The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is one of those many books that are more often mentioned than read. Most literate people know from hearsay that the Protocols is a libelous forgery of the Czarist secret police and that the Protocols says Bolshevism was actually a stalking horse of supremacist Jews. That, at least, is what I knew from hearsay (although my claim to literacy is in some quarters disputed). In any case, I have at last decided to actually read the infamous tract, and propose to tell all who care to listen exactly what I find.
The first chapter of the Protocols explains that democracy and liberalism are, as it were, the heavy artillery barrage with which gentile societies are softened before the Bolsheviks (in fact supremacist Jews) take control. Like all classical political philosophers, the authors of the Protocols maintain that absolute democracy necessarily devolves into anarchy because the demos is composed of petty, greedy, ignorant, short-sighted and quarrelsome plebs.
“To work out a suitable scheme of action one must bear in mind the meanness, instability, and want of ballast on the part of the crowd, its incapacity to understand and respect the conditions of its own existence and of its own welfare.” (p. 3)
The key aspect of the crowd’s “incapacity to understand and respect the conditions of its own existence and . . . welfare” is the crowd’s incapacity to understand that a crowd is incapable of governing itself. The demos, which is nothing but a great crowd, is, in effect, like a teenager. The great difference is that the demos will never grow up. This is why the authors of the Protocols say they have, with sinister intent, handed demos the car keys (democracy) and an uncorked bottle of booze (liberalism).
“It suffices to give the populace self-government for a short period for this populace to become a disorganized rabble. From that very moment dissensions start which soon develop into social battles . . . . Whether the state is exhausted by its own internal convulsions, or whether civil wars hand it over to an external foe, it can in any case be considered as definitely and finally destroyed—it will be in our power.” (2)
Plebian leaders cannot save demos from internecine “social battles” because, even when these leaders are “geniuses,” they are always leaders of a plebian faction. Every plebian leader claws his way to democratic power by skillfully slandering and vituperatively vilifying other factions in the demos. If he succeeds it taking power, he will, in the great aria of democratic hypocrisy, announce his rebirth as a “unifier:” but this is, of course, a risible ruse.
“The people abandoned to itself, i.e., to upstarts from the masses [demagogues], is ruined by party dissensions which arise from greed of power and honors and which create disturbances and disorder.” (4-5)
Democracy is, in short, a corrosive social solvent because democracy converts a population of organized subjects into a riot of angry rivals for power and prestige. Liberalism meanwhile causes these furious and fractious democrats to overlook or tolerate political actors who are playing a deeper game. Political actors like the Bolsheviks (in fact supremacist Jews).
“The problem [of usurpation] is simplified if said rival becomes infected with ideas of freedom, so-called liberalism, and for the sake of this idea yields some of its power” (1)
Thus the Masonic motto “liberty, equality and fraternity” is, according the Protocols, the instrument of men (supremacist Jews) who aim to “enslave all Governments under our super-Government” (6). These three words are, indeed, lexical knock-out-drops that seem to invigorate men but in fact put them into a trance.
“Our call of ‘Liberty, equality and fraternity’ brought whole legions to our ranks from all four corners of the world through our unconscious agents [“would-be wise and intelligent Gentiles”], and these legions carried our banners with ecstasy. In the meantime these words were eating, like so many worms, into the well-being of the Christians and were destroying their peace, steadfastness and unity . . .” (7).
The three words in the Masonic motto are, as many have noted, contradictory, since liberty always leads to inequality and fraternity entails claims that constrain (one might as well say liberty and matrimony). These contradictions are, however, overlooked in the delirium that these heady abstractions induce in idealistic gentiles. Likewise overlooked are the absolute implications of these three intoxicating words.
When a man hears the word “liberty,” he pictures himself liberated from the irksome and officious governors by whom he is ruled. He does not picture the liberation of those who are subject to his own rule and government. Thus the man who was liberated from the rule of his king is soon surprised to learn that his wife has been liberated from the rule of her husband.
When a man hears the word “equality,” he pictures himself equalized with his superiors, with those who have so long been the objects of his resentment and envy. He does not picture himself equalized with his inferiors, with those who have so long been the objects of his scorn and contempt. Thus the man who was raised to equality with his squire is soon surprised to learn that his slave has been raised to equality with himself.
When a man hears the word fraternity, he pictures himself being helped by beneficent “brothers” who will give him a hand. He does not pictured himself pawed by deadbeats who have suddenly become his “brothers.” Thus the man who was delighted by the warm handclasp of fraternity is soon surprised to learn that the handclasp is in fact a handcuff and he is shackled to a bevy of bums.
In addition to pulverizing gentile society with democratic wrangling, liberal leniency, and the narcotic abstractions of liberty, equality, and fraternity, the Protocols say that supremacist Jews (hiding behind stalking horses like Masonry and Bolshevism) aim to replace the national aristocracies of the gentiles with a global plutocracy of Jews.
“On the ruins of natural and hereditary aristocracy we built an aristocracy of our own on a plutocratic basis. We established this new aristocracy on wealth, of which we had control, and on science promoted by our scholars.”
That “science” would be political economy and historical materialism broadly conceived. This “science” (which Thomas Carlyle called “pig philosophy”) teaches that human life is nothing but jostling for goodies in the trough of the marketplace. Just like the Masonic mantra of “liberty, equality and fraternity,” the “science” of political economy and historical materialism exploit a weakness in the psychology of the gentiles, the weakness being in this case not idealism but a lack of self-restraint.
“[We] always worked upon the most susceptible part of the human mind, namely by playing on our victim’s weakness for profits, on their greed, on their insatiability . . .”
Thus the claims of the old gentile aristocracy are undermined by criticism of their economic ineptitude. By slow degrees the demos of a nation is taught to transfer its loyalty from those with noble blood to those who are good with money, from those who can produce a pedigree to those who promise to put a chicken in every pot and a Ford in every garage.
End of Section1
To Be Continued
I see what you did there, downloading a copy to read NOW
I remember how “cheated” I felt when I read Mein Kampf for the first time. I literally had to “work up courage” to read it, so thoroughly impressed upon my mind had been the idea that it is ‘the lunatic ravings of a madman,’ and I was deathly afraid that some of that lunacy might rub off on me for daring to read it, ‘against my better judgment.’ That’s what I get for allowing myself and my opinions of a book I’ve never opened to be guided by a bunch of lefty raving lunatics dressed in rational and friendly garb.
The Protocols are something different entirely. I did not read them until a couple of years after I’d read Hitler’s magnum opus. The issue with The Protocols is of course that the “plan” revealed therein is going off without a hitch, right before our eyes and as we speak. I gather that nobody knows who the original authors were for sure, and of course it is hatred of Jews (anti-semitism) that gave them their name and supposed authorship – The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion to begin with.
By the way, if you desire more “bad books” and material to read and write about in the steads of your innocent-minded readers, look up Prof. Bitwerth’s “German Propaganda Archive,” and just ignore Bitwerth’s introductions, or otherwise ‘consider the source’ when you read them. I believe there is even an article in his collection that deals specifically with The Protocols and denial by the international Jews of Jewish authorship. But if anyone cares to read “the lunatic ravings of a madman,” download Kaufman’s book, Germany Must Perish, and get you a belly full real quicklike.
Good topic and good article.
Here is the link to Prof. Bitwerth’s collection above-mentioned:
I read a biography of the gangster John Dillinger when I was twelve or thirteen years old. It was a fat book with a picture of the gunman on the cover and spine. I liked story but was scared of the physical book when it lay on the nightstand beside my bed. Imagine an alternate universe where Uncle Tom’s Cabin was as infamous as the PLRZ is in our universe. Uncle Tom’s Cabin was written to incite hatred, bore very little relation to reality, and got hundreds of thousands killed, yet it is remembered as a good book. I couldn’t finish it, although I’ve enjoyed other books by LMA.
This is totally off topic from the O.P., but, since you mentioned Dillinger, several scenes from the 1973 movie about John Dillinger were filmed in or around Ardmore, OK: the “shoeshine scene,” and the “Little Bohemia” scenes in particular. I haven’t been in the Carter County Courthouse in many years, but I happened to pay a visit there in the early-90s, and can tell you that the sign advertising such like as “Colvert Milk,” “Lake Murray Resort,” etc., depicted in that scene was still there at that time. Likewise with the scene depicting the gang’s holdup at “Little Bohemia,” filmed at a little resort northeast of Ardmore called “Chickasaw Lake Club.” For those of us who remember the old building there and its surroundings, it is unmistakable in the movie. Last time I was at the Chickasaw Lake Club was in summer, 1994, with my classmates at our 10 year class reunion. The original building has since burned down, and a new one erected in its place, I am told. Which is a little sad for yours truly; I have often told my kids about the place and promised to take them there to see it for themselves. …
Bonnie and Clyde’s gang robbed the old Edge Jewelry Store on Main Street, Bryan. Apparently B&C were taking a vacation but the gang was here. The newspaper from that time said the gang holed up in a house south of town before the heist. There is a house a couple of blocks from here that might be the gang’s hideout, although I say that only because it’s the right style and location. I used to point it out to my kids, making an excessive claim to certainty that it was, without question, the house. I’m afraid they were a little disappointed to learn that their old man was only guessing.
Interesting! You have, no doubt, heard of “Robber’s Cave” State Park in eastern Oklahoma; a park I’ve visited or otherwise camped in many times over the years. This is a place where, it is said, Frank and Jesse James held up for many months, evading the law. One of my daughters married a Nixon from the area; turns out, upon my geneological research, that the Nixons in question are closely connected to the James’s. Plus, I have a brother-in-law who lives no more than five miles from the park who is surnamed James. I have to say that the James’s of that area tend to ‘live up to their name’ in a certain sense; whereas their Nixon relatives, not s’much. It is interesting, too, that the James’s of the area were most responsible for ‘hooking’ our daughter up with the Nixon who is my SiL in question. I don’t ‘cut him no slack’ about his family’s “outlawry,” I can assure you. Albeit, he is as good natured about it as I am in bringing it up.
There is no guessing on my part about where the scenes in question were filmed. Indeed, the credits from the movie give attribution for those particular scenes. At one time, I thought the scene showing Dillinger coming out of the theatre, along with a couple of others, were filmed in Ardmore. But that turns out not to be the case. Easy enough to make the mistake, though; at one time in the early 1900s, one of my distant (female) relatives owned and operated a hotel near the train depot in Ardmore. Less than a block away was the (now infamous) “Knox Hotel.” I went there once with friends in the early-1980s, innocently believing that such a place could not exist in Ardmore. I got my youthful eyes opened quick, fast, and in a hurry upon that visit. Not a thing I’m particularly proud of, but it is what it is, and it was a good lesson for a dumbass 17 year-old in any case…
This book is almost always described as a forgery. A forgery of what?
You are right that the term forgery is misapplied. What they mean is that it is a work of fiction, but fiction sounds good and forgery sounds evil. The book purports to be written by the secretary of a cabal of revolutionary Jews, just as millions of other books have purported to be written by people other than their real authors. Imagine if all works of fiction that are written in the first person were called forgeries.
The Protocols when they first circulated were said to be a transcription of a discussion that took place at a big Zionist meeting. If I remember correctly, it was supposed to be the first Zionist Conference at Basel in 1897. I could be mistaken about that detail. Is the charge of “forgery” as opposed to some more general term not made in specific reference to this claim?
I think that is how use of the term would be justified. It is a forgery in the sense that much fiction is a forgery. The objections to this fiction are that it is, the objectors say, false, defamatory, and liable to incite what is now called “stochastic violence” against Jews. These objections are perhaps half true, but the ideas in the Protocolswere certainly discussed in radical circles and Jews were prominent participants in those discussions. They say “if you’re taking flak you are over the target.” I expect this is why PLEZ has taken so much flak. It was not true while at the same time all too true.
[A]bsolute democracy necessarily devolves into anarchy because the demos is composed of petty, greedy, ignorant, short-sighted and quarrelsome plebs.
Would this be a fair portrayal of Sparta, living under laws of their own making and magistrates of their own choosing and so often described as “a lightning-flash of freedom in the dark night of despotism and crime”?
In Sparta, all had been schooled in the ἀγωγή [agōge], established by Lycurgus, the free citizen had no profession but arms and no hope of gain but the spoils of war. As Lord Acton says of the Forest Cantons and the Landesgemeinde of Switzerland,
The Acton quote contains your answer. The fissiparous tendencies of democracy were in the Spartan case checked by their military discipline. I guess drilling shapes a man’s soul as deeply as voting.
Perhaps, the French were right to deny the vote to men who had not completed their military service. The right to vote and the duty to defend the nation under arms were long seen as two sides of the same coin and it was only in 1945 that women became eligible to vote.
It is too easy to advocate wars in which one does not propose to fight, and even easier when one’s friends and family are likewise exempted.
Easiest of all when one has a mercenary army of the Lumpenproletariat, willing to fight for pay and plunder.