member of the Supreme Council of the Order of Memphis, whose operations were headquartered in London, after having been banned by the Paris police in 1852. Nicolaevsky states that
‘When the Supreme Council was transferred to London, Blanc, as the Council’s chief speechmaker, was able to direct its policy, and, at the same time, to influence the policy of the Lodge of the Philadelphians without officially becoming a member’. [26]
In 1855 the Philadelphian Lodge established the International Association to liase with revolutionary cells throughout the world. The Philadelphian focus was on both opposing Napoleon III, which included terrorist tactics, and on supporting Garibaldi’s revolutionary forces in Italy. Among these conspirators in the Philadelphian Lodge at this time was Charles Bradlaugh, the colleague of future Theosophical Society president Annie Besant. From out of these activities emerged an organisation to replace the International Association, which was created in the first instance under the name of Garibaldi, the founding Congress being held in Brussels in 1863. With new input from French socialist émigrés in alliance with English socialists the Philadelphian Lodge played ‘a great role’ in forming the First International. Lodge initiate Victor Le Lubez organised the inaugural congress in 1864 and selected the founding council in which there were many lodge members.[27]
If the cell structure and the doctrines of Communism looked suspiciously like the Illuminati then it is likely to be the common milieu from which both arose.
[1] J H Billington, Fire in the Minds of Men: Origins of the Revolutionary Faith (New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2011), 92.
[2] J M Roberts, The Mythology of the Secret Societies (London: Secker & Warburg,1972), 230.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., 237.
[5] Ibid., 266.
[6] Ibid., 91.
[7] Ibid., 91-93.
[8] D W Brogan, Proudhon (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1934).
[9] C Goeringer, ‘The Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and The Illuminati, Part I – The Enlightenment’, http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/enlightenment/
[10] M Bakunin, ‘Open Letter To Swiss Comrades Of The International’.
[11] D Conway, A Farewell to Marx, (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1987), 146.
[12] Lause specialises in the history of the labour movement. An associate professor of history at McMicken College of Arts & Sciences, University of Cincinnati, his faculty biography states that he ‘teaches specialized courses in American Labor History, Comparative Labor History, and the Age of Jackson… For years, he has presented his work or participated in panels at the Annual North American Labor History Conference at Detroit, and the centennial conferences on Eugene V. Debs and Henry George’.
[13] M A Lause, ‘Walking Like an Egyptian: The American Destinies of a Revolutionary French Secret Society’, http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Quad/6460/WalkingEgyptian4.html
– 81k
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16]. Dr Bob James is the Convenor and Co-ordinator of the Australian Centre for Fraternal Studies. He states of himself: ‘I make these claims on the basis of 25 years of research, of ten years or so as Secretary of the Hunter Labour History Society, and as organiser of a National Labour History Conference’.
[17] O Yorke, The Secret History of the International Working Men’s Association (Geneva, 1871).
[18] Charles Bradlaugh, the English radical and atheist, and collaborator with future Theosophist Annie Besant.
[19] James, op. cit.
[20] For example, Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy (California: Concord Press, 1972), 30.
[21] Lause, op. cit.
[22] B I Nicolaevsky, ‘Secret Societies and the First International’, The Revolutionary Internationals, 1864-1943, Milorad M. Drachkovitch ed., (Stanford, Stanford University Press for the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, 1966), http://libcom.org/library/secret-societies-and-first-international-boris-i-nicolaevsky
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
Source: Kerry Bolton

REMEMBER:
THE JEWISH ZIONIST MESSIAH:
“The mashiach [Jewish messiah] will bring about the political and spiritual redemption of the Jewish people by bringing us back to Israel and restoring Jerusalem (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5). He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1). He will rebuild the Temple and re-establish its worship (Jeremiah 33:18). He will restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land (Jeremiah 33:15)…The world after the messiah comes is often referred to in Jewish literature as Olam Ha-Ba (oh-LAHM hah-BAH), the World to Come…In the Olam Ha-Ba, the whole world will recognize the Jewish G-d as the only true G-d, and the Jewish religion as the only true religion (Isaiah 2:3; 11:10; Micah 4:2-3; Zechariah 14:9).”
— From “Mashiach: The Messiah”, Judaism 101 —–

“With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.”
— David Ben-Gurion, first Prime Minister of the Jewish State of Israel.