There has been a lot of attention on the Internet recently regarding Voltaire, most notably through medium of quotations attributed to him. Francois-Marie Arouet, his proper name, has been glorified by men and women of the last two centuries – and to this day, he is portrayed as a hero of freedom – a crusader against tyranny, national and universal. When the phrase “French wit” is voiced, many cannot help but assume Voltaire as an epitome of the nation’s brilliance by a single man.
Precisely through this portrayal has Voltaire’s true image been obscured from the public. Francois-Marie Arouet, similar to Karl Marx, was sustained by the Jews to foment an escalating conflict. In the case of Arouet, the rise of “classical liberalism” and the Age of Enlightenment came with the sufficiently poor social and economic conditions to develop a France ripe for revolution. Of course, neither Arouet nor Marx were the only executors of their era. The French Revolution of 1789 accumulated well before Arouet’s birth, and just scarcely after his death did the mutiny occur in exemption of the French lower classes. Baruch Spinoza, whom Arouet admired, was among the most highly regarded and influential proponents of the Age of Enlightenment. Others after the death of Arouet – and later on, Marx – transformed malevolence into an uprising, a revolution.
Neither actors on this world stage were there to witness the revolutions – though Voltaire was involved in preparing his. He was a Jew that had foresight of people and their visions. Within this picture he advanced through the directives of his fellow Jews, within the circles that he, or his friends, had chosen to infiltrate and convince others of his movement, and for that philosophy – as a fraudulent author and businessman of a reputable watch company.
Both characters, that of Voltaire and that of Karl Marx, were organized into the first stage of events leading to Revolution. As nor Jews had the occasion to see their written preparation – (pamphlets, books, letters, speeches, and in Arouet’s case poems and plays – all of which, parenthetically, were, at finest, imitations of other men’s brains – the one and the other were absolute counterfeiters in this sense) – come to fruition, their supporters had a time frame. Other persons were employed to implement the Revolution that Arouet, and later Karl Marx, prepared – a turmoil that resulted in emancipation to all Jews of the religious faith, and what the new “Social Order”, imposed by the Jewish revolutionaries, abridged in the fallacious phrase, “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”.
Neither men saw their ideas come to acceptance, because the time frames were too great for either to have concluded their dreams. So the Jews selected other actors to bring this about. Both the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution were warily timed, and for that did Arouet well plan.
Meanwhile, in an attempt to secure brief fame and wealth, Arouet aped works from the aforementioned authors, that he so desired to be the playwright which France had never known. His epic poem, Henriade, for example, is a detailed imitation of Virgil’s Aeneid, but his contemporaries saw only the virtue of tolerance that appeared to inspire the writer. Voltaire’s Brutus (1730) and Eriphyle (1732), are essentially mirrors of William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and Hamlet. He was one of the first to introduce Shakespeare to France, yet, after deprecation of his Eriphyle by the audience, referred to the Englishman as a “drunken savage”. Prudently he, on behalf of a grandniece of the dramatist Pierre Corneille, published an edition of one of Shakespeare’s plays, and surreptitiously included a translation of Julius Caesar, convinced that such a remonstrance would demonstrate his own superiority. Alarmed as he was at the increasing influence of Shakespeare, Arouet became infuriated when his translation was not to himself ascribed, but rather to the rightful composer. May this read familiar today, with this same body weighing in the commerce of print, and thus magisterial in the intellectual component of the commonwealth – expectant but that their title would be endowed for posterity, yet contributing nothing. His playacting of the works of John Locke, Francis Bacon, Aristotle, and Plato need no comment.
For his wealth, Voltaire was immensely so, but by no means in a metaphorical sense. With his money, including through the financing of a watch company, Arouet was able to reach respect as a businessman and came in contact with government officials and leaders of the States. And with the assistance of a syndicate, he rigged the lottery in Paris of almost 2,000,000 French sols. Arouet’s extreme desire for material goods can be surmised in this paragraph:
Voltaire [Francois-Marie Arouet] used his lottery winnings to invest in business opportunities, often using information he learned from well placed individuals, like when to buy and sell certain shares of various ventures. While today this would be called insider trading, there was no law against it in eighteenth century France, and Voltaire soon went from very wealthy to ‘Mr. Burns’ wealthy. This didn’t stop him in his quest to alienate everybody powerful he came into contact with – from Parisian society to Frederick the Great of Prussia, to the government of Geneva; in this, his wealth came in handy as he was constantly in need of escaping the wrath of the authorities in one city or another, and even found himself exiled from Paris again.
Arouet supposedly had little restraint over these cravings; despite a doctor’s warning that “drinking 40 to 50 cups of coffee a day” would kill him, Arouet continued obsessing the beverage until his death in 1778. His lustful and deceitful life, involving sexual relations with hundreds of women – including his niece, Marie Louise Mignot – concerning the most ignoble of pleasures, of human and brute correspondive, is honestly described by the Jewish historian Ben Redman:
Through the years, it all added up enormously. At Fernsey he went in for manufacturing on an ambitious scale: from the artisans, whose work he financed and whose products he distributed by means of high-power salesmanship, came silk stocking, cloth, lace, and the fine watches he sold to distinguished purchasers throughout Europe; to Catherine of Russia, and to Catherine’s enemy, Mustapha of Turkey. Towards the last, his annual income is calculated to have run between one hundred and sixty and two hundred and twenty thousand francs, while his household expenses amounted to no less than forty thousand.
That Voltaire [Francois-Marie Arouet] was avaricious, there can be no doubt. Grimm declared that he worked less for reputation than for money, that he hungered and thirsted after wealth; and there is ample evidence that his fingers began to itch whenever he thought there were sous to be made; that he could not keep them out of shady deals, one of which embroiled him with his royal patron, Frederick, shortly after his arrival in Berlin.
In 1717, Arouet’s agitation against the Ecclesiastical and the State lead to his imprisonment in the Bastille. Within a year, the Jews had paid for his release. After this he resided in England, where much of the knowledge and calculative disposition singular to him seems to have developed. There he started the same in England that he did in France: Agitation, civil insurrection, against the Church and the State. When he returned to France, Arouet became a prime power in politics. By then his writings were known to officials at high positions in Western Europe, Germany and Russia, and often did he dine and reside with Frederick II of Germany and Katherine the Great (Elizabeth Petrovna) in Russia.
As he disturbed the State and was portrayed as a liberator for the persecuted, Francois-Marie Arouet also, on the other side, became a spy against the rich leaders of State. This espial was instigated by the Jews and was intended for the control of Frederick II and Elizabeth Petrovna. The later war that erupted from world Jewry – the Seven Years War between Prussia, Austria, and Russia on the European continent, was part of a world war that the Jewish banking empires of France and England fought in French Canada, India and Ceylon (at that time French) – and by England’s support of Prussia and France’s assistance of Austria, France’s strife with England, Arouet’s reason for espionage becomes comprehensible. Europe was abounding with spies, as intelligence and control of the war parties – including movement of troops – were seen as essential to the end. This seven year war against France disrupted their empire, and destroyed France’s aspirations in India – most particularly, it reduced France and made the Revolution a higher likelihood of succeeding.
Likewise had the Russian Revolution of 1905 failed. It needed the War of 1914-1918 to bring Russia to capitulation. One sees this as a pattern: Wars in a country – organized by the Judeans – at the same time prepares that country for an uprising. Arouet was part of a colossal network of Jews that turned the fantasy of the French Revolution into actuality, and by espionage – because of his business position attaining the trust of the statesmen – utilizing those friendships to check on other state officials, many of whom were in-and-of-themselves arranged by Jews.
Here, Francois-Marie Arouet’s career suggests that he was a Jew. Arouet experienced the Seven Years War that ruined Prussia, with Russia and Austria to live. To ascend as prime incendiary with his allurement at all times, never having true parley with the statesman, but performing the act of a conspirator, is extraordinary. The ordinary individual would have been executed for the wrongful enterprise that Voltaire had done. Everywhere he lived the Jews protected him. Throughout his life, Voltaire, by opposing the State and the Church in Switzerland, France, and England, had the secret-hand saving him.
The sudden death of Elizabeth Petrovna (Katherine the Great) in 1762 resulted in a relative of Katherine’s coming into power. This figure was in want of peace with the Frederick, but Frederick was a pawn; the emperor absorbed the ideas of Arouet and protected the Jews, who were profitable to him; which Arouet gave valuable information about Frederick to them that, out of the limelight, controlled more of Europe. Arouet, as a familiar-tune Jew, played multiple sides. All of these events were achieved through a network of conspiracy in Europe. Francois-Marie Arouet provoked the fight for liberty. Broker provocateurs provided the heat and leadership to bring the notions of Arouet and others into violent action. He, as a Jew who was not forced to toil, and being protected by the International Jews, was free to cultivate for the Jewish cause; within his entire life, he, being a heater of the church in Europe, was fuelled by Jews.
In addition to committing treason, Arouet lived a criminal life protected by the hidden-hand. Had he lived within the laws of the commoner, Francois-Marie Arouet would have been removed from the village, or, most likely, killed. As he was a Jew, the common people would have denied him entrance to their communities: As his Jewish vice was known to be of a Jewish spirit, Voltaire lived his life accordingly, which in the only method with could be he have lived at 83 years – by European Jewry, as a criminal and unimaginative author of canon.
It is noteworthy that, from 1761-1762, of an advanced age, Francois-Marie Arouet adopted the name “Rabbi Akib”, an alias which in he denounced the Portuguese Inquisition, that Jews of that religious faith were forced to become Christened, or killed. This proposes both Arouet’s ambiguity, and a confidence that adaptation of the Jews was with reasonable conclusion, this in similitude to the doctrine of Baruch Spinoza. Regardless of his reprimanding Jewish religion, Arouet repeatedly led incitement against the Jews as evidence of the barbaric and criminal nature of the Christian church. They are found in his most established piece, Candide, in his poem after the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, Sur le désastre de Lisbonne ou examen de cet axioms: tout est Bien, and especially in his fictional Sermon of Rabbi Akib. In this “sermon” Arouet prefers the Jewish victims of the party and reprimands the bestial action of the Inquisition, whose justification he exposes in all its evilness, the sermon in these words:
Mes chers frères: Nous avons appris le sacrifice de quarante-deux victimes humaines, que les sauvages de Lisbonne ont fait publiquement au mois d’étanim l’an 1691 depuis la ruine de Jérusalem. Ces sauvages appellent de telles exécutions des actes de foi. Mes frères, ce ne sont pas des actes de charité. Élevons nos coeurs à l’Éternel!
Puissent tous les enfants d’Adam, blancs, rouges, noirs, gris, basanés, barbus ou sans barbe, entiers ou châtrés, penser à jamais comme lui! Et que les fanatiques, les superstitieux, les persécuteurs, deviennent hommes! Élevons nos coeurs à l’Éternel! Mes frères, il est temps de répandre des larmes sur nos trente-sept israélites qu’on a brûlés dans l’acte de foi. Je ne dis pas qu’ils aient tous été brûlés à petit feu; on nous mande qu’il y en a eu trois de fouettés jusqu’à la mort, et deux de renvoyés en prison: reste à trente-deux consumés par les flammes dans ce sacrifice des sauvages.
Quel était leur crime? Point d’autre que celui d’être nés. Leurs pères les engendrèrent dans la religion que leurs aïeux ont professée depuis 5,000 ans. Ils sont nés israélites; ils ont célébré le phasé dans leurs caves; et voilà l’unique raison pour laquelle les Portugais les ont brûlés. Nous n’apprenons pas que tous nos frères aient été mangés après avoir été jetés dans le bûcher; mais nous devons le présumer de deux jeunes garçons de quatorze ans qui étaient fort gras, et d’une fille de douze qui avait beaucoup d’embonpoint et qui était très appétissante.
Il est ainsi que ces monstres impitoyables invoquaient le Dieu de la clémence et de la bonté, le Dieu pardonneur, en commettant le crime le plus atroce et le plus barbare, exerçant une cruauté que les démons dans leur rage ne voudraient pas exercer contre les démons leurs confrères. C’est ainsi que, par une contradiction aussi absurde que leur fureur est abominable, ils offrent à Dieu nos makibs (nos psaumes), ils empruntent notre religion même, en nous punissant d’être élevés dans notre religion. Élevons nos coeurs à l’Éternel!
O tigres dévots! panthères fanatiques! qui avez un si grand mépris pour votre secte que vous pensez ne la pouvoir soutenir que par des bourreaux, si vous étiez capables de raison je vous interrogerais, je vous demanderais pourquoi vous nous immolez, nous qui sommes les pères de vos pères.
Que pourriez-vous répondre si je vous disais: Votre Dieu était de notre religion? Il naquit Juif, il fut circoncis comme tous les autres Juifs; il reçut, de votre aveu, le baptême du Juif Jean, lequel était une antique cérémonie juive, une ablution en usage, une cérémonie à laquelle nous soumettons nos néophytes: il accomplit tous les devoirs de notre antique loi; il vécut Juif, mourut Juif, et vous nous brûlez, parce que nous sommes Juifs.
[My dear brothers: We have learned about the sacrifice of forty-two human victims, which the savages of Lisbon made public in the month of Etanim, of the year 1691 since the ruin of Jerusalem. These savages call such executions acts of faith. My brothers, these are not charitable acts. Let us lift up our hearts unto the Lord!
May all the children of Adam, white, red, black, gray, swarthy, bearded or beardless, whole or castrated, think forever like him! And let the fanatics, the superstitious, the persecutors, become men! Let us lift up our hearts unto the Lord! My brothers, it is time to shed tears on our thirty-seven Israelites who were burned in the act of faith. I do not say that they were all deathly burned; we are told that there were three of them whipped to death, and two of them sent back to prison: the thirty-two who were consumed by the flames died at this beastly sacrificial ceremony.
What was their crime? No other than that of being born. Their fathers engendered them in the religion which their forefathers have professed for 5,000 years. They were born Israelites; they celebrated Yom Kippur in their cellars; and that is the only reason why the Portuguese have burned them. We do not learn that all our brethren were eaten after being thrown into the stake; but we may suppose as much of two lads of fourteen who were profoundly overweight, and a maiden of twelve, who was very corpulent and appetizing.
It is thus that these pitiless monsters invoked the God of mercy and kindness, the forgiving God, in committing the most atrocious and barbarous crime, exercising a cruelty which demons in their rage would not wish to exert against demons their monster-kindreds. Thus, by a contradiction as absurd as their fury is abominable, they offer to God our makibs (our psalms), they borrow our very religion, in the act of punishing us for being raised in our religion. Let us lift up our hearts unto the Lord!
O ye devout tigers! Fanatical panthers! Who have so great a contempt for thine sect that thou thinkst thou can only support it by butchers, if thou were capable of reason I would question thee, I would ask thee, why thou sacrificeth us, we who are the fathers of fathers thine?
What could you say if I said, ‘Your God was of our religion?’ He was born a Jew, and was circumcised as all other Jews; he received, by your own confession, the baptism of John a Jew, which was an ancient Jewish ceremony, a customary ablution, a ceremony to which we subject our neophytes: he fulfilled all the duties of our ancient law; he lived a Jew, died a Jew, and you burned us because we are Jews.]
By the time this sermon had been written in 1761, Francois-Marie Arouet was the most well-known living author in France.
Many will point to Francois-Marie Arouet’s popular conceits against the Jews as argument that he was not one of their blood. Yet these attacks can be interpreted as a measure to avoid the defiance which would arise from such a concession. This had been done by Spinoza, who was a Jew and gloried in it despite his worry that the religious authority of his tribe would do harm to the Jews, and his eager welcoming of Christianity’s attacks against the Jewish religion; so is he recognized as the first secular Jew of modern Europe, and his works the beginning of “Jewish Modernity”. The two thinkers expressed a contempt for “the Jew of biblical times” that fathomed the Christian sect, and for this did they deliberate their despise; the twain illustrated such paradoxes to further name and motive. Indeed, Spinoza wrote:
The Jews were entirely unfit to frame a wise code of laws and to keep the sovereign power vested in the community; they were all uncultivated and sunk in a wretched slavery.
Francois-Marie Arouet’s true light, therefore, may not be trusted through prospect of remark, but acceded in those writings wherein the intention is not to reach the commonalty. In a private letter by a Jew that protested his writings, Arouet replied this, on July 21, 1762:
The lines of which you complain are violent and unjust. Your letter alone convinces me that there are highly cultivated and very respectable men among you. I shall take care to insert a cancel in the new edition. When one has done a wrong, one should put it right, and I was wrong to attribute to a whole nation the vices of some individuals.
Arouet’s affection and empathy for the Jews are declared: Once, by castigating the execution of Jews during the Portuguese Inquisition, concealed by a stage-name, Rabbi Akib; another, through a letter unforeseen to have conveniency for the civil body.
Francois-Marie Arouet’s contradiction hither can be inferred better by a more complete perspective of the mind. Although he possessed a far-from-original spirit, Arouet wrote of the Jews as “inveterate plagiarizers … there is not a single page of the Jewish books that was not stolen mostly from Homer.” His print on one book, Rights of the Christian Church, bordered on plagiarism, so that in 1764 he was attacked by the French clergy through L’Abbe Guenee. L’Abbee Guenee wrote of him:
Monsieur de Voltaire [Francois-Marie Arouet] only repeats the English. In his petty criticism he is so far from having the honor of invention, that he has not even that of applying them properly. Could he think that no one would ever read? What a part do these oracles of philosophy act, these mighty geniuses, who think themselves born to give light to the universe, when they become the poor copiers of a poor writer [Matthew Tindal]!