Σύμπαν και άνθρωπος

Όλα στο σύμπαν αφορούν τη μεταμόρφωση.Η ζωή μας μοιάζει με τις σκέψεις που τη διαμορφώνουν.

Μάρκος Αυρήλιος

Τετάρτη, 10 Οκτωβρίου 2012

Protocols: A Chapter from the Controversy of Zion

Doug Reed's book, The Controversy of Zion, written in 1956; published 22 years later in 1978 is the most important book I've read in my search to make sense of the insanity at large in this world today, and of the probable "source" of the insanity.  For me, the following chapter on The Protocols adds an important element of understanding to the highly controversial Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The following quote taken from the chapter is all too recognizable today:  - Jackie - 
To bring about this state of affairs compliant politicians are needed, and of them the Protocols say:
"The administrators whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers, specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world".
     While zionism thus took shape in the Eastern ghettoes during the last century [19th] and at the start of this one emerged as a new force in international affairs (when the British Government offered it Uganda), the world revolution, in those same Talmudic areas, prepared its third "eruption".  The two forces moved forward together in synchronization (for Zionism, as has been shown, used the threat of Communism in Europe to gain the ear of European rulers for its territorial demand outside Europe). 
   It was as if twin turbines began to revolve, generating what was in effect "one" force, from which the new century was to receive galvanic shocks.
    According to Disraeli and Bakunin the world revolution had come under Jewish leadership around the middle of the century [mid-1800s], and its aims then changed. Bakunin's followers, who sought to abolish the State as such because they foresaw that the revolutionary State might become more despotic than any earlier despotism, were ousted and forgotten.  
   The world revolution therefore took the shape of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, which aimed at the super-State founded in slave labour and in "the confiscation of human liberty" (as deTocqueville wrote in 1848).
    This change in leadership and aims determined the course of the 20th Century.  However, the methods whereby the existing order was to be destroyed did not change; they continued to be those revealed by Weishaupt's papers published in 1787.  Many publications of the 19th Century showed that the original Illuminati plans continued through the generations to be the textbook of the revolutionaries of all camps as to method.
   These works propagated the destructive plans in various ways; sometimes allegorical, but always recognizable if compared with the original -- Weishaupt's documents.
   In 1859 Cretineau Joly assailed Jewish Leadership of "the secret societies".  His book reproduced documents communicated to him by Pope Gregory XVII of the Italian secret society, the Haute Vente Romaine.  Their authenticity is beyond question.  The Haute Vente Romaine was headed by an Italian prince who had been initiated by one of Weishaupt's own intimates (Knigge) and was a reincarnation of the Illuminati.   
   The outer circle of initiates -- the dupes -- were persuaded that "the object of the association is something high and noble, that it is the Order of those who desire a purer morality and a stronger piety, the independence and unity of their country".  Those who graduated into the inner degrees progressively learned the real aims and swore to destroy all religion and legitimate government.   Then they received the secrets of assassination, poison and perjury first disclosed by Weishaupt's documents.
    In 1862 Karl Marx (whose Communist Manifesto is recognizably Illuminist) founded his first International, and Bakunin founded his Alliance Sociale Democratique (the program as Mrs. Nesta Webster has shown by quoting correlative passages, was Illuminism undiluted). In the same year Maurice Joly published an attack on Napolion III, to whom he attributed the identical methods of corrupting and ruining the social system.  (This book was written in allegorical form.)
   In 1868 the German Goedsche reproduced the same ideas in the form of an attack on Jewish leadership of the revolution, and in 1869 the French Catholic and Royalist Gougenot Des Mousseaux took up the same theme.  In that year Bakunin also published his Polemic Against The Jews.
  In all these works, in one form or another, the continuity of the basic idea first revealed by Weishaupt's documents appears: namely, that of destroying all legitimate government, religion and nationhood and setting up a universal despotism to rule the enslaved masses by terror and violence.  Some of those assailed the Jewish usurpation of, or succession to the leadership of the revolution.
  After that came a pause in the published literature of the conspiracy first disclosed in 1787, and in 1905 one Professor Sergyei Nilus, an official of the Department of Foreign Religions at Moscow, of which "the British Museum in London has a copy bearing the date-stamp, August 10, 1906. "  Great interest would attach to anything that could be elicited about Nilus and his book; which has never been translated, the mystery with which he and it have been surrounded impedes research.
   One chapter was translated into English in 1920.  This calls for mention here because the original publication occurred in 1905; although the violent uproar only began when it appeared in English in 1920.
     This one chapter was published in England and America as "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion".  I cannot learn whether this was the original chapter heading or whether it was provided during translation.  No proof is given that the document is what it purports to be, a minute of a secret meeting of Jewish "Elders".  In that respect, therefore, it is valueless.
    In every other respect it is of inestimable importance, for it is shown by the conclusive test (that of subsequent events) to be an authentic document of the world-conspiracy first disclosed by Weishaupt's papers.  Many other documents in the same series had followed that first revelation, as I have shown, but this one transcends all of them.  
   The others were fragmentary and gave glimpses, this one gives the entire picture of the conspiracy, motive, method and objective.  It adds nothing new to what had been revealed in parts (save for the unproven attribution to Jewish elders themselves), but it puts all the parts in place and exposes the whole. It accurately depicts all that has come about in the fifty years since it was published, and what clearly will follow in the next fifty years unless in that time the force which the conspiracy has generated produces the counter-force.
    It is informed by a mass of knowledge (particularly of human weaknesses) which can only have sprung from the accumulated experience and continuing study of centuries; or of ages.  It is written in a tone of lofty superiority, as by beings perched on some Olympian pinnacle of sardonic and ancient wisdom, and of mocking scorn for the writhing masses far below ("the mob"... "alchoholized animals" . . . "cattle" . . . "bloodthirsty beasts") who vainly struggle to elude the "nippers" which are closing on them; these nippers are "the power of gold" and the brute force of the mob, incited to destroy its only protectors and consequently itself.
   The destructive idea is presented in the form of a scientific theory, almost of an exact science, argued with gusto and eloquence.   In studying the Protocols I am constantly reminded of something that caught my eye in Disraeli's dictum, earlier quoted.  Disraeli, who was careful in the choice of words, spoke of "the destructive principal " (not idea, scheme, notion, plan, plot or the like), and the Protocols elevate the theory of destruction to this status of "a fundamental truth, a primary or basic law, a governing law of conduct" (to quote various dictionary definitions of 'principle').  
   In many passages the Protocols appear, at first sight to recommend destruction as a thing virtuous in itself, and consequently justifying all the methods explicitly recommended to promote it (bribery, blackmail, corruption, subversion, sedition, mob-incitement, terror and violence), which thus become virtuous too.
    But careful scrutiny shows that this is not the case.  In fact the argument presented begins at the end; world power, and goes backward through the means, which are advocated simply as the best ones to the end.  The end is that first revealed in Weishaupt's documents, and it is apparent that both spring from a much earlier source, although the Protocols, in time, stand to the Weishaupt papers as grandson to grandsire.  The final aim is the destruction of all religion and nationhood and the establishment of the super State, ruling the world by ruthless terror.
    When the Protocols appeared in English the minor point - who was the author of this particular document - was given a false semblance of major importance ty the enraged Jewish attack on the document itself.  The asseveration of the Jewish leadership of the revolutionary conspiracy was not new at all; the reader has seen that Disraeli, Bakunin and many others earlier affirmed it.  In this case the allegation about a specific meeting of Jewish leaders of the conspiracy was unsupported and could have been ignored (in 1913 a somewhat similar publication accused the Jesuits of instigating a world-conspiracy resembling that depicted alike in the Protocols and in Weishaupt's papers, the Jesuits quietly remarked that this was false and the matter was forgotten).
   The response of official Jewry in 1920 and afterwards was different.  It was aimed, with fury, at the entire substance of the Protocols; it did not stop at denying a Jewish plot, but denied that there was any plot, which was demonstrably untrue.  
   The existence of the conspiracy had been recognized and affirmed by a long chain of high authorities, from Edmond Burke, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton to Disraeli, Bakunin and the many others mentioned in an earlier chapter.  Moreover, when the Protocols appeared in English conclusive proof had been given by the event in Russia. Thus the nature of the Jewish attack could only strengthen public doubts; it protested much too much.
     This attack was the repetition of the one which silenced those earlier leaders of the public demand for investigation and remedy, Robison, Barruel and Morse, but on this occasion it was a Jewish attack.  
   Those three men made no imputation of Jewish leadership, and they were defamed solely because they drew public attention to the continuing nature of the conspiracy and to the fact that the French revolution was clearly but its first 'eruption'.  
   The attack on the Protocols in the 1920's proved above all else the truth of their contention; it showed that the standing organization for suppressing public discussion of the conspiracy had been perfected in the intervening 120 years.  Probably so much money and energy were never before in history expended on the effort to suppress a single document.
    It was brought to England by one of the two leading British correspondents of that day in Moscow, Victor Marsden of the Morning Post (the significant story of the other correspondent belongs to a later chapter).  Marsden was an authority on Russia and was much under the enduring effect of the Terror.  He was in effect its victim, for he died soon after completing what he evidently felt to be a duty, the translation of the Protocols at the British Museum.
    Publication in English aroused worldwide interest.  That period (1920 and onward) marks the end of the time when Jewish questions could be impartially discussed in public.  
   The initial debate was free and vigorous, but in following years the attack succeeded in imposing the law of lese majesty in this matter and today [1956] hardly any public man or print ventures to mention the Protocols unless to declare them 'forged' or 'infamous' (an act of submission also foretold in them).  
   The first reaction was the natural one.  The Protocols were received as formidable evidence of an international conspiracy against religion, nationhood, legitimate government and property.  All agreed that the attribution to Jewish authorship was unsupported, but that the subject matter was so grave, and so strongly supported by events subsequent to the original publication, that full enquiry was needed.  This remedy, "investigation", was the one advocated by many leading men 120 years earlier.  In this instance the attack was in effect again on the demand for investigation, not simply on the allegation against "the Elders of Zion".
     The Times (of London) on May 8, 1920 in a long article said, "An impartial investigation of these would-be documents and of their history is most desirable. . . Are we to dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of such a book as this work unchecked?"  
   The Morning Post (then the oldest and soberest British newspaper) published twenty-three articles, also calling for investigation.
    In The Spectator on August 27, 1921, Lord Sydenham, a foremost authority of that day, also urged investigation. "The main point is, of course, the source from which Nilus obtained the Protocols.  The Russians who knew Nilus and his writings cannot all have been exterminated by the Bolsheviks.  His book . . . has not been translated, though it would give some idea of the man . . . What is the most striking characteristic of the Protocols?  The answer is knowledge of a rare kind, embracing the widest field.  The solution of this 'mystery', if it is one, is to be found where this uncanny knowledge, on which prophecies now literally fulfilled are based, can be show to reside".  
   In America Mr. Henry Ford, declaring that "the Protocols have fitted the world situation up to this time; they fit it now", caused his Dearborn Independent to publish a series of articles of which a million and a half reprints were sold.
    Within two years the proprietor of The Times was certified insane (by an unnamed doctor in a foreign land; a later chapter will describe this episode) and forcibly removed from control of his publications, and The Times published an article dismissing the Protocols as a plagiarism of Maurice Joly's book.  
   The proprietor of the Morning Post became the object of sustained vituperation until he sold the newspaper, which then ceased publication.  
   In 1927 Mr. Henry Ford published an apology addressed to a well-known Jew of America; when I was in the United States in later years I was told by credible informants that he was persuaded to do this, at a moment when a new-model Ford automobile was about to be marketed, by hostile threats from dealers on whom the fortunes of his concern depended.
  The campaign against the Protocols has never ceased since then.  In communized Russia all copies discoverable had been destroyed at the revolution and possession of the book became a capital crime under the law against "anti-semitism".  
   In the direct sequence to that, though twenty-five years later, the American and British authorities in occupied Germany after the Second World War constrained the Western German government to enact laws against "anti-semitism", on the Bolshevik model; and in 1955 a Munich printer who reproduced the Protocols had his business confiscated.  
   In England at the time of publication the sale of the book was temporarily stopped by authority, under the pressure described, and in the course of the years the attack on it continued so violent that publishers feared it and only small local firms ever ventured to print it.  
   In Switzerland, between the wars, a Jewish suit was brought against the book as "improper literature'.  The case was won, but the verdict was set aside by a higher court.
     The state of affairs thus brought about after 1920, and continuing today, was foretold by the Protocols in 1905:
"Through the press we have gained the power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade . . . The principal factor of success in the political" (field) " is the secrecy of its undertaking; the word should not agree with the deeds of the diplomat . . .
We must compel the governments . . . to take action in the direction favoured by our widely-conceived plan, already approaching the desired consummation, by what we shall represent as public opinion, secretly prompted by us through the means of that so-called 'Great Power', the press, which, with a few exceptions that may be disregarded, is already entirely in our hands . . .
We shall deal with the press in the following way . . . we shall saddle and bridle it with a tight curb; we shall do the same also with all productions of the printing press, for where would be the sense of getting rid of the attacks of the press if we remain targets for pamphlets and books? . . .
No one shall with impunity lay a finger on the aureole of our government infallibility.  The pretext for stopping any publication will be the alleged plea that it is agitating the public mind without occasion or justification . . .
We shall have a sure triumph over our opponents since they will not have at their disposition organs of the press in which they can give full and final expression to their views owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press..."
     Such is the history of the Protocols thus far.  Their attribution to jewish "Elders" is unsupported and should be rejected, without prejudice to any other evident about Jewish leadership of the world-revolution as such.  The Jewish attack on them was bent, not on exculpating Jewry, but on stopping the publication on the plea that it was "agitating the public mind without occasion or justification".  
     The arguments advanced were bogus; they were that the Protocols closely resembled several earlier publications and thus were "plagiaries" or "forgeries", whereas what this in truth showed was the obvious thing: that they were part of the continuing literature of the conspiracy.  They might equally well be the product of non-Jewish or of anti-Jewish revolutionaries, and that is of secondary importance.  What they proved is that the organization first revealed by Weishaupt's documents was in existence 120 years later, and was still using the methods and pursuing the aim then exposed; and when they were published in English the Bolshevik revolution had given the proof.
     In my opinion the Protocols provide the essential handbook for students of the time and subject.  If Lord Sydenham, in 1921, was arrested by the "uncanny knowledge" they displayed, "on which prophecies now literally fulfilled are based", how much more would he be impressed today, in 1956, [or today in 2001] when much more of them has been as literally fulfilled. Through this book any man can see how the upheavals of the past 150 years were, and how those of the next fifty years will be brought about; he will know in advance just how "the deeds" of his elected representatives will differ from their "word".
    On one point I am able from my own experience to test Lord Sydenham's dictum about fulfilled prophecies.  The Protocols, speaking of control of published information, say,
"Not a single announcement will reach the public without our control.  Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are they are focused from all parts of the world.  These agencies will then be entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them".
   That was not the situation in 1905, or in Lord Sydenham's day, or in 1926, when I became a journalist, but it was developing and today is the situation.  The stream of "news" which pours into the public mind through the newspapers comes from a few agencies, as if from half a dozen taps.  Any hand that can control those valves can control "the news", and the reader may observe for himself the filtered form in which the news reaches him.  As to the editorial views, based on this supply of news, the transformation that has been brought about may be comprehended by referring to the impartially critical articles published in The Times, Morning Post, Spectator, Dearborn Independent and thousands of other journals some twenty-five years ago.  This could not happen today.  The subjugation of the press has been accomplished as the Protocols foretold, and by the accident of my generation and calling I saw it come about.
     Comparative study of the Protocols and of the Weishaupt papers leads to the strong deduction that both derive from a common and much older source. They cannot have been the product of any one man or one group of men in the period when they were published; the "uncanny knowledge" displayed in them obviously rests on the cumulative experience of eras.  In particular, this applies (in Weishaupt's papers and the Protocols alike) to the knowledge of human weaknesses, which are singled out with analytical exactitude, the method of exploiting each of them being described with disdainful glee.
    The instrument to be used for the destruction of the Christian nation-states and their religion is "the mob".  The word is used throughout with searing contempt to denote the masses, (who in public are flattered by being called "the people").  
"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 . . . The might of a mob is blind, senseless and unreasoning force ever at the mercy of a suggestion from any side".
     From this the argument is developed that "an absolute despotism" is necessary to govern "the mob", which is "a savage", and that "our State" will employ "the terror which tends to produce blind submission".  The "literal fulfillment" of these precepts in communized Russia must be obvious to all today).
   The "absolute despotism" is to be vested in the international super-State at the end of the road. In the meanwhile regional puppet-despots are depicted as essential to the process of breaking down the structure of states and the defences of peoples:
"From the premier-dictators of the present day the peoples suffer patiently and bear such abuses as for the least of them they would have beheaded twenty kings.  What is the explanation . . . ?  It is explained by the fact that these dictators whisper to the peoples through their agents that through these abuses they are inflicting injury on the States with the highest purpose -- to secure the welfare of the peoples, the international brotherhood of them all, their solidarity and equality of rights.  Naturally they do not tell the peoples that this unification must be accomplished only under our sovereign rule".
      This passage is of especial interest.  The term "premier-dictator" would not generally have been understood in 1905, when the peoples of the West believed their elected representatives to express and depend on their approval.  However, it became applicable during the First and Second World Wars, when American presidents and British prime ministers made themselves, in fact, "premier-dictators" and used emergency powers in the name of "the welfare of peoples . . . international brotherhood . . . equality of rights".  
   Moreover, these premier-dictators, in both wars, did tell the peoples that the ultimate end of all this would be "unification" under a world government of some kind.  The question, who would govern this world government, was one which never received straightforward answer; so much else of the Protocols has been fulfilled that their assertion that it would be the instrument of the conspiracy for governing the world "by violence and terrorization" deserves much thought.  
    The especial characteristic of the two 20th Century wars is the disappointment which each brought to the peoples who appeared to be victorious. "Uncanny knowledge", therefore, again seems to have inspired the statement, made in 1905 or earlier.  
"Ever since that time" (the French Revolution) "we have been leading the peoples from one disenchantment to another",
followed later by this:
"By these acts all States are in torture; they exhort to tranquility, are ready to sacrifice everything for peace; but we will not give them peace until they openly acknowledge our international Super-Government, and with submissiveness".
The words, written before 1905, seem accurately to depict the course of the 20th Century.
     Again, the document says
"it is indispensable for our purpose that wars, so far as possible, should not result in territorial gains".
    This very phrase, of 1905 or earlier, was made the chief slogan, or apparent moral principle, proclaimed by the political leaders of America and Britain in both world wars, and in this case the difference between "the word" and "the deed" of "the diplomat" has been shown by results.
   The chief result of the First War was to establish revolutionary-Zionism and revolutionary -Communism as new forces in international affairs, the first with a promised "homeland" and the second with a resident State.  The chief result of the Second War was that further "territorial gains" accrued to, and only to, Zionism and Communism; Zionism received its resident State and Communism received half of Europe.
      The "deadly accuracy" (Lord Sydenham's words) of the Protocol's forecasts seems apparent in this case, where a specious phrase used in the Protocols of 1905 became the daily language of American presidents and British prime ministers in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945.
     The reason why the authors of the Protocols held this slogan to be so important, in beguiling the peoples, is also explained.  If the nations embroiled in wars are denied "territorial gains", the only victors will then be
"our international agenteur . . . our international rights will then wipe out national rights, in the proper sense of right, and will rule the nations precisely as the civil law of States rules the relations of their subjects among themselves".
     To bring about this state of affairs compliant politicians are needed, and of them the Protocols say:
"The administrators whom we shall choose from among the public, with strict regard to their capacities for servile obedience, will not be persons trained in the arts of government, and will therefore easily become pawns in our game in the hands of men of learning and genius who will be their advisers, specialists bred and reared from early childhood to rule the affairs of the whole world".
   The reader may judge for himself whether this description fits some of "the administrators" of the West in the last five decades; the test is their attitude towards Zionism, the world-revolution and world-government, and subsequent chapters will offer information in these three respects. But "deadly accuracy" appears to reside even more in the allusion to "advisers".
      Here again is "uncanny knowledge", displayed more than fifty years ago.  In 1905 the non-elected but powerful "adviser" was publicly unknown.  True, the enlightened few, men like Disraeli, knew that "the world is governed by very different persons from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes", but to the general public the passage would have been meaningless.
     In the First and Second World Wars, however, the non-elected, unofficial but imperious "adviser" became a familiar public figure.  He emerged into the open (under "emergency powers") and became known to and was passively accepted by the public masses; possibly the contempt which the Protocols display for "the mob" was justified by this submission to behind-the-scenes rule even when it was openly exercised.  
   In the United States, for instance, "advisers on Jewish affairs" became resident at the White House and at the headquarters of American armies of occupation.  One financier (who publicly recommended drastic measures for "ruling the affairs of the world") was adviser to so many presidents that he was permanently dubbed "Elder Statesman" by the press, and visiting prime ministers from England also repaired to him as if to a supreme seat of authority.
    The Protocols foretold this regime of the "advisers" when none understood what was meant and few would have credited that they would openly appear in the high places.
     The Protocols repeatedly affirm that the first objective is the destruction of the existing ruling class ("the aristocracy", the term employed, was still applicable in 1905) and the seizure of property through the incitement of the insensate, brutish "mob".  Once again, subsequent events give the "forecast" its "deadly accuracy".
"In politics one must know how to seize the property of others without hesitation if by it we secure submission and sovereignty . . . The words, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity', brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm.  And all the time these words were canker-worms boring into the well being of the people, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity and destroying all the foundations of the States . .
This helped us to our greatest triumph; it gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands the master card, the destruction of privileges, or in other words the very existence of the aristocracy . . . that class which was the only defence peoples and countries had against us.  On the ruins of the natural and genealogical aristocracy . . . we have set up the aristocracy of our educated class headed by the aristocracy of money.  The qualifications of this aristocracy we have established in wealth, which is dependent upon us, and in knowledge . . .
It is this possibility of replacing the representatives of the people which has placed them at our disposal, and, as it were, given us the power of appointment . . . We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces; Socialists, Anarchists, Communists  . . .
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 . . .
The people, blindly believing things in print, cherishes . . . a blind hatred towards all conditions which it considers above itself, for it has no understanding of the meaning of class and condition. . .
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 . . .
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 . . .
But even freedom might be harmless and have its place in the State economy without injury to the wellbeing of the peoples if it rested upon the foundation of faith in God . . .
This is the reason why it is indispensable for us to undermine all faith, to tear out of the minds of the masses the very principle of Godhead and the spirit, and to put in its place arithmetical calculations and material needs . . .
. . . We have set one against another this personal and national reckonings of the peoples, religious and race hatreds, which we have fostered into a huge growth in the course of the past twenty centuries.  [past 2,000 years]  This is the reason why there is not one State which would anywhere receive support if it were to raise its arm, for every one of them, must bear in mind that any agreement against us would be unprofitable to itself.   We are too strong, there is no evading our power.  The nations cannot come to even an inconsiderable private agreement without our secretly having a hand in it . . .
In order to put public opinion into our hands we must bring it into a state of bewilderment by giving expression from all sides to so many contradictory opinions and for such length of time as will suffice to make the peoples lose their heads in the labrynth and come to see that the best thing is to have no opinion of any kind in matters political; which it is not given to the public to understand, because they are understood only by him who guides the public. This is the first secret.
The second secret requisite for the success of our government is comprised in the following: to multiply to such an extent national failings, habits, passions, conditions of civil life, that it will be impossible for anyone to know where he is in the resulting chaos, so that the people in consequence will fail to understand one another . . . By all these means we shall so wear down the peoples that they will be compelled to offer us international power of a nature that by its possession will enable us without any violence gradually to absorb all the State forces of the world and to form a Super-Government.  In place of the rulers of today we shall set up a bogey which will be called the Super-Government administration.  Its hands will reach out in all directions like nippers and its organization will be of such colossal dimensions that it cannot fail to subdue all the nations of the world".
     That the Protocols reveal the common source of inspiration of Zionism and Communism is shown by significant parallels that can be drawn between the two chief methods laid down in them and the chief methods pursued by Dr. Herzl and Karl Marx.
      The Protocols repeatedly lay emphasis on the incitement of "the mob" against the ruling class as the most effective means of destroying States and nations and achieving world dominion. Dr. Herzl, as was shown in the preceding chapter, used precisely this method to gain the ear of European rulers.
      Next, Karl Marx. The Protocols say,
"The aristocracy of the peoples, as a political force, is dead . . . but as landed proprietors they can still be harmful to us from the fact they are self-sufficing in the resources upon which they live.  It is essential therefore for us at whatever cost to deprive them of their land . . .  At the same time we must intensively patronize trade and industry . . .   What we want is that industry should drain off from the land both labour and capital and by means of speculation transfer into our hands all the money of the world . . . "
     Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto exactly followed this formula.  True he declared that Communism might be summed up on one sentence, "abolition of private property", but subsequently he qualified this dictum by restricting actual confiscation to land and implying that other types of private property were to remain intact.  (In the later Marxist event, of course, all private property was confiscated, but I speak here of the strict parallel between the strategy laid down before the event alike by the Protocols and Marx).
      A passage of particular interest in the present, though it was written before 1905, says
"Nowadays if any States raise a protest against us, it is only pro forma at our discretion and by our direction, for their anti-semitism is indispensable to us for the management of our lesser brethren".
     A distinctive feature of our era is the way the charge of "anti-semitism" is continually transferred from one country to another, the country so accused becoming automatically the specified enemy in the next war.  This passage might cause the prudent to turn a skeptical eye on today's periodical reports of sudden "anti-semitic" turns in communist Russia, or elsewhere.
     The resemblance to Weishaupt's documents is very strong in the passages which relate to the infiltration of public departments, professions and parties, for instance:
"It is from us that the all-engulfing terror proceeds.   We have in our service persons of all opinions, of all doctrines, restorating monarchists, demagogues, socialists, communists, and utopian dreamers of every kind.  We have harnessed them all to the task: each one of them on his own account is boring away at the last remnants of authority, is striving to overthrow all established form of order.  
By these acts all States are in torture; they exhort to tranquility, are ready to sacrifice everything for peace; but we will not give them peace until they openly acknowledge our international Super-Government, and with submissiveness".
     The allusions to the permeation of universities in particular, and of education in general, also spring directly from Weishaupt, or from whatever earlier source he received them:
" . . . We shall emasculate the universities . . .  Their officials and professors will be prepared for their business by detailed secret programmes of action from which they will not with immunity diverge, not by one iota.  They will be appointed with especial precaution, and will be so placed as to be wholly dependent upon the Government".
     This secret permeation of universities (which was successful in the German ones in Weishaupt's day, as his documents show) was very largely effective in our generations.  The two British government officials who after their flight to Moscow were paraded before the international press in 1956 to state that they had been captured by Communism at their universities, were typical products of this method, described by the Protocols early in the century and by Weishaupt in 1787.
     Weishaupt's documents speak of Freemasonry as the best "cover" to be used by the agents of the conspiracy.  The Protocols allot the function of "cover" to "Liberalism":
"When we introduced into the State organism the poison of Liberalism its whole political complexion underwent a change.  States have been seized with a moral illness, blood-poisoning. All that remains is to await the end of their death agony".
     The term "utopian dreamers", used more than once, is applied to Liberals, and its original source probably resides in the Old Testamentary allusion to "dreamers of dreams" who, with "false prophets", are to be put to death.  The Protocols did not specify it:
"We shall root out liberalism from the important strategic posts of our government on which depends the training of subordinates for our State structure".
     The "Big Brother" regimes of our century, are accurately foretold in the passage,
"Our government will have the appearance of a patriarchal paternal guardianship on the part of our ruler".
     Republicanism, too, is to be a "cover" for the conspiracy.  The Protocols are especially contemptuous of republicanism, in which (and in liberalism) they see the weapon of self-destruction forged out of "the mob":
" . . . then it was that the era of republics became possible of realization; and then it was that we replaced the ruler by a caricature of a government, by a president, taken from the mob, from the midst of our puppet creatures, our slaves.  This was the foundation of the mine which we have laid under the peoples".
     Then the unknown scribes of some time before 1905 describe the position to which American presidents have been reduced in our century.  The passage begins,
"In the near future we shall establish the responsibility of presidents".  This, as the sequence shows, means personal responsibility, as distinct from the responsibility curbed by constitutional controls; the president is to become one of the "premier-dictators earlier foreseen, whose function is to be to break down the constitutional defences of states and thus prepare "unification under our sovereign rule".
     During the First and Second World Wars the American presidents did in fact become "premier-dictators" in this sense, claiming that "the emergency" and the need for "victory" dictated this seizure of powers of personal responsibility; powers which would be restored to "the people" when "the emergency" was past.  Readers of sufficient years will recall how inconceivable this appeared before it happened and how passively it was accepted in the event. The passage then continues:
"The chamber of deputies will provide cover for, will protect, will elect presidents, but we shall take from it the right to propose new, or make changes in existing laws, for this right will be given by us to the responsible president, a puppet in our hands . . . Independently of this we shall invest the president with the right of declaring a state of war. We shall justify this last right on the ground that the president as chief of the whole army of the country must have it at his disposal in case of need . . .
It is easy to understand that in these conditions the key of the shrine will lie in our hands, and that no one outside ourselves will any longer direct the force of legislation . . .
The president will, at our discretion, interpret the sense of such of the existing laws as admit of various interpretation; he will further annul them when we indicate to him the necessity to do so, beside this, he will have the right to propose temporary laws, and even new departures in the government constitutional working, the pretext both for the one and the other being the requirements for the supreme welfare of the state.  By such measures we shall obtain the power of rights, we are compelled to introduce into the constitutions of states to prepare for the transition to an imperceptible abolition of every kind of constitution, and then the time is come to turn every government into our despotism".
     This forecast of 1905 or earlier particularly deserves Lord Sydenham's tribute of "deadly accuracy".  American presidents in the two wars of this century have acted as here shown.  They did take the right of declaring and making war, and it has been used at least once (in Korea) since the Second World War ended, and any attempt in Congress  or outside to deprive them of this power or curb them in the use of it meets with violently hostile attack.
     So the Protocols continue.  The peoples, on their progress "from one disenchantment to another", will not be allowed "a breathing-space".  Any country "which dares to oppose us" must be met with war, and any collective opposition with "universal war".  The peoples will not be allowed "to contend with sedition" (here is the key to the furious attacks of the 1790s, 1920 and today on all demands for "investigation", Witch-hunting", "McCarthyism" and the like).
     In the Super-State to come the obligation will fall on members of one family to denounce dissidents within the family circle (the Old Testamentary dispensation earlier mentioned).  The "complete wrecking of the Christian religion" will not be long delayed.  The peoples will be kept distracted by trivial amusements ("people's palaces") from becoming troublesome and asking questions.  History will be rewritten for their delusion (another precept since fulfilled in communized Russia), for
"we shall erase from the memory of men all facts of previous centuries which are undesirable to us, and leave only those which depict all the errors of the national governments". "All the wheels of the machinery of all States go by the force of the engine, which is in our hands, and that engine of the machinery of States is Gold".
And the end of it all:
"What we have to get at is that there should be in all the States of the world, beside ourselves, only the masses of the proletariat, a few millionaires devoted to our interests, police and soldiers . . . The recognition of our despot . . . will come when the peoples, utterly wearied by the irregularities and incompetence . . . of their rulers, will clamour: 'Away with them and give us one king over all the earth who will unite us and annihilate the causes of discords, frontiers, nationalities, religions, State debts, who will give us peace and quiet, which we cannot find under our rulers and representatives' ."
     In two or three of these passages I have substituted "people" or "masses" for "Goyim", because the use of that word relates to the unproven assertion contained in the book's title, and I do not want to confuse the issues; evidence about the identity of the authors of the conspiracy must be sought elsewhere than in an unsupported allegation.  The authors may have been Jewish, non-Jewish or anti-Jewish.  That is immaterial.  When it was published this work was the typescript of a drama which had not been performed; today it has been running for fifty years and its title is The Twentieth Century.  The characters depicted in it move on our contemporary stage, play the parts foretold and produce the events foreseen
     Only the denouement remains, fiasco or fulfillment. It is a grandiose plan, and in my estimation cannot succeed.  But it has existed for at least 180 years and probably for much longer, and the Protocols provided one more proof in a chain of proofs that has since been greatly lengthened.  The conspiracy for world dominion through a world slave state exists and cannot at this stage be abruptly checked or broken off; of the momentum which it has acquired it now must go on to fulfillment or failure. Either will be destructive for a time, and hard for those of the time in which the denouement comes. -- End of Chapter --  


Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:

Δημοσίευση σχολίου