MAURICE JOLY


Let us take a closer look at the author of The Dialogues. In 1864 Maurice Joly had written a pamphlet against the despotic rule of Napoleon III which he, deluding the censure, published as a dialogue between the French politician Montesquieu and the Italian politician Machiavelli. The text also appeared in book form in Belgium, after Joly failed to find a printer in France. The book is divided into twenty-five satirical dialogues, in which Montesquieu, as the spirit of the 1789 conspiracy and Machiavelli, as usurpator of Napoleon III, fight a fierce fictitious battle; the latter believing that humanity can only be saved by a universal, totalitarian power, whilst Montesquieu airs the liberal vision of the author.

The book is an accusation against Napoleon III, because he abolished the rights acquired during the French Revolution. Whilst Montesquieu acted as an advocate for civil rights and humanistic values, Napoleon III, by mouth of Machiavelli communicated his despotic and cynical half-truths: Politics and morality were supposed to be opposites, power and law each other's equals. In the book, Machiavelli (or Napoleon III) tells Montesquieu:
 
“Your mistake is that you respect the people. You have no idea how obtuse it is.”
 
Officially, it was said that Maurice Joly ridiculed Napoleon III. That was absolutely the case, however the book reveals more. Joly not only ridiculed the French emperor by making a fool of Napoleon III, but also smothered the monarchist sentiments of the French people. With his 1871 book Commune, Joly prepared for the downfall of the House of Bonaparte and for the separation of Church and State in France. We will discover that, as commissioned by the Illuminati, Maurice Joly’s book was not only thoroughly primed, but also had an active part in the events in Paris at that time. In an original quote from Joly’s Autobiography we read:

“I am a revolutionary and a Jacobin. I consider socialism the new way of living in which the people people are liberated from the old-world traditions. I accept many solutions offered by socialism. Communism, on the other hand, I reject as a social solution and as a political institution. Communism is but a school of socialism. In politics I show understanding for extreme measures to achieve one’s goals. In that sense I am definitely a Jacobin.”

Joly’s revolutionary actions were not just limited to what he wrote. In a separate book published in 1871 about French history, the following passage was found concerning the bloody Commune-riot in Paris:

"In the mean time, speakers held speeches for the people. These lively speeches were held on the streets and squares occupied by the citizens. Everyone yelled or shouted during these speeches. In the end it was agreed that a delegation, led by Maurice Joly was to proceed to the town hall located in the Hotel de Ville. The delegation was allowed in without any problems and was allowed to take a seat in the room adjacent to the large reception hall. There they were received by the famous statesman Jules Ferry. He asked for the purpose of their visit. Joly however, immediately accused him of being an incapable politician who handled the resources of the city of Paris irresponsibly.”

In Le Temps of February 27, 1871 Jules Ferry related:

“When the riots started I wasn’t in the town hall. When I arrived there, Maurice Joly was the first person I met and he asked me several questions. The group around him chanted; ‘The Commune, we want the Commune.’”

La Commune de Paris (fourth French revolution) was a government that briefly ruled Paris from March 18 (more formally, from March 28) to May 28, 1871. The Commune-riot was instigated and executed by the Illuminati and Freemasons. Le Temps of February 25th also depicted the author of the Dialogues as a leading revolutionary. In the magazine Tribuneaux, a court case of February 23rd was being reviewed and Maurice Joly’s name can be found amongst the twenty individuals accused and charged with inciting civil war and illegal possession of goods by theft. In Le Temps of February 26th we find that;

“When asked by Mr. Dupont de Bussac, witness Requet declares that Mr. Lefrançais’ demeanor had not been aggressive. Injuries had only been established from the party of Mr. Maurice Joly.”

In the book L’Invasion - Le Siège 1870 - La Commune 1871 by Armand Dayot, amongst the pictures of the leading revolutionaries of 1871 was also a picture of Maurice Joly. Maurice Joly had always been a rebel and a troublemaker, but also a Freemason and a member of the Illuminati, and one held in high respect by the people. The famous Freemason and author George Kloss describes that an uncle of Maurice Joly brought the Misraïm-Rite to France:

“Brother Joly and brother Bedarride brought the Misraïm-Rite to France in 1814.”

In the book L’Ordre Maçonnique de Misraim, Part II it is mentioned that Lassalle, great commander of the Valley of Naples, sent Joly, who has the 77th degree of the order of Misraïm, to Great Commander Marc Bedarrides with a request to grant him a promotion. Joly was promoted to the 81st and later to the 87th degree. On the 19th of May 1815, Joly was promoted to the highest body of the Misraïm-rite in France. Maurice Joly befriended the most important Grandmaster of the Misraïm-Rite, Isaac Adolphe Cremieux. Not only was he a member of the afore mentioned Misraïm-Rite, but also of the Scottish Rite and Grand Orient. Cremieux was in the highest council of the Misraïm-Order and in the event of the death of Viennet, would succeed him as Grandmaster in the Grand Orient and the Scottish Rite. Cremieux had the financial means; the wealth of the Rothschilds.

Joly was also the founder of the Alliance Israélite Universelle. On September 10, 1921 the London newspaper The Spectator, published a remarkable letter sent by Sir Andrew de Ternant, stating:

“Maurice Joly was a very good friend of my fathers, the late Victor de Ternant, who often told me that the Montesquieu Machiavelli-book by Jules Janin was revised by the Journal de Débats and was rewritten to a large extent and finally published at the expense of a rich German banker in Switzerland.”

The late Victor de Ternant had been secretary to Jules Janin for two years. This gentleman had always maintained that Joly’s Dialogues were the adaptation of a secret document from ancient times. Jules Janin took care of the revision of the book. In a copy of another letter by Ternant dated October 29, 1921 it says:

“I cannot recall the name of the German banker in Switzerland; the company operated under three different names. The bank had ties with the house of Rothschild in Frankfurt. This banker paid Joly three hundred English pounds for his work, and Jules Janin got a third of that amount for his revisions.”

With relation to this an entire series of well-documented facts can be listed, here, outlined briefly: Cremieux is mentioned as Maurice Joly’s benefactor. benefactor. According to Joly’s Autobiography (page 13), Cremieux supported Joly on the re-edition of his magazine. Joly attacked Napoleon III at exactly the same time and for exactly the same reasons as his friend Cremieux. When Joly had finished his two-year prison sentence, he immediately went to visit Cremieux and together they founded the magazine Le Palais. There are clear indications that Joly wrote his brochure and book under the instruction of Cremieux. Most probably the necessary material came from the archives of the Misraïm-Rite, which were also passed on by Cremieux It is not surprising that Joly could not find a printer for his book in France. Once published, the book was banned and destroyed and Joly was sentenced with a 15-month imprisonment and a fine of two hundred francs. In 1878 Joly allegedly committed suicide, never having known that his book would become the basis for the Illuminati Protocols. Former French minister of Foreign Affairs (September 4th 1870 to February 6th 1871), Gambetta, a friend of Joly and famous Freemason and Illuminati, gave the eulogy at Joly’s funeral service. The most important evidence of Joly’s involvement, and also that of his editor in chief Jules Janin, regarding the plan to blame Napoleon III, can be found in the last lines of the Dialogues. Although these lines cannot be found in the Protocols, they elucidate a lot:

MACHIAVELLI: “A dream! Oh, Montesquieu! You will be lamenting for a long time: Devastate your own sense of the law, pray to God that He in heaven will nullify the memory of yourself; for now approaches the awful truth which casts its shadow ahead; what I have just told you is anything but a dream!”

MONTESQUIEU: “What is it you want me to grasp still?”

MACHIAVELLI: ”What I have just described, this combined action of terrible things, from which the spirit recoils, this work, that only hell itself could complete, that is all completed, that is all available, that all thrives in the face of the sun, now, at this moment in time, at a place on earth that we have abandoned.”

MONTESQUIEU: “Where?”

MACHIAVELLI: “No, that knowledge could make you die a second death.”

MONTESQUIEU: “Speak, for heaven's sake!”

MACHIAVELLI: “All right then!”

MONTESQUIEU: “Well?”

MACHIAVELLI: “Our time is over! Can’t you see that I am being taken by a hurricane?”

MONTESQUIEU: “Machiavelli!”

MACHIAVELLI: “Can you see the shadows passing by? They cover their faces, but do you not recognize them? They are the riches, which have aroused the envy of the entire world. In this hour they demand back their fatherland from God.”

MONTESQUIEU: “My God, Machiavelli, what is it you have disclosed there!”

A supporter of the forgery theory will, of course, never quote this "evil triumphant end” of Joly’s work. It would be especially embarrassing since they won’t have an explanation for such a conclusion. In everything Machiavelli says, prior to the Dialogues, he speaks in the ‘I-form’ and as such, represents Napoleon III. At the end Machiavelli does no longer speaks in the ‘I-form’. Here a multitude of the glorious is mentioned. These cannot possibly refer to Napoleon III or his followers. Which fatherland would these followers of the emperor (for whom the title glorious would be very disputable!) demand back from God? One has to think, however, in a different direction altogether. If these sentences are considered in the light of the Illuminati and the Freemasons, then the notion of fatherland completely fits what the lodges then called the aim for a world republic.

In these days, and in this same context, terms like globalization, world government or New World Order are being used. However, one thing is true: Part of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion stems from the work of Joly. That is something even the defendants of the authenticity of the document have to admit. Opponents however, do not pay much heed in determining the exact share of Joly’s book in the Protocols, which also serves a special purpose. As mentioned it is suggested that approximately two thirds of the Protocols are taken from Joly. Antagonists however, claim that when comparing Joly’s book to the Protocols, there are 176 exact quotes taken from the Dialogues. Antagonists claim that those parts of the text where Joly mentions Napoleon III, his government and his politics, the so-called forgers have them replaced by the word Jews without hesitation. This accusation is not correct. One has to take into consideration that all words and sentences taken from Joly’s work would have had to be translated into Russian and then back to another language, such as German, French, and English. How much of the original literal contents of the Protocols could one still find after so many translations? Also of significance are the following marginal notes:

1. The compared texts are of a completely different nature. Only in very few cases can the literal translation of sentences or parts thereof be found. A major part of the work does concern the free interpretation of thoughts. In odd cases, it is only a certain notion of Joly’s that is taken by the author of the Protocols. In the text of the Dialogues the reader will often find sentences that have nothing in common with the Protocols.

2. It is only the superficial browsing of both texts, combined with a very loose interpretation of the word plagiarism that could lead to the assertion that the Protocols are partly copied from Joly’s work. With that, one forgets that both Joly and the author(s) of the Protocols have used the original text of the Misraïm-Rite. A certain similarity can therefore be easily explained. In comparing both texts in detail, the following conclusions can be made:

The 1st Protocol begins halfway through Joly’s 1st Dialogue and doesn’t end until halfway into the 3rd Dialogue.

The 15th Dialogue isn’t mentioned at all in the Protocols.

The 16th Protocol begins in exactly the same way as the 16th Dialogue, but ends in a completely different way.

In the 18th Protocol the only literal quotation is from Joly’s 25th and last Dialogue.

The 19th Dialogue is completely ignored in the Protocols.

The 21st and the 24th Protocol do begin in the same way the 21st and the 24th Dialogues do, however, they end much sooner than the texts in these Dialogues.

The 25th Dialogue is completely missing with the exception of a sentence added to the 18th Protocol.

In Joly’s work two people, Machiavelli and Montesquieu, are speaking alternatingly whilst in the Protocols only one person speaks. The advocates of the forgery theory simply claim that the re-writing of the Dialogues was done very cursory and superficial. For this they quote Philip Graves in the London Times. Graves was first to discover the connection between Joly and the Protocols. Göran Larson, author of the book Fact or Fraud? - The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion wrote:

“The forger was most probably a Russian anti-Semitic nationalist and a follower of the Csar in his battle against the revolutionary powers. Therefore he was an opponent of the values of freedom and democracy advocated by Joly. When the not so very intelligent forgers of Joly copied his book, this resulted in bizarre inconsistencies and contradictions.”

However, the very opposite is true because the revision, as every professional would have to admit, forms a literary masterpiece that could have been written in a moment. The ‘forgers’ of the Protocols must have come from a good social standing and must have had a vast knowledge of many themes, most notably economic theories. Apart from that, their writers’ talents made them able to express Joly’s ideas and almost faultlessly weave them into the texts of the Protocols. In Joly’s Dialogues there are other treacherous parts that were willingly ignored by the opponents of the Protocols.

On page 51 (5th Dialogue), Joly has Montesquieu say:

“I hesitate to answer you Machiavelli, as your last words contain I don’t know how much devilish travesty leading me to conclude that your elucidations are not in accordance with your hidden thoughts.”

From this one can only conclude that the elucidations, seemingly made by Napoleon III were, in fact, the secret thoughts of the Illuminati.

On page 288, Joly lets Machiavelli say that in his empire, every revolution will be violently suppressed with weapons. Machiavelli concludes by saying:

“The blood running through my veins is passionately hot and my race bears all the signs of strength.”

From the mouth of Napoleon III these words sound rather strange; although he was known for his personal pride, any sense about blood or a special racial strength was never ascertained. It is only the members of the Illuminati that feel exclusive and far above other people because of their bloodlines. There are only a few people that know about the importance of bloodlines within the higher circles of the Illuminati. To understand and expose the Illuminati, it is very important to know the significance of the Illuminati bloodlines. An understanding of these bloodlines opens up a whole new understanding of history. It is the key to understand history. The final verdict about the relationship between Maurice Joly and Jules Janins’ Dialogues and the pamphlet originating from these, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, can only be underlined as such: Joly’s pamphlet contains clear language with hidden objectives, but any other difference between the two doesn’t effectually exist. A thorough comparison of the Dialogues with The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion indicates that the latter author must have known of Joly’s book and taken some sentences from it. The Dialogues were used to formulate the thoughts and concepts found in The Protocols. In addition to the Dialogues, the author also used original text from the Misraïm-Rite. In this same manner, it is important to point out that several textual similarities can be pointed out between the Dialogues and the Rabbi’s Speech of 1859. More important however, is the fact that the Rabbi’s Speech contains a series of expositions that can be found in neither the Dialogues nor the Protocols. From this we can conclude that the Rabbi’s Speech can only be linked with the Dialogues but by no means with The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

Finally, let us return to the Herman Goedsches novel Biarritz. As in Maurice Joly’s book, many have relentlessly tried everything to authenticate the famous chapter, At the Jewish Cemetery in Prague, as the source for the text of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Several times, thorough evidence has been found to conclude that this hypothesis is false; see, for example, the judicial deeds of the city of Bern (Switzerland 1937). Why then have the well known facts mentioned above been fully ignored to constantly authenticate the book by Goedsche as the leading inspiration for the alleged forgery of the Protocols? There must be a very important reason why the existing facts are perverted. According to the rules of concise text criticism, the Rabbi’s Speech, in reference to the cemetery speech in Biarritz, should have been the example for him. If this were the case, then the speech should have existed nine years before the publication of Goedsches novel, in 1868. This automatically makes the case for advocates of the forgery theory: The Rabbi’s Speech should, therefore, be labeled the inspiration for The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

Unfortunately, only few people are aware that the Rabbi’s Speech of 1859, like The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, can be traced back to the old Weishauptian Plan. The described plans are therefore all part of the old Illuminati scheme! As we have seen, there are two secret documents that outline plans to battle against states and nations in favor of a world government led by the Illuminati: The oldest document was circulating amongst the Russian Jews. The contents of these are best transmitted by the Rabbi’s Speech, which the Czech delegate Brzesnovski re-published in 1900. Much earlier however, Maurice Joly had known of a similar, secret, document on which he based part of the contents of his Dialogues, which was published in 1865. In 1868, Goedsche used the same document in his novel Biarritz. The secret documents used by both Maurice Joly and Goedsche are the original Illuminati Protocols from the Misraïm Lodge. Both texts were written completely independent independent of one another. The author of the Protocols used neither the Rabbi’s Speech nor complete passages from Joly, he only used a few select passages from the Dialogues. Proof for this is the fact that the contents of the Protocols only show similarities with Joly’s work. Beyond the similarities between the Dialogues and the older Rabbi’s Speech, there is no other usage of quotes taken directly directly from the Rabbi’s Speech.










Readers please note
Since the beginning of 2019 for several months this website has been constantly updated with new information. 
Pages have been changed often and more pages have been added.
Readers are advised to reload from the website on a regular basis as old pages may be stored on your Computer and may be no longer relevant.