29th June

The winds here turned comparatively chilly these last days. Thoughtlessly of me, I sat for hours on the balcony of the lighthouse. June had been warm, but while I sat there in light clothing, the temperature shifted unnoticeably and I think I got a cold.

My studies will be reduced accordingly.

The Jewish mask in the theatre

With each passing day, I can see more and more reason why the Protocols have come across as antisemitic, and on the flip side, I can see more and more clearly that the Jews are simply being utilised as a caricature, as a Greek mask in a theatre play.

Jews are victims of racism built into the optics of the era.

There is even a remote chance that Golovinski is no more antisemitic than his contemporaries.

It is like racism in your own country. Everybody “just knows” that “those people” are rotten apples. It is not being contested in earnest. Hence they are available for use in jokes and theories at will.

The social function of such speech is simply that of an alignment of one’s one frames of reference to one’s surroundings.

So I should ask myself: What does “everybody know” about the Jews.

Everybody knows that the Jews are bankers. Oddly no logical necessities work in either direction: Being a money lender in the 19th century by no means entail being a Jews, and neither vice versa. It’s just an “everybody knows”.

The voice behind the mask

One example that flies in the face of reason is a passage I found in today’s Protocol.

Everybody knows that the Jew is promulgator of suspicious science, most importantly, the subversive social science.

The Jew, sly as he is hides the real social science, and teaches one, which suspiciously looks exactly like the one we, us, the Gentiles, have preferred for decades. In fact, it is ours.

The real social science turns out to be much simpler. It recommends class divisions, and if it was revealed, we would all instantly become loyal subjects to the Crown and find our humble place in society. We would love the King and he would love his subjects, and everybody would instinctively grasp this.

The narrating Jew more than reveals an awe and admiration for this remarkably convincing “feudal” social science.

Honestly: Golovinski praises his preferred social structure through the mouth of a fictitious Jew embellished with the usual expected behaviour of a Jew. His passion for antisemitism against ethnic Jews is lukewarm at best. His disgust for the theories which he attributes to Jews (“everybody knows”) is solid.

It just so happens that those theories are not Jewish. They are the essence of our Western self-identification.

30th June

Feeling slightly better. Wisely I slept with extra blankets and for as long as I could.

Dialogue 4

● Ambition foils the tripartite government. ● The press corrupts the morals of the populace. ● Moral rights versus material rights: Which to sacrifice? ● Popular sovereignty awakens the forces of chaos in society, culminating in them choosing a dictator. ● Liberty dangerous in the industrial age.

Machiavelli is getting warmed up for a proper counterattack.

Being the mask of realism, he responds that the larger a system Montesquieu sets up, the bigger a colossus will tumble, once it is taken over by greed and corruption.

Human ambition is what gets the better of the system. For him to dish up a torrent of examples of depravity entailed in the liberal societies he hardly needs to make an effort.

I will picture liberal society as a ship.

The early republicans and liberalists saw it as level on the ocean. The reactionaries as severely listed to one side or the other. Golovinski saw it as completely capsized.

I am curious as to Montesquieu’s idea. I am starting to see signs that he expect a certain heel (intentional lopsidedness). Perhaps even severely?

Time will tell.

I am thinking about the Physiocrats in 18th century France. Innocently enough, they felt sincerely that man would unleash his inventive potential if only the barriers to growth were removed.

Liberalism has always been a bandwagon welcoming economical freethinkers, even though the freedom-equality-fraternity paradigm is disjoint from that aspect.

Liberalism goes along with competition, paving the way for the proletariat.

Today, we have softened all borders between classes. The term “lifting people out of poverty” to join a bulging middle class expresses our mentality. Montesquieu’s scales can balance, for most citizens, benefitting all who participates in good order.

Golovinski ridicules this belief.

Montesquieu seems to be prepared.

This idea of the citizen desiring the free society and as such wanting it, wanting to be in it, even though it means working in poverty, is a well known silent partner to being a liberalist.

They meander into this discussion next …

Side note: Joly’s Machiavelli got a few things wrong. However, the political momentum leading of up to Hitler’s election could have been explained by this very observation.

Freedom is a strange fruit to give to someone starving. But lack of freedom is enough to turn people revolutionaries at the peril of their life.

Freedom plus opportunists exploiting it to bleed the rest of us is pure dynamite.

The ideological conflict is real and inescapable.

Dignity and welfare is the modern answer. It is revealing that once we become submersed in the idea that capitalism breeds welfare for most, we are no longer presented with a hard choice.

What would people choose, if they had the choice between dignity and poverty?

If we all choose dignity, accepting that work is the way to retain that dignity, as it is the only way to keep afloat the system which have personal freedom inscribed in it, is just easier. Fortunate for us, the choice seems to be easy on the surface. Until the next economic crisis.

Machiavelli demonstrates that he had understood Montesquieu’s concept:

Now Machiavelli plays his trump card: Popular sovereignty, or the right of the people to elect Hitler.

Popular sovereignty is Rousseau’s term, I think, also called the “will of the people”.

The punchline:

They argue over the long term consequence of this “Arbeit macht Frei” mentality. No, that is a later development. They mean the admission ticket to equality-through-fraternity called “work”.

Seeing how the concept of “popular psychology” is being treated makes this interesting reading. Machiavelli perceives how events change the mentality of the masses.

The Jews. Even Machiavelli “knows”. Everybody knows.

The Jews had garnered an unfortunate (and racist) reputation long before all this happened. But it took a whole ideology on the backslide to dry the gunpowder and ignite it.

Generations later …

Machiavelli puts his fingers on a sore point. What happens one or two generations after a revolution driven by ideas? What commitment keeps the next generations bound to the same ideas as their ancestors?

In fact, the problem is worse. Those very ideas that stoked a revolution. The youngsters should keep the ideas but strip the revolution part. Quit changing society in a violent fashion again and again.

“We did it for our children”.

No, you did it for ideas and now you suppress the children by hypocritically denying them the same right of revolution.

They want to elect Hitler? Sorry, it is their right to change the system. You inaugurated that tradition.

1st July

Protocol 3

● The Symbolic Serpent mentioned. ● Bond between monarch and his people is ruptured, leaving both adrift. ● Politics becomes a quest for power rather than the exercise of liberal freedom. ● Power quest becomes party wars. ● Political wars take center stage while the people is slaving in poverty. ● The people chose liberty over aristocracy and hence a new serfdom: An economic one. ● Necessity of classes.

The first paragraph introduces the Symbolic Serpent, which is probably the only word in the entire book that Sergei Nilus was interested in: A confirmation that a prophecy was being fulfilled.

Perhaps as the book progresses, I will see differently on the matter, but to me, it is just a literary device.

The scales that balance, susceptible to outside influence… it sounds familiar.

Russian interference in the election. That is what it sounds like. It shows how aggressive we become when a threat of the exact same nature as the Protocol presents us with arrises.

Russian interference in the election is one of the most solidly established factual myths today. Everybody knows it, practically nobody knows in what it consisted. Deep inside some intelligence agency there may very well be a dossier on the matter with actual data, but to the rest of the population, it is a fiction as tangible as cars on the freeway.

It reveals that this sense of balance is key. We really are aware that the system is a colossus that can be toppled with a little bit of coordinated effort.

Politically, the issue becomes whether party conflict is good or bad. Is it a depressurising system or will it paralyse the political machine.

To the old guard of men of honour, witnessing the dissolution of centuries of dignified aristocratic inheritance as exemplified in dutiful officers and statesmen is a horror unfolding in slow motion.

It is an odd luxury of our two dissimilar antagonists - the Jew and Machiavelli - that they can advocate for materialistic care for the working class. Montesquieu’s response was comparatively weak; work as something that reminds you of your membership in a free society.

Someone ought to ask Golovinski and this Machiavelli replica if they really thought that the aristocracy managed any better.

The theme is of course tainted by the historical fact that we are the product of a transition away from feudal societies. Our collective noses are pointing in opposite direction of the aristocracy for that very reason. History changed us.

2nd July

What is an aristocrat? The ethics being revealed is one that thinks the worst about common men, and at the same time cares for them. He can understand a need for food, but not for self-respect and dignity.

“The aristocracy were interested in the [working classes] being well-fed. […] We are interested in the opposite, i.e., in the degeneration of the Gentiles.”

The Protocols must necessarily be read as irony, lest the reader should end up mind boggled.

The enigma of the Voice of the Protocols is that it is a voice that gleefully:

1. Wants the effects of liberalism
2. Knows those effects to be destructive, which is his sadistic purpose
3. Lavishes praise upon aristocracy between the lines for wanting to protect the populace against the fictitious Jew.

In other words: The Jew is a boogeyman. If you don’t brush your teeth, we, the gnomes will come with our Jewish utensils during the night and take them out.

This is what happened. Golovinski sits in his apartment every night and writes while peering into dark December skies outside. He picks up a few newspapers on the table and is immediately revulsed by headlines even suggesting Nicholas II making concessions to the demands of a few outrageous lunatics, anarchists or liberals.

He sits down and ponders as always when it all went out of control. When did it begin?

Was the first mistake to allow France to live after the revolution? Any foothold Liberté, egalité, fraternité gained was a lost opportunity to squash them while they were small.

He tries to write a few paragraphs by the typewriter. It feels unimportant in the big picture, but who knows what could come of it.

Only a matter of time before any liberal or socialist country decays into totalitarianism. If you remove the bonds of duty and devotion, you remove the steel structure that holds up the firmament. Any appeal to welfare is just making matters worse.

The catastrophe moved about the earth like a blizzard threatening to land on shore any time, if completely random atmospheric processes willed it so.

A good feeling of satisfaction comes from reading what he just wrote. That unpredictable storm? He just replaced erratic, arbitrary changes of direction with a planned development.

The Jews or the Masons were a perfect fit. All those bastards whose entire sense of responsibility consists in just tugging at any loose thread they can find out of greed and selfishness until the whole thing unravels. Liberalism prettied up selfishness until it looked almost palatable. Random? No, those fools wanted the end to come about.

“Write their real voices, I say!”, he thought to himself. “Put them on display for the entire world to see. Masons, enterprising fraudsters, stock speculators, grass roots advocates for personal liberty and irresponsibility! Children.”

And so he went about, with Joly’s Dialogue in one hand and other sources of inspiration in the other. Every turn the liberalists took, he would be there with a finger pointing upwards, reminding them about the part they all missed, the long-term consequences that meant the demise of a society. He would pin the consequences to their collective arses with long rusty needles, until they understood what they had done.

And lo and behold: Not only did he predict it, he even precipitated it.

3rd July

Social science as a trap

Now Golovinski strays directly from Joly with an interlude on social sciences. The Council keeps the truth under wraps, namely that we should adhere to God’s law and accept our place as working men in society for the benefit of all. Instead they have invented a lie: The social sciences which teaches us that we should accept our place in society.

Of course the text of the Protocol should read: “Joly’s Montesquieu’s statement that »work is […] the instrument of their equality« is a rotten theory. It is the recipe for division into social classes. Liberalism tricks people into classes, aristocracy places them in classes for good reasons. Liberalism due to their false teaching on sociology leads people into crisis.”

Golovinski even predicts the Depression and its seismic consequences (for the Jews, actually).

The text becomes a strange irony. Why would the Jewish council plan to throw people into an economic crisis only to have them attack everybody with gold, which as the story goes, are exactly the Jews?

No, strip away the tacked-on antisemitic aspect, and the story makes sense. The rest is “everybody knows”.

Golovinski then returns to his parody of Joly’s book.

He ponders the time frame since the French Revolution, the senseless brutality it brought about almost immediately. He ponders the American Civil War and how massively more destructive “people’s wars” were becoming than the isolated warfare of days gone by.

He despairs at how mercilessly the commoner can be against those they marginalise. How insatiable their blood thirst were.

Those people had gained power in most of Europe and Russia was poised to go in that direction too.

I can’t help but to shed a tear over this decrepit old nostalgic alone by his typewriter hoping to convince the world that God’s proxy on earth still loves the weak and the poor.

PARADISE LOST