9. NIETZSCHE: (2) THE ATTITUDE TO TRUTH
Three further aspects of Nietzsche's thought should be pointed out here. The first is his elevation of the psychological method of argumentation to the front rank in philosophy.
Now Nietzsche's psychological approach to philosophy had both successes and failures. But if we are inclined to dismiss it because of the grossness of its failures (especially in relation to Christianity), we must nevertheless admit that he anticipated many of the psychoanalytical ideas, such as repression, sublimation and the unconscious, that became part of the furniture of the mind of twentieth-century man. And insofar as the Nietzschean method of psychological reductionism became the stock-in-trade of the twentieth century's attempts to reduce God and religion to unconscious impulses and fantasies, we may accept that he was right in calling psychology the coming "queen of the sciences"104, taking the place of the former queen, theology, in the same way that the Antichrist takes the place of Christ...
A second important aspect of his thought is his extreme individualism and disgust with mass culture. The morality of the master was the value-system of the proud individual, and that of the slave - of the masses. In essence, therefore, "Morality in Europe today is herd animal morality".105 "Today..., when only the herd animal receives and dispenses honors in Europe, when 'equality of rights' could all too easily be changed into equality in violating rights [a prophetic word!] - I mean into a common war on all that is rare, strange, privileged, the higher man, the higher soul, the higher duty, the higher responsibility, and the abundance of creative power and masterfulness - today the concept of greatness entails being noble, wanting to be by oneself, being able to be different, standing alone and having to live independently."106
"From the sociological point of view," writes Davies, "Nietzsche's views may be seen as an intellectual's revulsion against the rise of mass literacy, and of mass culture in general. They were espoused by an international coterie of artists and writers, which wished to strengthen the barriers between so-called 'high culture' and 'low culture', and hence to preserve the role of the self-appointed aristocracy of ideas. In this, they formed a suitable partner for modernism in the arts, one of whose chief attractions lay in the fact that it was unintelligible to the person in the street. 'Mass culture generated Nietzsche in opposition to itself,' writes a recent critic, 'as its antagonist. The immense popularity of his ideas among early twentieth-century intellectuals suggests the panic that the threat of the masses aroused.'
"In retrospect, it is the virulence with which Nietzsche and his admirers poured contempt on 'the masses' that appears most shocking. 'Many, too many, are born,' spake Nietzsche's Zarathustra, 'and they hand on their branches much too long.' In The Will to Power, Nietzsche called for 'a declaration of war by higher men on the masses. The great majority of men have no right to existence.’”107
Nietzsche's extreme individualism is linked to the Nazis' herd-morality by the fact that the universality of the herd-morality generates an overwhelming need for the heroic individual, the Führer-master, who stands out against the crowd and dominates it. "The appearance of one who commands unconditionally strikes these herd-animal Europeans as an immense comfort and salvation from a gradually intolerable pressure, as was last attested in a major way by the effect of Napoleon's appearance."108
And if this attitude to the majority is considered cruel, so be it: "Almost everything we call 'higher culture' is based on the spiritualization of cruelty, on its becoming more profound: this is my proposition. That 'savage animal' has not really been 'mortified'; it lives and flourishes, it has merely become - divine. "What constitutes the painful voluptuousness of tragedy is cruelty; what seems agreeable in so-called tragic pity, and at bottom in everything sublime, up to the highest and most delicate shudders of metaphysics, receives its sweetness solely from the admixture of cruelty. What the Roman in the arena, the Christian in the ecstasies of the cross, the Spaniard at an auto-da-fé or bullfight, the Japanese of today when he flocks to tragedies, the laborer in a Parisian suburb who feels a nostalgia for bloody revolutions, the Wagnerienne who 'submits to' Tristan and Isolde, her will suspended - what all of them enjoy and seek to drink with mysterious ardour are the spicy potions of the great Circe, 'cruelty'."109
But the most radical aspect of Nietzsche's thought is his pragmatic and relativistic attitude to truth. This was a consequence of the proud individualism we have discussed. For if the master creates his own morality, he must necessarily create his own truth, which is not necessarily truth for anybody else. And certainly not for the slaves, who derive their morality from the herd or their priestly hierarchy. That is why the philosophers of the future, according to Nietzsche, "will certainly not be dogmatists. It must offend their pride, also their taste, if their truth is supposed to be a truth for everyman - which has so far been the secret wish and hidden meaning of all dogmatic aspirations. 'My judgement is my judgement': no one else is easily entitled to it - that is what such a philosopher of the future may perhaps say of himself.
"One must shed the bad taste of wanting to agree with many. 'Good' is no longer good when one's neighbour mouths it. And how should there be a 'common good'! The term contradicts itself: whatever can be common always has little value. In the end it must be as it is and always has been: great things remain for the great, abysses for the profound, nuances and shudders for the refined, and, in brief, all that is rare for rare."110
There are no certainties, only probabilities. "In place of fundamental truths I put fundamental possibilities - provisionally assumed guides by which one lives and thinks."111 "The falseness of an opinion is not for us any objection to it. The question is, how far an opinion is life-furthering, life-preserving."112 "There is, according to Nietzsche, no absolute truth. The concept of absolute truth is an invention of philosophers who are dissatisfied with the world of Becoming and seek an abiding world of Being. 'Truth is that sort of error without which a particular type of living being could not live. The value for life is ultimately decisive.'"113
It follows that knowledge can never be completely objective, being the servant of irrationality.
This special Nietzschean attitude to truth has become dominant in recent politics. Thus Peter Osborne writes: "In the summer of 2002 the New York Times writer, Ron Suskind, met a senior adviser at the Bush White House. He was surprised to find that the aide dismissed his remarks: 'The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community", which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality". I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works any more," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out.'
"Hostility to a 'reality-based' analysis of events can be traced back to postmodernism, which has become a fashionable orthodoxy among teachers of philosophy, and indeed other academic disciplines. Postmodernism is one modern manifestation of extreme philosophical scepticism, a tradition which can be traced back to the beginnings of thought and the ancient Greek school of Pyrrho. This school despaired of the notion that truth was accessible and deduced that no ultimately stable distinction could be drawn between truth and falsehood.
"Postmodernism denies that the truth can ever be known. It holds that words like falsehood, accuracy and deception, at any rate as used in ordinary speech, have no validity. That is because it concerns itself with the competing claims of rival truths. The idea of verifiable reality, so important to the Anglo-American school of empirical philosophy, is dismissed as an absurdity.
"Postmodern thinking grew up in the astonishingly influential school of French philosophy which flourished in the 1970s and 1980s and is perhaps associated in particular with the historian and philosopher Michel Foucault and the philosopher Jacques Derrida. Truth was, for Foucault, no more than an effect of the rules of discourse, itself a highly problematic concept, and for Foucault all discourses were equally valid. Perception and truth were there to be created. Though he was famous for historical studies of sex, madness and prisons, Foucault declared, 'I am well aware that I have not written anything but fictions.' Foucault sometimes argued that truth was the effect of power relations, the expression of dominance, whether political, economic or sexual.
"The influential American philosopher Richard Rorty helped take the work of Foucault and Derrida across the Atlantic. Rorty shared the view of the French school that truth claims could never be incontestably grounded, and argued that an alternative way of giving weight to words was to 'construct' what he called a 'narrative'. This has the effect of shifting the emphasis of argument from truths which can be verified to 'narratives' that can be manufactured.”114
10. NIETZSCHE: (3) THE ANTICHRIST
It follows from this attitude to truth that Nietzsche was an atheist and a nihilist. "The greatest event of recent times - that 'God is dead', that belief in the Christian God has become unworthy of belief - already begins to cast its first shadows over Europe. At last the horizon lies free before us, even granted that it is not bright; at least the sea, our sea, lies open before us. Perhaps there has never been so open a sea."115
He admitted that he was a nihilist when he asserted with gusto "that there no truth; that there is no absolute state of affairs - no 'thing-in-itself'. This alone is Nihilism and of the most extreme kind."116
Fr. Seraphim Rose has described nihilism as the fundamental philosophy, not only of Nietzsche, but of the modern world as a whole. The history of nihilism, according to Rose, has three main historical stages: liberalism, realism and vitalism, which are completed by a final stage: the nihilism of destruction. Liberalism is an attitude rather than a belief, an attitude of indifference to questions of absolute truth, or a desire to believe that the answers to such questions, if they exist, are less important than living a pleasant, "civilised" life in this world. Realism is the belief that absolute truth does not exist, and that truth is to be found in science alone without any deeper metaphysical basis. Vitalism is the belief that it is not truth, whether scientific or metaphysical, that matters, but vitality, life, creativity, dynamism. The Nihilism of Destruction is not simply atheist, but antitheist; it is not content with denying absolute truth, or finding a substitute for it in a vaguely restless dynamism, but seeks to destroy that truth and everything associated with it.
"Vitalism," writes Rose, "in the forms of Symbolism, occultism, artistic Expressionism, and various evolutionary and 'mystical' philosophies [including some forms of nationalism], is the most significant intellectual undercurrent throughout the half century after about 1875; and the Nihilism of Destruction, though its intellectual roots lie deep in the preceding century, brings to a grand conclusion, in the public order as well as in many private spheres, the whole century and a quarter of Nihilist development with the concentrated era of destruction of 1914-45."117
Rose continues: "Father John of Kronstadt, that holy man of God, has likened the soul of man to an eye, diseased through sin and thus incapable of seeing the spiritual sun. The same likeness can serve to trace the progress of the disease of Nihilism, which is no more than an elaborate mask of sin. The spiritual eye in fallen human nature is not sound, as every Orthodox Christian knows; we see in this life only dimly and require faith and the Grace of God to effect a healing that will enable us, in the future life, to see clearly once more. The first stage of Nihilism, which is Liberalism, is born of the errors of taking our diseased eye for a sound one, of mistaking its impaired vision for a view of the true world, and thus of discharging the physician of the soul, the Church, whose ministrations are not needed by a 'healthy' man. In the second stage, Realism, the disease, no longer attended by the necessary physician, begins to grow; vision is narrowed; distant objects, already obscure enough in the 'natural' state of impaired vision, become invisible; only the nearest objects are seen distinctly, and the patient becomes convinced no others exist. In the third stage, Vitalism, infection leads to inflammation; even the nearest objects become dim and distorted and there are hallucinations. In the fourth stage, the Nihilism of Destruction, blindness ensues and the disease spreads to the rest of the body, effecting agony, convulsions, and death."118
Nietzsche despises Liberalism, and has already gone beyond Realism. He is in essence a particularly clear prophet of Vitalism, the "positive" content of nihilism. But we also see in him the totally negative, destructive nihilism that found practical contemporary expression in the anarchist revolutionary activity of Bakunin and the Paris Communards. Nietzsche argues that if God exists, and his commandments are accepted, then it is necessary to reject the world - or at any rate attach only a conditional value to it. "'The concept of God', he says in The Twilight of the Idols, 'was up to now the greatest objection against existence.' And in The Antichrist we read that 'with God war is declared on life, Nature and the will to live! God is the formula for every calumny against this world and for every lie concerning a beyond!'"119
But Nietzsche wants to embrace the world - in itself, for itself, and with absolutely no reference to any exterior cause, purpose or criterion of its existence, in its "ugliness" as well as its "beauty", its "evil" as well as its "good". That is why, in answer to the question: "What does Nihilism mean?" he replies: "That the highest values are losing their value. There is no goal. There is no answer to the question: 'why?'"120 For the question "why?" has no answer within the bounds of this world. It points to Him Who exists independently of the world and gives it meaning, whereas in fact there is no thing, nihil, beyond this world.
Fortunately, in Nietzsche's view, for the majority of his contemporaries "God is dead" - that is, they have lost their faith in God. "We have killed him (God), you and I! We are all his murderers! But how have we done it? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the whole horizon? What did we do when we loosened this earth from its sun? Whither does it move now? Whither do we move? Away from all suns? Do we not dash on unceasingly? Backwards, sideways, forwards, in all directions? Is there still an above and below? Do we now stray, as through infinite nothingness? Does not empty space breathe upon us? Has it not become colder? Does not night come on continually, darker and darker?"121
Since men have lost faith in God, they have become, to use Fr. Seraphim Rose's term, passive nihilists. This is "the Nihilism of the Liberal, the humanist, the agnostic who, agreeing that 'there is no truth', no longer ask the ultimate questions."122 But passive nihilism, though useful in Nietzsche's eyes, also disgusts him because of its lack of vitality. He is looking for a "stronger age" than "this decaying, self-doubting present" - an age of active Nihilism. And this active Nihilism is expressed first of all in destruction: "He who wishes to be creative must first destroy and smash accepted values."123 "Nihilism is not only the belief that everything deserves to perish; but one actually puts one's shoulder to the plough; one destroys."124
But human nature abhors a vacuum; while creating darkness, it longs for the light. And that neither passive nor active Nihilism is the final goal for Nietzsche. Nihilism only clears the ground, as it were, for "anti-nihilism", a "transvaluation of values", "a counter-movement" that in some remote future will supersede this perfect Nihilism; but which nevertheless regards it as a necessary step, both logically and psychologically, towards its own advent, and which positively cannot come, except on top of and out of it."125
For, as Rose writes, "the corollary of the Nihilist annihilation of the Old Order is the conception of a 'new age' - 'new' in an absolute, and not in a relative, sense. The age about to begin is not to be merely the latest, or even the greatest, of a series of ages, but the inauguration of a whole new time; it is set up against all that has hitherto been. 'It may be,' said Nietzsche in a letter of 1884, 'that I am the first to light upon an idea which will divide the history of mankind into two': as the consequence of this idea, 'all who are born after us belong to a higher history than any history hitherto'."126
The master of this new age will be a man who nurtures in himself to the greatest possible extent the proud, sensual, egoistic, cruel, supremely passionate will to power. This is the true man, the superman. "Dead are all the gods," says Nietzsche's Zarathustra: "now do we desire the superman to live."127 The superman must live because he is the fittest to live in an almost Darwinian sense (although, as we have seen, Nietzsche did not believe in Darwinism). Contrary, therefore, to Tertullian's belief that the human soul is by nature Christian, according to Nietzsche it can only be antichristian. For "I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct for revenge for which no expedient is sufficiently poisonous, secret, subterranean, petty - I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind."128
The appearance of the Antichrist requires, as Nietzsche writes, "a different kind of spirit from that likely to appear in this present age: spirits strengthened by war and victory, for whom conquest, adventure, danger, and even pain have become needs; it would require habituation to the keen air of the heights, to winter journeys, to ice and mountains in every sense; it would require even a kind of sublime wickedness, an ultimate, supremely self-confident mischievousness in knowledge that goes with great health; it would require, in brief and alas, precisely this great health!
"Is this possible even today? - But some day, in a stronger age than this decaying, self-doubting present, he must yet come to us, the redeeming man of great love and contempt, the creative spirit whose compelling strength will not let him rest in any aloofness or any beyond, whose isolation is misunderstood by the people as if it were flight from reality - while it is only his absorption, immersion, penetration into reality, so that, when he one day emerges again into the light, he may bring home the redemption of this reality: its redemption from the curse that the hitherto reigning ideal has laid upon it. This man of the future, who will redeem us not only from the hitherto reigning ideal but also from that which was bound to grow out of it, the great nausea, the will to nothingness, nihilism; this bell-stroke of noon and of the great decision that liberates the will again and restores its goal to the earth and his hope to man; this Antichrist and anti-nihilist; this victor over God and nothingness - he must come one day."129
Thus Nietzsche was in a real sense a prophet of the Antichrist - not only of the final Antichrist of Christian prophecy, but also of those forerunners of the Antichrist that were to bedevil the twentieth century. And his own descent into madness witnessed to the terrible folly of his ideal…
11. A JEWISH WORLD GOVERNMENT?
One form of nationalism does not fit easily into the general picture of European nationalism that we have drawn. Jewish nationalism is anomalous because, on the one hand, it is very old, much older than European nationalism, and on the other, because most Western Jews until the later nineteenth century were vigorously trying to deny its existence, and were trying instead to assimilate themselves to Gentile culture. It is anomalous also because it is so linked with the religion of the Jews that for many the idea of a Jewish secular nationalism distinct from, and not based upon, the Jewish faith was both inconceivable and anathema.
Berlin writes: "Perpetual discussions went on, during the nineteenth century - the most historically conscious of all ages - about whether the Jews were a race, or solely a religion; a people, a community, or merely an economic category. Books, pamphlets, debates increased in volume if not in quality. But there was one persistent fact about this problem, which was in some respects more clearly perceived by the Gentiles than by the Jews themselves: namely, that if they were only a religion, this would not have needed quite so much argument and insistence; while if they were nothing but a race, this would not have been denied quite so vehemently as it has been by persons who nevertheless professed to denote a unique group of human beings by the term 'Jew'.
"It gradually became clear, both to Jews and to those who took an interest in their affairs, that in fact they constituted an anomaly, which could not be defined in terms of the ordinary definition of nations, as applied at any rate to European nations; and that any attempt to classify them in such terms would lead to unnatural, artificial and Procrustean consequences. Despite passionate denials of this proposition from many sides, it became increasingly clear to almost everyone who approached the problem from outside that the Jews were a unique combination of religion, race and people; that they could not be classified in normal terms, but demanded an extraordinary description, and their problem an extraordinary solution."130
The problem was made more complex by the fact that there were large differences between the Sephardic Jews of the West, who were not particularly numerous and were in general striving for assimilation, and the more numerous, poorer and more religious Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe, whose attitude to the Gentiles among whom they lived was disdainful and hostile. Correspondingly, governments in East and West took very different views of "the Jewish problem". In the West, the Jews were disliked, not so much for their Talmudic religious beliefs, of which most Westerners were profoundly ignorant, as for their racial characteristics, whether real or imaginary. In the East, however, the Jews were discriminated against, not on racial but on religious grounds, as is proved by the fact that the Karaite Jews, who rejected the Talmud, were freed of all restrictions by the Russian government.
The question that all governments had to answer was: what were the real intentions of the Jews? Just a place under the sun like every other nation? Or world domination?
That this was not just anti-semitic prejudice, but that there was real room for doubt is shown by the examples of prominent Jews who believed that members of their own race were striving precisely for world domination. Thus Benjamin Disraeli, the Christianised Jew and British Prime Minister, "made sensational statements about Jewish and secret society conspiracies' running Europe's public affairs. In Coningsby, a novel published in 1844, he had one character declare that 'The first Jesuits were Jews... that mighty revolution which is at this moment preparing in Germany,... and of which so little is yet known in England, is entirely developing under the auspices of Jews.' Two pages further, a character makes an even more ominous statement, one quoted time and again by conspiracy theorists: 'So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.' Nor did Disraeli confine himself to making such statements in fictional works. In a biographical work of 1852, he asserted that Jews 'wish to destroy that ungrateful Christendom.' He even took his conspiracism to the floor of Parliament, announcing in 1856 that 'a British Minister has boasted - and a very unwise boast it was - that he had only to hold up his hand and he could raise a revolution in Italy to-morrow. It was an indiscreet boast, but I believe it not impossible, with the means at his disposal, that he might succeed. What would happen? You would have a republic formed on extreme principles.’”131
Again, Adolphe Crémieux, one of the most westernised and successful Jews of the time, and at one time the minister of justice in the French government, wrote: "The Messianism of the new era must arise and develop; the Jerusalem of the New World Order, which is established in holiness between the East and Asia, must occupy the place of two forces: the kings and the popes... Nationality must disappear. Religion must cease to exist. Only Israel will not cease to exist, since this little people is chosen by God."132
Did the Jews have a secret government? Tikhomirov wrote: "The main defender of this thesis is Copen Albancelli. His argumentation is based not so much on any factual data, of which, in essence, there are none, as on logic.
"'The question,' he writes, 'can be summarised in very few words. In order that the descendants of the ancient nation of the Jews should preserve the ideal of this nation, it is necessary that their generations should be bound amongst themselves in space and time by one organisation, one government. This is necessary for the simple reason that the Jewish race is ruled by the same laws of nature as all other races. This government, it is true, has not manifested itself since the 9th century (the end of the Resh Golut), but the conditions of existence ruling over the Jewish people from the time of its dispersal have been such that its government could not exist, if it were well-known. Since it had to exist, it had to become secret.' Perhaps, he says, the majority even of the Jews know nothing about it, but this does not prove its non-existence.
"But where are these ruling circles directing their nation? Since the matter is secret, of course, we can only make guesses, the more so in that no powerful organisation and no government has set itself the task of making any kind of investigation into the question whether the Jews have any world plans and how these are to be achieved. In this area we have only the surmises of the anti-Semites, and in particular Copen Albancelli, which we cannot fail to mention for lack of any more positive material. Copen Albancelli's assertions come down to the following. But first we must note that Albancelli was a Freemason for quite a long time (eight years) and attained in it the degree of Rosicrucian, which is quite high in the degrees of classification - the 18th degree. True, Copen Albancelli considers that after the 33 degrees of capitularies a new layer of the organisation of Masonry begins - an 'invisible' layer, and on top of that yet another layer of the now [purely] Jewish administration of Masonry. But although, in this way, Copen Albancelli was still far from the highest degrees, nevertheless with great skill he was able to notice and listen into a lot. However they may be, these are his presuppositions.
"First of all, he considers that the secret Jewish government has as its weapon of influence in the extra-Jewish world - precisely the Masonic organisation, which subconsciously carries out the aims of the Jewish government. But the aim of the latter is the universal dominion of the Jews.
"'The aim of the Masonic machinations,' says Copen, 'is not the destruction but the submission of the Christian world. The Jewish Secret Government (Pouvoir Occulte) wishes to destroy the Christian spirit because the Christian spirit constitutes the true defence of the world born from it. In exactly the same way if this secret government destroyed the French monarchy, it was only because this monarchy was the best defence of France.' 'The dream [of universal mastery] is supported in the heart of the Jewish people by its religion& The Jews at first thought that mastery would come about sometime, would be given to their race by a triumphant Messiah. But now the idea has spread amongst them that the word 'Messiah' must be applied not to a certain son of the Israelite race, but to the race itself, and that the conquest of the world can be carried out without the use of weapons. They are now convinced that the future victor will be the Jewish people itself, and that the Messianic times are those in which this people will succeed in subduing to itself the world begotten by the Christian Messiah, who has for so long taken the place appointed for the true messiah, that is, the Jews themselves.'
"The dream of universal dominion, continues Copen, is not new to humanity. Other peoples also dreamed of universal dominion. 'Perhaps this idea was not always the ruling one for Israel to the extent that it is now.' It developed gradually. But to the degree that they seized the most powerful weapon - gold - this dream matured. The successes of Masonry strengthened it. 'Jewry has begun to see the growth of its might in every corner of the globe in proportion as the power of the solidarity, and consequently resistance of the Christian races has declined as the result of the loss of tradition. Its government sees everything while not being seen by anyone. For that reason it probably bursts out when nobody is even thinking of defending himself against it, since nobody knows of its existence. In such conditions it would be complete senselessness on the part of the Jewish government if it did not come to the idea of conquering the world which nothing or almost nothing is defending... Having accomplished a miracle - the keeping of the race that had wandered over the world in fidelity to its ancient national ideal - and seeing that the other races senselessly consider progress to be the abandonment of their ideals the Jewish government must have recognised itself capable of giving its own people rule over the whole world.'
"But in order to secure dominion a new organisation of the subject races is needed. Every ruler over peoples strives to give them an organisation adapted to the possibility of administering them. For the Jews in this respect it was necessary to destroy nationality. This is now taking place under the banner of progress. But in the place of an organisation growing on the soil of nationality, another one is needed: it is being prepared in the form of socialism.
"'We,' says Copen Albancelli, 'are going towards a universal republic because only under it can the financial, industrial and commercial kingdom of the Jews be realised. But under the mask of a republic this kingdom will be infinitely more despotic than any other. This will be absolutely the same mastery as that which man organises over the animals. The Jewish race will hold us by means of our needs. It will lean on a well-chosen police force, well organised and richly rewarded. Besides this police force, in this new society there will be only administrators, directors and engineers, on the one hand, and workers on the other. The workers will all be non-Jews, while the administrators and engineers will be Jews... The peoples themselves will facilitate the destruction in their midst of every power besides the State, while it will be insinuated to them that the State possessing everything is they themselves. They will not cease to work on their own enslavement until the Jews will tell them: "Excuse us, you have not understood us in the right way. The all-possessing State is not you, but we." Then the peoples will try to rebel, but it will be too late, for their moral and material springs that are necessary for action will already have disappeared. Flocks cannot resist dogs trained to watch over them. The only thing that the working world will be able to do is refuse to work. But the Jews will not be so stupid as not to foresee this. They will lay up enough stores for themselves and their guard dogs, while they will starve the resisters to death. If necessary, they will hurl onto the rebels their police force, which will be invincible and provided with the most advanced means of destruction.'
"'That is the plan of the Secret Government,' says Copen Albancelli, 'the establishment of the universal dominion of the Jews by means of the organisation of collectivism under the form of a universal republic. Masonry will lead us to the realisation of this.'"133
Nesta Webster confirmed this link between the Jews, Masonry and the world state: "The formula of the 'United States of Europe' and of the 'Universal Republic' [was] first proclaimed by the Illuminatus Anacharsis Clootz", whose La République universelle was published in 1793. "It has long been the slogan of the French lodges."134 And "in 1867," writes Lebedev, "the Masons created the 'International League of Peace and Freedom' with Garibaldi at its head. In it for the first time the idea of the United States of Europe under Masonic leadership was put forward."135
"But of course," notes Tikhomirov, "the very forms of collectivism can give way to a single Jewish national organization."136 In other words, the Jewish leaders of Masonry might wish to destroy the various nationalisms of Europe in order to create a single socialist republic, but only as a steppingstone to the realisation of their own nationalist dreams. For, as Baruch Levy wrote to Marx: "The Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy, and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this 'new world order' the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property, and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which it is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands."137
In this context mention should be made of The Protcols of the Elders of Zion, first published around the turn of the century, which purported to be the minutes of a meeting of Jewish elders somewhere in the West. In their account of how the Jews could seize power in various spheres, they showed considerable prescience; and because of this prescience, they played an important role in stirring up anti-semitism in Germany and elsewhere after the First World War. And many people to this day believe in their authenticity. But in fact the Protocols are largely plagiarized from Maurice Joly's Dialogue aux Enfers entre Montesquieu et Machiavel, published in 1864. When the forgery was demonstrated to Tsar Nicholas II, he said: "Drop the Protocols. One cannot defend a pure cause by dirty methods."138
|
