If there ever was a time to read The Protocols of The Elders of Zion, now is that time…
“When a wise man points at the moon, the imbecile looks at the finger” : ideally, it should be possible for a blogger or anyone else of good will to reproduce fragments of said Protocols without having to lay out the reasons behind their clearly provocative editorial choice : every reader should be mature and educated enough to make sense of it, in the current context.
Alas, it is not, because the ignorance and stupidity of the general public, whether uneducated or formatted, have never been so consistently fueled as they have for the past decade and a half, to the extent they seem to have become the new standards of our civilization.
Yet, that’s exactly what I am going to do. Because aside from pointing at today’s political reality as it unfolds, I am also pointing at my readers’ brains.
Therefore, I am not going to remind them that, according to (disputed) heuristic research, the original version of this manuscript – there are several – was written in Paris in 1901 and published in Russia as of 1903, that it seeked its inspiration in various anti-Semitic writings throughout history, as well as in distorted satires, filling in the blanks with aristocracy-leaning gibberish coupled with schmaltzy Marxism, that it initially purported to report on the minutes of a series of meetings held by some secret Jewish society in the late nineteenth century, before being presented as those very minutes, that its author seems to have been an Okhrana-agent who wanted to dissuade the czar from allowing Russian Jews to obtain the liberal reforms that would finally entitle them to full citizenship, that, although it is hard to determine whether it played a decisive part in the second wave of pogroms starting in 1903, it being used as a key propaganda tool by nazi Germany as of 1933 is an established fact, in other words that it appears to have been part of a plot denouncing… a (fake) conspiracy.
Neither will I have the courtesy to draw their attention to the fact that, although that may be the case, nothing is preventing a modern-day demagogue with the right entourage from picking and choosing from it, let alone turning it into his own political agenda, with a few minor adjustments. The same is true for people/social classes who wouldn’t mind using such a demagogue to further their own ends.
He is a cynical, self-serving egomaniac, but Drumpf is not a stupid man (well, not that stupid). And the stock exchange is doing just fine, thank you…
As far as I’m concerned, my positions are clear and public. People who are happy with their ignorance are not my targeted audience. Because after the finger, they will be looking at the nail. Neither are those who purposefully feed their ignorance.
I’m not a loser who has to tell his beads every time he farts. I know where I stand. Do you ?
« It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than the good, and therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorization, and not by academic discussions. Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who would not be willing to sacrifice the welfare of all for the sake of securing their own welfare.
What has restrained the beasts of prey who are called men? What has served for their guidance hitherto ? In the beginnings of the structure of society, they were subjected to brutal and blind force; after words – to Law, which is the same force, only disguised. I draw the conclusion that by the law of nature right lies in force.
Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one’s party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority. This task is rendered easier if the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, so-called liberalism, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power. It is precisely here that the triumph of our theory appears; the slackened reins of government are immediately, by the law of life, caught up and gathered together by a new hand, because the blind might of the nation cannot for one single day exist without guidance, and the new authority merely fits into the place of the old already weakened by liberalism.
The idea of freedom is impossible of realization because no one knows how to use it with moderation. It is enough to hand over a people to self-government for a certain length of time for that people to be turned into a disorganized mob. From that moment on we get internecine strife which so on develops into battles between classes, in the midst of which States burn down and their importance is reduced to that of a heap of ashes.
Whether a State exhausts itself in its own convulsions, whether its internal discord brings it under the power of external foes – in any case it can be accounted irretrievable lost: it is in our power. The despotism of Capital, which is entirely in our hands, reaches out to it a straw that the State, willy-nilly, must take hold of: if not, it goes to the bottom.
Should anyone of a liberal mind say that such reflections as the above are immoral, I would put the following questions: If every State has two foes and if in regard to the external foe it is allowed and not considered immoral to use every manner and art of conflict, as for example to keep the enemy in ignorance of plans of attack and defense, to attack him by night or in superior numbers, then in what way can the same means in regard to a worse foe, the destroyer of the structure of society and the commonweal, be called immoral and not permissible?
Is it possible for any sound logical mind to hope with any success to guide crowds by the aid of reasonable counsels and arguments, when any objection or contradiction, senseless though it may be, can be made and when such objection may find more favor with the people, whose powers of reasoning are superficial ? Men in masses and the men of the masses, being guided solely by petty passions, paltry beliefs, traditions and sentimental theorems, fall a prey to party dissension, which hinders any kind of agreement even on the basis of a perfectly reasonable argument. Every resolution of a crowd depends upon a chance or packed majority, which, in its ignorance of political secrets, puts forth some ridiculous resolution that lays in the administration a seed of anarchy.
The political has nothing in common with the moral. The ruler who is governed by the moral is not a skilled politician, and is therefore unstable on his throne. He who wishes to rule must have recourse both to cunning and to make-believe. Great national qualities, like frankness and honesty, are vices in politics, for they bring down rulers from their thrones more effectively and more certainly than the most powerful enemy.
Our right lies in force. The word « right » is an abstract thought and proved by nothing. The word means no more than: Give me what I want in order that thereby I may have a proof that I am stronger than you.
In any State in which there is a bad organization of authority, an impersonality of laws and of the rulers who have lost their personality amid the flood of rights ever multiplying out of liberalism, I find a new right – to attack by the right of the strong, and to scatter to the winds all existing forces of order and regulation, to reconstruct all institutions and to become the sovereign lord of those who have left to us the rights of their power by laying them down voluntarily in their liberalism.
Our power in the present tottering condition of all forms of power will be more invincible than any other, because it will remain invisible until the moment when it has gained such strength that no cunning can any longer undermine it.
Out of the temporary evil we are now compelled to commit will emerge the good of an unshakable rule, which will restore the regular course of the machinery of the national life, brought to naught by liberalism. The result justifies the means. Let us, however, in our plans, direct our attention not so much to what is good and moral as to what is necessary and useful.
In order to elaborate satisfactory forms of action it is necessary to have regard to the rascality, the slackness, the instability of the mob, its lack of capacity to understand and respect the conditions of its own life, or its own welfare. It must be understood that the might of a mob is blind, senseless and unreasoning force ever at the mercy of a suggestion from any side. The blind cannot lead the blind without bringing them into the abyss; consequently, members of the mob, upstarts from the people even though they should be as a genius for wisdom, yet having no understanding of the political, cannot come forward as leaders of the mob without bringing the whole nation to ruin.
Only one trained from childhood for independent rule can have understanding of the words that can be made up of the political alphabet.
It is only with a despotic ruler that plans can be elaborated extensively and clearly in such a way as to distribute the whole properly among the several parts of the machinery of the State: from this the conclusion is inevitable that a satisfactory form of government for any country is one that concentrates in the hands of one responsible person. Without an absolute despotism there can be no existence for civilization which is carried on not by the masses but by their guide, whosoever that person may be. The mob is savage, and displays its savagery at every opportunity. The moment the mob seizes freedom in its hands it quickly turns to anarchy, which in itself is the highest degree of savagery.
Our triumph has been rendered easier by the fact that in our relations with the men, whom we wanted, we have always worked upon the most sensitive chords of the human mind, upon the cash account, upon the cupidity, upon the insatiability for material needs of man; and each one of these human weaknesses, taken alone, is sufficient to paralyze initiative, for it hands over the will of men to the disposition of him who has bought their activities.
In the hands of the States of today there is a great force that creates the movement of thought in the people, and that is the Press. The part played by the Press is to keep pointing our requirements supposed to be indispensable, to give voice to the complaints of the people, to express and to create discontent. It is in the Press that the triumph of freedom of speech finds its incarnation. […] Through the Press we have gained the power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade.
We have made a gulf between the far-seeing Sovereign Power and the blind force of the people so that both have lost all meaning, for like the blind man and his stick, both are powerless apart.
In order to incite seekers after power to a misuse of power we have set all forces in opposition one to another, breaking up their liberal tendencies towards independence. To this end we have stirred up every form of enterprise, we have armed all parties, we have set up authority as a target for every ambition. Of States we have made gladiatorial arenas where a lot of confused issues contend …. A little more, and disorders and bankruptcy will be universal ….
Babblers, inexhaustible, have turned into oratorical contests the sittings of Parliament and Administrative Boards. Bold journalists and unscrupulous pamphleteers daily fall upon executive officials. Abuses of power will put the final touch in preparing all institutions for their overthrow and everything will fly skyward under the blows of the maddened mob.
All people are chained down to heavy toil by poverty more firmly than ever. They were chained by slavery and serfdom; from these, one way and another, they might free themselves. These could be settled with, but from want they will never get away. We have included in the constitution such rights as to the masses appear fictitious and not actual rights. All these so-called « People’s Rights » can exist only in idea, an idea which can never be realized in practical life. What is it to the proletariat laborer, bowed double over his heavy toil, crushed by his lot in life, if talkers get the right to babble, if journalists get the right to scribble any nonsense side by side with good stuff, once the proletariat has no other profit out of the constitution save only those pitiful crumbs which we fling them from our table in return for their voting in favor of what we dictate, in favor of the men we place in power, [our] servants… Republican rights for a poor man are no more than a bitter piece of irony, for the necessity he is under of toiling almost all day gives him no present use of them […].
We appear on the scene as alleged saviors of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces […] to whom we always give support in accordance with an alleged brotherly rule […]. The aristocracy, which enjoyed by law the labor of the workers, was interested in seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy, and strong [Was it now ?]. We are interested in just the opposite. Our power is in the chronic shortness of food and physical weakness of the worker because by all that this implies he is made the slave of our will, and he will not find in his own authorities either strength or energy to set against our will. Hunger creates the right of capital to rule the worker more surely than it was given to the aristocracy by the legal authority of kings.
By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands we shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way. […] This hatred will be still further magnified by the effects of an economic crisis, which will stop dealing on the exchanges and bring industry to a standstill. We shall create by all the secret subterranean methods open to us and with the aid of gold, which is all in our hands, a universal economic crisis whereby we shall throw upon the streets whole mobs of workers […]. These mobs will rush delightedly to shed the blood of those whom, in the simplicity of their ignorance, they have envied from their cradles, and whose property they will then be able to loot. Ours they will not touch, because the moment of attack will be known to us and we shall take measures to protect our own.
It is the bottomless rascality of [common people], who crawl on their bellies to force, but are merciless towards weakness, unsparing to faults and indulgent to crimes, unwilling to bear the contradictions of a free social system but patient unto martyrdom under the violence of a bold despotism – it is those qualities which are aiding us to independence.
The word « freedom » brings out the communities of men to fight against every kind of force, against every kind of authority, even against God and the laws of nature. For this reason we, when we come into our kingdom, shall have to erase this word from the lexicon of life as implying a principle of brute force which turns mobs into bloodthirsty beasts. These beasts, it is true, fall asleep again every time when they have drunk their fill of blood, and at such time can easily be riveted into their chains. But if they be not given blood they will not sleep and continue to struggle.
Every republic passes through several stages. The first of these is comprised in the early days of mad raging by the blind mob, tossed hither and thither, right and left: the second is demagogy from which is born anarchy, and that leads inevitably to despotism – not any longer legal and overt, and therefore responsible despotism, but to unseen and secretly hidden, yet nevertheless sensibly felt despotism in the hands of some secret organization or other, whose acts are the more unscrupulous inasmuch as it works behind a screen […].
It is indispensable for us to undermine all faith, to tear out of the mind of the [common people] the spirit, and to put in its place arithmetical calculations and material needs. In order to give [them] no time to think and take note, their minds must be diverted towards industry and trade. Thus, all the nations will be swallowed up in the pursuit of gain and in the race for it will not take note of their common foe. But again, in order that freedom may once for all disintegrate and ruin [their] communities […], we must put industry on a speculative basis : the result of this will be that what is withdrawn from the land by industry will slip through the hands and pass into speculation, that is, to our classes.”
And on the Protocols go, only confirming to those who can read that a character like Drumpf doesn’t represent a break with the current regime, but rather one of its possible extensions. If anything else, they also show that the honey used to catch the disenfranchised flies in the early 20th century was not very different from what it is today. For those interested in how fascism (literally : ‘beamism’) came about, there are lessons to be learned from that, well-hidden lessons, deep-state lessons…
Yet, Drumpf is not a nazi : nazis protected their workers (when they were not on the battlefield). Take a famous nazi-sympathizer like Henry Ford for instance, who circulated hundreds of thousands of copies of the Protocols throughout the US in the twenties : he had a vision for the middle class, whereas Drumpf is best known for abusing his employees before resoundingly firing them. He is a hybrid…
“Divide et impera” : during his campaign, we saw the Great Divider. Now that the election is over, is the unifying tyrant up next ?…
If Drumpf wants to satisfy his electorate, he will keep on dividing. If he sets forth the feed-the-rich policies he so sincerely vowed to bring to an end, he will unite all voters against him and his neo-rep clique. Doing a bit of both would prove very hazardous in the long run. And what else can he do ?
He might bombard the ever mounting pressure from the street with reactionary measures at such a pace it would leave leftists and independents apathic for a while, but n°45 would then merely follow in Hollande’s footsteps… in every respect, thereby losing both his Senate and House majority come the midterms, and be left with a four-percent approval rating that would make him eligible for some World-Statesman-of-the-Year award, with a country on the brink of civil war.
And since no one seems to be willing (read : lucid or maverick enough) to say out loud what everybody is thinking, I suppose said task is left to me : whether it is to save the unifier or the country (“For the country, Martha…”), some kind of event (in the US itself ? In Israel ?) would be of great use to what can only be the unsteady presidency of an unstable president…
Should that happen, it would be funny to hear the recriminations of all the non-revisionists who walked in line fifteen years ago and have ever since, but have been pillorying the “racist, misogynistic” (et al.) careerist who will be leading The Free World ™ for a year…
To cut a long story short, if Drumpf chooses to maintain an optimal H.S.-apparatus, he will be shooting himself in the foot. That’s the kind of thing one ought to think about during one’s campaign before snorting Protocol verses as if they were pure cocaine…