7th December
What is the human animal?
I imagine that the events around Israel-Palestine had evolved differently back in the day.
Say Irgun’s attack on Deir Yassin had evolved in a different way. Say a civil war hadn’t broken out, but rather the Arabs had silently moved within the borders of the UNSCOP plan of division, but imagine also that they built a wall closing in the Israelis except for juncture points connecting to the ocean.
Imagine also that on the Jewish side of the wall they hang posters saying “we conceded our land, but we will remember you as murderers”.
Would all be happy now?
No. The accusations we feel daily are ample casus belli.
We need more than just food and water. We need to see ourselves as righteous people.
The Jews would have responded by hanging posters on the Arab side saying “You wouldn’t share land we once owned to save us from dying in Europe. We will remember you as genocidal.”
The battle for the truth would have escalated. Perhaps an arbiter would have had to be involved, and yet, one side would have reacted to the judgement. Socially that party would grow more suspicious against the rest of the world. The “we are alone now. There is nobody on our side”-syndrome would set in.
Everybody on this planet is guilty of tyranny. Individually we are decent but over time and collectively we are racists and bigots.
8th December
What is socialism? Is it an idea meant to raise the lower classes from poverty and to oppose the bourgeoisie?
Or is it a quest to get off the narrational bandwagons carrying us into a dark and hazy future?
Does socialism say “fight against the ruling classes” or does it say “stop fighting and stop being a slave to your instincts. You need to analyse all the participants and raise above the Machiavellian animal farm.”
9th December
Trotting on. Today’s Protocol continues with Dialogue 17, as best I can see.
Okhrana is described as something that the tsar ought to be ashamed of and something that he can use for his benefit as well. All depending on the direction Golovinski decides to twist a random sentence in Joly.
What complicates matters is that today historians seem to share consensus about the Okhrana:
LEXICON ON OKHRANA
The Okhrana deployed multiple methods, including assassination, clandestine and covert operations, counterintelligence, espionage
[…]
The Okhrana’s Foreign Agency also monitored revolutionary activity. The Okhrana became notorious for its agents provocateurs
[…]
The communists blamed the Okhrana in part for the Bloody Sunday event of January 1905
[…]
Many historians […] maintain that Matvei Golovinski, a writer and Okhrana agent, fabricated the first edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (1903).
In other words, the Okhrana seems to have done what Matvei insinuates was manipulatively done by the Jews. In other words, he either tries to point the finger on another group than his employees, or, since he openly states that the Okhrana does these things, tries to foil up the entire debate.
Golovinski is trolling.
Protocol 18
● The Okhrana is a pest. ● It’s also a blessing. ● False uprisings excuse for searching people’s homes. ● Let discontent simmer, only act when it comes into fruition. ● Ruler guarded by invisible guards. ● Walks amongst his people and receives all complaints like a father.
| Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Ch. 18 | Subtext | Dialogue 17 |
|---|---|---|
When the time comes for us to take special police measures by putting the present Russian system of "Okhrana" in force (the most dangerous poison for the prestige of the state) we will |
Machiavelli: I would begin by creating a ministry of the police, which would be the most important of my ministries and which would centralize – as much abroad as domestically – the many services with which I would endow this part of my administration. |
|
stir up mock disorders among the populace, or induce it to show protracted discontent, and this with the aid of good orators. |
False conspiracies, which of course could only be used with the greatest restraint, would have another advantage: |
|
These orators will find plenty of sympathisers, thus giving us an excuse for searching people’s houses and placing them under special restrictions by making use of our servants among the police of the Gentiles. |
they could permit me to discover real conspiracies, by giving rise to investigations that lead one to seek everywhere the traces of what one suspects. |
Entertaining the possibility that the Protocols is written to convince Nicholas II that there is a Jewish conspiracy against his empire (i.e. one of the modern theories), these words are not exactly hitting the mark.
There are three ways to read any offensive political text. In the first we already know what it says and each statement hammers home the point. This is how we read Trump and Hitler statements. In the second, you read slowly to try to reconstruct the mental universe of the author. Lastly, in the third way we let the fantasies slip in, we allow the reality to be described and hence altered through the words of another.
Moralists would deem either the first or last way appropriate, but I am a fan of the second way, although everything hinges on whether it is well-done satire or seriously meant. Edmund Burke in his youth wrote A Vindication of Natural Society, which some say is seriously meant, some say he is satirising Bolingbroke’s deism. They are apparently still debating it.
I think Golovinski is going by his gut, and in a hastily fashion. Hence the numerous digressions based on his annoyance at Joly’s moral high ground. Joly mocks the necessity of power and order in society, and Golovinski knows Joly’s opinions are championed by the majority when Golovinski wrote.
The majority is the object of his rebuke, the mob.
Again and again I come back to the real issue: Why did Golovinski write the Protocols and who is his “council” meant to portray?
It ought to be Henry Ford’s international jews and, would Ford’s editors add, political leaders of socialism and bolshevism. The Protocol says it is Jews initiated in the secret cabal (well, the title says it, but only in a few instances are Jews mentioned in the Protocols themselves).
If we look at how the reasoning goes, the council is the entity that direct both masses and decision processes alike, the omnipresent “we have orchestrated”. On numerous occasions have I wondered if the world is right and Golovinski really do accuses the Jews of manipulating a docile leader into place whose behaviour fits their schemes.
Why would the leader operate according to the plan? Many reasons have been cited. 1) He has a scandal in his past making him malleable. 2) He follows the rulebook, the prevailing philosophies which have been invented by Jews. 3) Sometimes he strikes the reader as a real ruler without being a puppet.
Mostly, I think random chance plays a role in what Golovinski writes. But even so, he rarely misses an opportunity to point out a few key things.
- The mob have limited understanding.
- The ruler leads for the benefit of the people.
- “We” are usually the perverters of the process. “We” have lead people astray from aristocracy, but as the plan evolves, “we” will lead them back to a new kind of aristocracy for the benefit of themselves.
Nothing in the above spells antisemitism in the senses seen in the International Jew nor in the many faces of antisemitism in Goebbels’ writings or the toxic hatred in Der Stürmer.
What is going on?
The Jews have become the face of some specific forces in the world, I think that much has been established. But different things to different people.
To the nationalists, the Jews are the ones polluting the “blood” by sowing class warfare. Hence they are the socialists. The blood…? Let’s dispense with the pleasantries and call it was it was: The hypothetical Jew obstructed the formation of a renewed national identity.
The oft lauded people’s right to self determination is exactly that: A possible precursor to Holocaust. If your national myth is ripe with self-aggrandisement, things can go overboard if the country should meander into a civil war.
To the entrepreneurs, they were the global capitalist system that the entrepreneurs would themselves become given enough time. Ford is no Founding Father. His dream is not of republicanism or the people throwing out their loyalty to a monarch, but free enterprise, mass production, technocracy.
| Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Ch. 18 | Subtext | Dialogue 17 |
|---|---|---|
As most conspirators are actuated by their love for such art and for that of chattering, we will not touch them until we see that they are about to take action, and we will confine ourselves to introducing among them a, so to speak, reporting element. |
The ruler must be impervious to the vicissitudes of the mob. | […] banished revolutionaries among whom – for money – I would not fail to find some to serve me as agents of transmission with respect to the schemes of shady demagogy; who would found political newspapers in the great capitals, printing houses and bookstores placed in the same conditions and secretly subsidized to follow closely the movements of thought through the press. |
We must remember that a power loses prestige every time that it discovers a public conspiracy against itself. In such a revelation lies the presumption of weakness and, what is still more dangerous, the admission of its own mistakes. |
With the system that I would organize, I would be so completely informed that I could even tolerate guilty actions, because at any minute of the day I would have the power to stop them. |
|
It must be known that we have destroyed the prestige of reigning Gentiles by means of a number of private assassinations, accomplished by our agents, the blind sheep of our flock, who can easily be induced to commit a crime, so long as such a crime is of a political character. |
“Gentiles” sometimes correspond to Joly’s surrounding nations | |
We will force rulers to admit their own weakness by openly introducing special police measures, “Okhrana,” and thus we shall shake the prestige of their own power. |
Okhrana as something to be ashamed of. Those employing it are in the process of being toppled by sophistry. |
Schizophrenic? Always. Okhrana was probably seen as a necessity by Nicholas II, so likely those words were not making him happy. What happened when he read it? Good question.
Perhaps this is a hint to Nicholas to tone down his use of special police. Mimic Napoleon III and play the liberal without being the liberal king. Look superior and high above the petty anarchist, liberal and socialist infighting in Russia.
| Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Ch. 18 | Subtext | Dialogue 17 |
|---|---|---|
Our sovereign will be protected by means of most secret guards, as we will never allow anyone to think that there might exist such a conspiracy against our ruler that he could not personally destroy and from which he is obliged to hide himself. |
Nothing is more precious than the life of the sovereign: it would be necessary that he is surrounded by innumerable guarantees, that is to say, innumerable agents, but it would be necessary that this secret militia is quite dissimulated, so that the sovereign would not have the air of being afraid when he appears in public. |
|
| One tells me that in Europe such precautions have been perfected to the point that a prince who walks the streets can have the appearance of a simple citizen who promenades amongst the throngs without being guarded, whereas he is actually surrounded by two or three thousand protectors. | ||
If we were to allow the existence of such an idea to prevail, as it prevails among the Gentiles, we should thereby sign the death warrant of our sovereign or, if not of himself, then of his dynasty. |
||
By a strict observance of appearances our ruler will use his power only for the benefit of the nation, but never for his own good or for that of the dynasty. |
Note! | |
By strictly adhering to such a decorum, his power will be honoured and protected by his subjects themselves. They will worship the power of the sovereign, knowing that to this power is tied the welfare of the state, because from it will depend public order. |
||
| To guard the King openly is equivalent to an admission of the weakness of his power. |
Joly and Golovinski are slightly out of sync here.
While Joly is making fun of the measures taken in France from 1848 onwards – and it bears repeating that Louis-Bonaparte was not the driving force before 1852, and he quickly recalled the martial law state that many districts were in – Golovinski is expounding on this idea of psychology behind the Machiavellian mechanism of monarchy, i.e. the language of power.
And do notice yet another enigmatical statement pertaining to the use of power for the benefit of the nation.
The Dialogue is concerned with giving a negative image to the measures taken during the 1848 years. Hordes of démocrate-socialiste making their presence felt everywhere shouting “vive la guillotine” had a tendency to upset those content with the order of things and an orderly society. The conservatives were more afraid than Louis-Bonaparte who preferred to distance himself from measures against the poorer, unruly masses.
The Protocols are ambiguous as always. Can anybody say whether neither the council nor their puppet leader is malevolent or benevolent? Sure, the participants move their pieces on the Machiavellian chessboard, but that is merely tactics. What is the purpose?
| Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Ch. 18 | Subtext | Dialogue 17 |
|---|---|---|
| Our ruler will always be amidst his people and will appear to be surrounded by an inquisitive crowd of men and women, apparently always by chance occupying the rows nearest to him and thus holding back the mob with a view to keeping order merely for order’s sake. | ||
This example will teach others to exercise self-control. In case of a petitioner amongst the people trying to submit a demand and pushing through the mob, the people in the first rows will take his petition and will remit it to the ruler in the presence of the petitioner, in order that everyone should know that all petitions reach the sovereign and that he himself controls all affairs. In order to exist, the prestige of power must occupy such a position, that the people can say among themselves: "If only the King knew about it" or “When the King knows about it.” |
A joke, a satire? It remains the best way to describe the Protocols.
If we were to take it serious, then in what manner? Written by an antisemite with conservative and pro-aristocratic leanings (they say), it comes across as a strange invention.
Is it Golovinski’s version of Machiavelli? The ruler must appear accessible to his people and always stronger than his detractors and enemies. And yet, the whole purpose is to retain order in society.
| Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Ch. 18 | Subtext | Dialogue 17 |
|---|---|---|
The mysticism, which surrounds the person of the sovereign, vanishes as soon as a guard of police is seen to be placed round him. When such a guard is employed, any assassin has only to exercise a certain amount of audacity, in order to imagine himself stronger than the guard; he thus realises his strength and so only has to watch for the moment, when he can make an assault on the said power. |
||
We do not preach this doctrine to the Gentiles, and you can see for yourselves the results, which the employment of open guards has had for them. |
Note: Dialog and Protocols are opposites. | One tells me that in Europe such precautions have been perfected to the point that a prince who walks the streets can have the appearance of a simple citizen who promenades amongst the throngs without being guarded, whereas he is actually surrounded by two or three thousand protectors. |
Another rather wayward theory compared with my usual stance: Perhaps the text is manipulative in the sense that it hopes to persuade Nicholas to lower his guards and expose himself to a real assassination. I doubt it myself, but it must be put on the table.
| Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Ch. 18 | Subtext | Dialogue 17 |
|---|---|---|
Our government will arrest such people as they may more or less rightfully suspect of political crimes. It is not desirable for fear of misjudging a man to give an opportunity of escape to such suspects. |
Only approximate match. | Machiavelli: […] if I would respect individual liberty, I would not in this regard prohibit myself from making several useful modifications in the judicial organizations. |
| We will, indeed, show no mercy to such criminals. In certain exceptional cases it may be possible to consider attenuating circumstances, when dealing with ordinary criminal offences; | ||
but there can be no excuse for a political crime, that is to say, no excuse for men to become involved in politics, which none, except the ruler, should understand. And, indeed, not all rulers are capable of understanding true politics. |
That the Protocols aren’t too happy with “empowerment” and liberalisation is obvious to any reader.
The fact that the council seems to be on the same page as the ruler, who in the last paragraph cannot even be properly called a puppet, is also obvious. In fact, at this point, it appears as nothing more than Golovinski commenting on what’s on TV.
In this chapter the council acts almost as a, well, a council, giving tips to the tsar on how to thwart the inevitable social changes.
As such, I find it hard to connect the dots to a Jewish cabal who are destroying the world. Here, as in other passages, they rather try to keep it together.
10th December
In my evenings I read Machiavelli, the real one, for a return to sobriety.
Joly’s version suffers a bit from being too one-dimensional. Machiavelli seems to incorporate a fractal number of dimensions between 1 and 2.
I love his introduction to modern democracy in chapter 9. Not only are we underhanded a feeling of how abnormal it is to rise to power not through good old fashioned bloodshed, but through support from the people (admittedly, technically not democracy, but I can indulge in a fantasy), we are also furnished with an excellent recipe. I just close my eyes and imagine he is talking about modern democracy. It works magnificently.
MACHIAVELLI - THE PRINCE (TRANSLATED BY N.COLE, C.E.DETMOLD) - CHAPTER 9
Now let’s consider
the case where a citizen becomes a prince not through crime or intolerable violence, but with the support of his fellow citizens. This type of rule is known as a civic principality.Achieving such a position depends not solely on merit or luck, but rather
on a combination of cunning and fortune.
The realist perspective as it is known seems cynical, but Machiavelli is just matter-of-fact with his experiences.
In every city, these two opposing factions exists — on one side, the common people who wish to avoid oppression by the elite, and on the other, the nobles who seek to dominate and control the people.
The meek and the insatiable, which is probably what most people come away with when reading Machiavelli. They miss that Machiavelli talks about how the prince must win over the people, gain their loyalty to stay in power when times get tough.
Louis-Bonaparte felt he had a destiny that he had to fulfil at any cost. The council in the Protocols speaks about how they manipulate our modern consensus to gain a hidden power needed to do good in the world.
Those are people of destiny. Even Machiavelli talks about men of honour versus those who use sheer brutality and deceit.
A prince who rises to power with the support of the people must maintain their favour, which is relatively easy since all they ask is not to be oppressed.
[…]
Some might argue against this point by citing the common saying, “He who builds on the people build on mud.” This may be true for a private citizen who relies on popular support, believing the people will save him when he is oppressed by enemies or magistrates. Many have been deceived in this way, like the Gracchi brothers.
A despot can hold power in a democracy. A citizen cannot. He will soon be betrayed.
PARADISE LOST