The Protocols purports to describe a plot to install “the King-Despot of the blood of Zion” as ruler of the world. The qualifier despot means a bad king who rules for his own benefit and this King-Despot of the blood of Zion is thus the antitype of what St. Paul called “the blessed and only Potentiate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1 Timothy 6:15). Where Christ is the good shepherd who “giveth his life for the sheep,” this King-Despot is an antichrist, a bad shepherd who is worse than a wolf.
Where Jesus said the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand, the Protocols say
“There remains only a short distance and the cycle of the Symbolic Serpent—that badge of our people—will be complete.”
The cycle of the Symbolic Serpent is the Ouroboros, the figure of a snake bent into a ring and eating its own tail. The symbol of the Ouroboros was originally Egyptian but became very popular among the Jews. It generally denotes eternity, eternal recurrence, or the great cosmic cycle from which there is no escape. Medieval alchemists often scribed the words “All is One” in the center of the Ouroboros, thereby signifying the unity of nature. The Protocols says the Ouroboros is the badge of supremacist Jews because they aim to encircle all other nations in a single totalitarian (i.e. global) system from which there is no escape, and to which there is no end.
To complete “the cycle of the Symbolic Serpent” and enthrone the “King-Despot of the blood of Zion,” the Protocols tell us supremacist Jews will overstrain all existing constitutions and governments by fomenting dissension, distrust, and discord. They will separate the “watchful power” of the rulers from the “blind power” of the ruled, thereby unleashing a headless mob to destroy both the nation and the state. Indeed, to establish the true tyranny of King-Despot and Ouroboros, supremacist Jews will represent every legitimate and benevolent authority as a tyrant.
The bad shepherd will rise to power by saying all the good shepherds are bad.
“We set all powers one against the other by encouraging their liberal tendencies towards independence . . . . We place formidable weapons in the hands of all parties and make power the goal of every ambition.”
Their technique is like that of the child molester who lures his victim from home by persuading the child that its mother and father are tyrants and vampires, and the molester is the child’s true friend.
The Protocols tell us that supremacist Jews will destroy legislative bodies with factional jealousy and hatred. “Out of governments we make arenas on which party wars are fought out.” Political parties will cease to be partners and become rivals. Political rivals will cease to compete and become enemies. “Soon open disorder and bankruptcy will appear everywhere,” while “insuppressable babblers,” or what we call media whores, reduce statecraft to the three-ring-circus of what we call clownworld.
And while governments thus beclown themselves by ineffectuality, waste and bombast,
“Audacious journalists and impudent pamphleteers are continually attacking the administrative power.”
The aim of these critics is to destroy the last vestiges of respect for the deliberately corrupted governments, and thus to unleash the fury of “the raging populace.” Thus, to summarize, the good shepherd of the old government is confused from within and caviled from without; the sheep are goaded to disgust and rage; the bad shepherd of “the King-Despot of the blood of Zion” takes control.
* * * * *
The first stages of the installation of King-Despot proceed in the manner outlined by Karl Marx. Feudalism is destroyed and the peasants are emancipated, whereupon the emancipated peasants are disappointed to discover they have obtained useless civil rights and lost their vital right to work and bread. Like Esau hoodwinked by the wily Jacob, they have exchanged their birthright for a mess of porridge.
“How does it avail a workman of the proletariat . . . if a chatterer gets the right to speak or a journalist the right to publish any kind of rubbish . . . . Republican rights are an irony for the pauper, for the necessity of every day’s labor keeps him from gaining any advantage by such rights and it only takes away the guarantee of continuous fixed wages.”
The great design of the Learned Elders of Zion is to convert the feudal peasantry into an industrial proletariat, and then to hold that proletariat in bondage with perpetual fear of unemployment and starvation. But in this system of domination supremacist Jews appear in two guises, first as capitalists who can deny workmen access to the means of production and bread, then as communists who promises a false solution to the problem the capitalist created. This system of domination is, at bottom, a protection racket in which capitalist Jews scare gentile workers into the arms of communist Jews, and communist Jews scare gentile workers into the arms of capitalist Jews.
“We intend to appear as though we were the liberators of the laboring man . . . . pretending to help them out of fraternal principle and the general interest of humanity . . . . [But] our strength lies in keeping the working man in perpetual want . . . . Hunger will confer upon Capital more powerful rights over the laborer than ever the lawful power of the sovereign could confer upon the aristocracy.”
* * * * *
The Protocols tells us that Jewish supremacy uses the good-cop-bad-cop technique and gives gentile workers the choice of slavery under Jewish capitalists or slavery under Jewish communists. They say Jewish supremacy uses a parallel legerdemain when it bewilders gentile workers with the choice of capitalist or communist “science.” As the Protocols says,
“The Gentiles are no longer capable of thinking without our aid in matters of science.”
This dependence allows supremacist Jews to corrupt gentile learning. They corrupt that learning by spreading among gentiles the lie of human equality, while retaining for themselves the truth of supremacy and submission.
“The true science of social conditions, to the secret of which we do not admit the Gentiles, would convince the world that occupations and labor should be kept is specified castes.”
Children born into a caste should be educated to perform the tasks that they are destined to perform, and not encumbered and discontented by vain learning that is above their station and irrelevant to their caste. But supremacist Jews have, in this stage of their great design, spread lie of human equality among the gentiles because vain learning serves their end. Vain learning creates impossible dreams, cruel disappointments, bitter jealousies, and fratricidal rage.
“Under the present conditions of [egalitarian] science and the line which we have allowed it to follow, the population, in ignorance, blindly believes in printed words and injurious illusions which have been duly inspired by us, and it bears malice to all classes which it thinks higher than itself.”
Egalitarianism breeds fratricidal hatred, not fraternal love, because egalitarianism is false. Egalitarianism breeds hatred because, in the light of this evil doctrine, every natural inequality appears an outrageous injustice.
“This hatred will become still more acute where economical crises are concerned . . . . We will create a universal economical crisis, by all possible under-hand means and with the help of gold, which is all in our hands. Simultaneously we will throw on to the streets huge crowds of workmen throughout Europe. These masses will then gladly throw themselves upon and shed the blood of those of whom, in their ignorance, they have been jealous from childhood, and whose belongings they will then be able to plunder.”
By spreading the egalitarian lie, communist Jews douse gentile civilization with gasoline. By triggering an economic crisis, capitalist Jews strike a match. But supremacist Jews of either description are not themselves massacred and plundered in the consequent conflagration.
“They will not harm us, because the moment of the attack will be known to us and we will take measures to protect our interests.”
Thus, the Protocols assure us, gentile civilization will be destroyed by deluded gentiles drunk on the false Jewish science of human equality, but supremacist Jews will in that catastrophe be preserved by their inside information. Supremacist Jews will survive and emerge, after the great Revolution, to establish “our despotism” And when this despotism is established the true Jewish science of supremacy and submission will be taught.
“It [the Jewish despotism] will be in a position to put down all rebellions and by just severity to exterminate every liberal idea from all institutions.”
Thus will the global totalitarian system symbolized by the Ouroboros be established. Thus will the “King-Despot of the blood of Zion” win his crown. The design of this plot is not novel. It is simply divide and conquer. It begins by the fomentation of internal divisions that reduce an organic people to a disorganized mob. It ends with the conquest of that mob by an organized alien power, and by subjection of the disorganized mob to a cruel and despotic unity from which there is no escape, and to which there is no end.
“The mob destroys all solidarity and creates disorder at every turn and corner. The word ‘liberty’ brings society into conflict with all the powers, even with that of Nature and of God, [and] turns the populace into bloodthirsty animals. But . . . these animals fall asleep as soon as they are satiated with blood, and at that moment it is easy to enchant and enslave them.”
End of Section 3
To Be Continued
Political parties will cease to be partners and become rivals. Political rivals will cease to compete and become enemies.
Does no one read Carl Schmitt anymore?
Schmitt, a conservative, argues that every realm of human endeavour is structured by an irreducible duality. Morality is concerned with good and evil, aesthetics with the beautiful and the ugly, and economics with the profitable and the unprofitable. In politics, the core distinction is between friend and enemy. That is what makes politics different from everything else.
The political comes into being when groups are placed in a relation of enmity, where each comes to perceive the other as an irreconcilable adversary to be fought and, if possible, defeated. “Every religious, moral, economic, ethical, or other antithesis transforms itself into a political one if it is sufficiently strong to group human beings effectively, according to friends and enemy</b?.” "The political is the most intense and extreme antagonism," Schmitt wrote. War is the most violent form that politics takes, but, even short of war, politics still requires that you treat your opposition as antagonistic to everything in which you believe.
Of course, he denies the possibility of neutral rules that can mediate between conflicting positions; for Schmitt there is no such neutrality, since any rule – even an ostensibly fair one –represents the victory of one political faction over another and is merely the temporarily stabilised result of past conflicts. The similarity to Post-Modernism is striking
Internal order can only be effectively imposed as the necessary means of pursuing external conflicts. For Schmitt, a world state is impossible, for humanity has no enemy.
Don’t know what happened here – Bold just appeared!
“Feudalism is destroyed and the peasants are emancipated…”
This is part of an older and wider process, admirably summarised in Sir Henry Maine’s Ancient Law “we may say that the movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from Status to Contract (Emphasis in original). For example, In both the Hindu and Roman law, the will was originally a form of posthumous adoption; it belongs to the Law of Persons and, in both systems, its original purpose was the continuation of the family sacra by the heredes script. The feudal law was even more regressive, with its maxim that “Only God can make an heir.”
As late as 1617, my own little piece of ground is described in the Register of Sasines as being held per servitia debita et consueta – By the services due and wont. Social relations (and economic relations) were governed by the iron hand of custom and tradition.
The feudal system had been a method devised for governing a country without the use of money and a very efficient one, if the growth of population between the 10th and the 13th century is any guide. Once trade revived and money began to circulate again, services and victual rents began to be commuted for cash payments. Previously subsistence farmers found an outlet for their surplus in the rising burghs. Moreover, as long as land was held by personal service, a peasant could have but one holding; once money payments were substituted, he could have as many as he could cultivate at a profit, with the help of hired labour.
The transition from status to contract certainly made the economic system more efficient, largely by cutting out inefficient producers for whom freedom meant freedom to starve. I remember my schoolteachers telling us in doleful tones that the feudal serf was “tied to the land.” I also remember thinking, perhaps after being capriciously fired by some nit-picking boss, that the land was also tied to the feudal serf. He was not free to leave and his lord was not free to make him leave.
the feudal serf was “tied to the land.”
You are right.
The serf or villain was a puzzle to the Carolingian lawyers; he was “tied to the land” but, so far as the law of ownership and obligation was concerned he was, in all other respects, a free man. So they coined the term adscriptus glæbæ – bound to the soil.
The institution long predates feudalism; Diocletian (284-305) forbad colonarii – tenants of public lands – to quit them, without finding a substitute. In Scotland, the traditional form of transferring ownership of land was by a resignation in favorem to the superior, who issued a precept of sasine in favour of the new owner.
In Scotland, the serf’s holding was called tenure by “carriages and services” (“carriage” being a corruption of “arriage” from Norman-French arage meaning a duty or service, a corruption of aver, a beast of burden). They ceased to be prestable in 2004 (!)
Although often onerous, the holding was always “heritable and irredeemable,” the grounds of irritancy or forfeiture being very limited and these could usually be “purged at the bar” by tender of amends.
From the landlord’s perspective, the advantage of free labor is the landlord’s freedom to evict inefficient tenants. The disadvantage is that the landlord might wind up with no labor at all. The landlord’s dilemma was acute here in the American South, where land was very cheap and, as the old song says, “the livin’ is easy.” The balance of interests was the complex labor regime of field hands, sharecroppers, tenants, and freeholders.
In Scotland, there was the further problem that the typical “bonnet laird” or small freeholder did not have the capital to stock most of his land and, having a mere liferent under a family settlement, he could not mortgage it either; no encumbrance would be binding on the heir of provision.
Tacksmen (tenant farmers) provided the live and dead stock and working capital required and expected the same rate of return as they could obtain by otherwise investing it.
The result was annual or triennial tenancies (to allow for the customary rotation of crops), with the amount of rent varying with the fiars’ prices. The tenant’s income was stable and the laird both bore the loss in a bad season and reaped the profit in a good one.
Annual hirings were the rule for labourers; married couples were always hired jointly and had a tied cottage with an acre of ground and also grass for a cow on the common grazings. Poultry was the wife’s perquisite; as a child, I remember some who reared bantams and guinea-fowl for the Glasgow poulterers and Maran hens for their dark brown eggs
Correction: Esau was hoodwinked by his brother Jacob, aka Israel, not by their father, Isaac.
Thanks. I’m suffering insomnia and so writing in at weird hours.
Also his birthright was traded for “pottage” although I’m not sure whether that’s synonymous with “porridge.”
Porridge is an altered form of pottage, although pottage is the term in the Bible. That story has shocked and offended me since I was a little child, no doubt because I have so often played Essau to the wily Jacobs of this world.
In his Letter to Simplician, in which he discusses Effectual Calling, St Augustine uses Esau as an example:
I still think Jacob was a rat.
According to the Sages, Jacob is a type or symbol of Israel and Esau of the Nations
Oh, to be sure. Most of the great heroes of the OT were scoundrels – not just the kings and warriors, but some of the prophets (Jonah comes to mind). Abraham pimped his wife to Pharaoh, for heaven’s sake. That the OT so forthrightly records such scurrility of its heroes testifies to its basic honesty, and accuracy. Tragic heroes like Oedipus? Nah; just assholes.
The lesson? There’s hope for all us assholes, too.
In the OT histories, there is a complete absence of the tragic – No dénouement, no resolution, no finality. There are no endings, happy or tragic; life just goes on, « Et puis, et puis »
Even Cain is given a chance to redeem himself. In the event, Isaac is not sacrificed like Iphigenia but replaced on the altar by a ram. Jacob and Esau do not kill each other like Polynices and Eteocles in Seven against Thebes, fulfilling the curse of their father Oedipus.
Jacob propitiates his brother whose birthright he stole, and, then, by another deception puts himself and his family at a safe distance just in case Esau might change his mind. There is neither conflict nor reconciliation, and Israel’s relationship to Esau’s descendants remains fraught and ambiguous throughout the subsequent books of the Bible. A supremely dramatic and portentous episode, where Jacob acquires the name “Israel,” ends with an anti-climax that does not show Jacob in a particularly heroic light.
Thus, there are crises aplenty (αἱ κρῐ́σεις in the Greek sense), moments of trial, of decision or of judgment and we witness the consequences, but with no hint of the might-have-been. (The Thomists say that, with God, there are no counter-factuals, for his knowledge is the knowledge of His will).
The tragic resolution of all the OT messinesses – which are no more, in the final analysis, than the minor messes of daily life that beset every family, clan, tribe, and nation, writ large – is met at Golgotha.
This is the difference between a merely worldly tragedy – of Oedipus, or Hamlet – and the tragedy of the world, of which all lesser tragedies partake.
Thanks to the tragic resolution of all things at Golgotha, all lesser tragedies can be apprehended as such. Without it, they’d all be as smoke in the wind: not worth notice.
That they were noticed, long before Christ was born, shows that *they are not mere smoke in the wind.*
If they were but smoke and illusions, then after all they could not engage our hearts. They do. Res ipsa loquitur.