(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).

"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...

[p. 408]

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 Antient and Primitive Rite, and the Antient 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.

[p. 409]

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

[p. 410]

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

[p. 411]

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.

[p. 412]

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 JolySon 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

[p. 413]

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

3. L. Fry, Waters Flowing Eastward.

[p. 414]

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).

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.

[p. 415]

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

[p. 416]

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


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.

[p. 417]

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.

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

[p. 418]

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 a 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

[p. 419]

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


5. "Union and Progress" was the name given to several revolutionary associations and also to several Masonic Lodges.


[p. 420]

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}

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 were 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}


6. The means for the attainment of Crémieux's ambition are set forth in a book entitled Paris, Capitale des Religions, by Jean Izoulet.

7. P. B. Gheusi, Gambetta, Life and Letters, p. 207.