Understanding by Challenging Orthodoxies - Why We Have to Slaughter *All* Sacred Cows
I think the answer to all this 9/11 intrigue is simple--not just the survival of Israel as a racist state founded on lies and theft is at stake, but that simple and to some, profoundly disturbing fact acts as a firewall. If the real truth about 9/11 were to become widely known it would lead to an unimaginably profound reworking of the world order because the game would be over as far as using manufactured myths, emotional manipulation, ethnic divisions, and big lies to hide the real nature of the way power is wielded by global elites.
I highly recommend people actually read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and regardless of whether they are forgeries or not (I have a theory about them in any case) compare the Machiavellian program it describes (and attributes correctly or not to the global Jewish elite) to the program of the "New World Order" described by the likes of charlatans like Mark Dice and Alex Jones. Could it be that the original intent of that document was similar to the apparent intentions of Jones, Dice, and others to concoct a fairly plausible but incomplete account of what the world's elite, whomever they may be, are up to so as to be able to point to it and say "yeah, we've heard all these allegations, and they all come from [insert bogus but partially true forgery or diatribe here] so you can safely ignore that [true] information."
People who haven't actually read the Protocols may assume that it is all about Jews drinking the blood of gentile children or some such libel, but in fact they read like a Project For a New American Century dated 1897. Control of capital and the media and the encouragement of perpetual war and big lies are all part of the program described. Did Leo Strauss draw inspiration from the work? I can't imagine he was ignorant of the Protocols, after all. The other thing to note is that the Protocols, even if taken literally, make it clear that the bulk of (non-elite) Jews are just as much pawns of the elites as the "goyim" and must be lied to and kept busy with labor to keep them in line.
I invite anyone brave enough to actually read the document to discuss these ideas and deconstruct the true significance of this (for better or worse) influential work.
- gretavo's blog
- Login to post comments
Yes, very PNACish
A friend of mine read me a couple of the protocols last week, without telling me what the text was, and after about five minutes of listening to this strategically layed out plan it describes, I said to her that it sounded very Rockefeller-Kissinger New World Ordery. Very much like the PNAC full spectrum dominance manifesto, but with less weaponry. I was delving more deeply into the PNAC doc the other day -- Wow, these folks are completely serious, and seriously fucked up. They're like nasty little rich kids that get to play the boardgame World Domination for real. None of them have a lick of real combat experience, and so they have no idea that the toy soldiers they use to play their sick games of using war and terror as an economic tool are in fact not plastic army men, but real humans. And these sub-human creatures who are running and paying for this show have taught their little plastic army men that the Muslims are just animals and terrorists, so it's perfectly fine to go into every fucking Middle Eastern country and slaughter them like pigs. This treasonous nest of international conspirators can now wipe away third world countries and their populations with the sweep of their hand, after of course, staging a conviently timed false flag terror attack against their own citizens. Their big problem now is that the people on whom they wage their staged terror attacks are quickly starting to recognize their tactics. We may not know each and every detail, but we do know who the major operators are. We were asleep on 9/11, but the people ain't as sleepy as they once were. And yes, Mr. Chertoff, we are indeed doing our duty by keeping an eye out for suspicious behavior and persons. "We are watching to keep the evidence clear while Lucifer whispers in the President's ear."
facies and manifest destinies
bush and chertoff facies remind me of dracula and lucifer.
another time and place: the native peoples of these lands: how long did it take (the whites) for us to decimate their culture? for the sake of ....
contrasts and comparisons could be made to what's transpiring in the ME.
of course
another reason why our criticism of Israel as Americans cannot be self-righteous. We were Zion before they were! The new world was seen as a "promised land" by many and sold to the population as so many promises from the almighty to his favored sons and daughters (eventually). Sure we're brainwahsed from birth to ignore the profound injustice that made this "great land" of ours.
Given all that, where will we ever find redemption if not by putting an end right now to ALL the myths that allow us as Americans and Israelis (and many other peoples) to claim divine sanction for the worst excesses of our leaders? How long will we continue to reap the benefits of this putrid harvest year after year? We cannot change the past but we can acknowledge it and stop living by its fraudulant dictates. We can and we must. NOW, people. There will not be another chance--this door is closing fast and just because you find it all hard to believe doesn't mean you won't suffer the fate in store for us all if inaction, denial, and foolish pride remains the norm...
speaking of slaughter.....
why not drop by and add to the discussion?
911Blogger censorship
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1801
The problem with such a
The problem with such a comparison is that the social foundations described in detail in the Protocols from about Protocol 21 onward are diametrically the opposite of what we've seen in the last 30 years. The Protocols were written at a time when socialist movements were strong and they were scripted with an eye towards smearing such movements. For this reason the Protocols advocate a program based upon taxing the wealthy capital and using such wealth to support social services. The theme is that once the Learned Elders are in power it will be necessary to make sure that the ordinary masses never have anything to grumble about and so heavy taxation of capital gains will be used to support a range of facilities and activities which will keep the masses contented. During an earlier era when the Roosevelt administration was advocating things such as social security this was often held up by Right-wingers as a carrying out of the Protocols. But nobody who honestly looks at the program which has taken hold since Ronald Reagan took office is going to maintain that it bears any relation to the Protocols. Where the Protocols explicitly advocate taxation on capital, George Bush overtly removes such taxation. Where the Protocols emphasize the need for the new rulers to maintain some level of social services to keep the public contented, we've seen a systematic effort to strip away social security and transfer all remaining funds over to Halliburton. No one who actually reads the Protocols for what they do in fact say is going to find much of a similarity between our world today and the imaginary world spelled out in the Protocols.
Concepts as general as controlled opposition were featured in many literary works long before the Protocols. Maurice Joly's Dialogues is one of the better known instances, but this idea has been traced back to the literary works of Alexander Dumas. Have you ever read any of the other works from which the Protocols were clearly cribbed? For instance, Joly's Dialogues? If we focus on the features which set the Protocols apart from the ones which it was modeled after, Maurice Joly's Dialogues presents a more accurate future social model with wild deficit spending. That sounds like what we've got today. The Protocols are quite different. They were written in an effort to smear social revolutionary movements of that time and so they present a labor theory of value and argue that when the Elders are in control everything will be managed carefully with an awareness of labor as the source of all value and that the ordinary laborer will be kept contented by insuring that their day-to-day needs are all met. That has zero resemblance to anything which has come out of Washington since Reagan took office.
If one is seeking to judge a question such as to what extent are the Protocols really more of an actual revelation of something or other than, say, Joly's Dialogues (or multiple other literary works by Dumas and similar authors which preceded Joly), then one should seek to identify the points which distinguish the Protocols.
For example, in the Twenty-First Dialogue Joly has Machiavelli preaching the idea that:
-----
It [the state] can refinance all its uncovered debts in just the same way--treasury bonds, debts owed to municpalities and banks. This applies just to all debts that form a part of what is rather picturesquely called "the floating debt," that is, debts that have no fixed basis and which mature in the more or less distant future... Far from dreading a policy that sees the national debt increase and constantly refinanced, I would want the entire public fortune tied to government bonds... Every last cent in my kingdom would depend on my continued existence.
-----
In contrast, Protocol 21 tells us that:
-----
... nowadays all internal loans are consolidated by so-called flying loans, that is, such as have terms of payment more or less near... If left for long at the disposition of a government these funds evaporate in the payment of interest on foreign loans... When we ascend the throne all of these finances and similar shifts, as not being in accord with our interests, will be swept away so as not to leave a trace, as also will be destroyed all money markets... We shall replace the money markets by grandiose government credit institutions, the object of which will be to fix the price of industrial values in accordance with government views.
-----
Clearly the picture drawn in the Dialogues is much closer to our reality in the last 25 years, although I don't think that one can really understand the modern world by leaning very much on literary fictions from a century ago. Still, Joly's picture of a government that constantly refinances itself with an increasing national debt is much more related to what we've seen for a few decades now than is the image of drawn in the Protocols of money markets being abolished. These are exactly the types of discrepancies which a logical inquiry into the question of whether or not the Protocols were really a blueprint for the 20th century should address. Without that, we're just going back to the simple observation that literary authors such as Dumas, Joly, and others have often suggested dangers of public manipulation through public relations and, yes, of course, we have seen that realized to an enormous degree.
People seem to attach themselves to certain items like the Protocols based more upon a perceived ideological affiliation with the piece. I don't think that the overused charge of "anti-Semitism" captures that problem adequately, but the problem is real enough. People don't really approach such items according to the normal rules of logic by which one tests the authenticity or relevance of a document. Something about the Protocols touches an ideological chord in some people more strongly than do the Dialogues or other similar pieces which preceded them.
One very important background cultural influence in making possible the agenda of the Reagan administration was the fact that Right-wing voters had been influenced by such themes as:
-----
Protocol No. 20
From this follows that taxation will best be covered by a progressive tax on property. In this manner the dues will be paid without straitening or ruining anybody in the form of a percentage of the amount of property. The rich must be aware that it is their duty to place a part of their superfluities at the disposal of the State since the State guarantees them security of possession of the rest of their property and the right of honest gains. I say honest, for the control over property will do away with robbery on a legal basis. The social reform must come from above, for the time is ripe for it -- it is indispensable as a pledge of peace. The tax upon the poor man is a seed of revolution and works to the detriment of the state which in hunting after the trifling is missing the big... A tax increasing in percentage ratio to capital will give a much larger venue than the present individual or property tax... The force upon which our king will rest consists in the equilibrium and the guarantee of peace, for the sake of which things it is indispensable that the capitalists should yield up a portion of their incomes for the sake of the secure working of the machinery of the State. State needs must be paid by those who will not feel the burden and have enough to take from...
-----
This is diametrically the opposite of what the USA has seen since 1980. Many ordinary conservative voters who supported the cuts on capital gains carried out by the Bush administration were strongly influenced by cultural influences, some of whose message is derived from this theme in Protocol No. 20. If the Elders believe that they must set up taxes "increasing in percentage ratio to capital," then abolishing the capital gains tax will be a way of thwarting the Elders. Only now we have to deal with the mess that has been created by this.
If we're just going to go back to the stuff about media control, all of that appears in Maurice Joly's DIALOGUES. The Protocols do not have anything new to add to what Joly produced with regards to comments about controlled opposition. All of that is in Joly already and I'm told that Joly's material was lifted from Alexander Dumas, though I haven't searched it that far back yet.
In a much earlier era, when Democratic administrations in the first half of the last century actually were advocating taxes on the rich and funding of social services, people used to point to the Protocols as a way of arguing that such taxation and social service policy was serving a hidden evil end. But this has not been an issue since the steady trend for these last few decades has been to remove taxes on the rich and shift social costs steadily down onto the lower levels of society. That clearly is not what the Protocols present as their hypothesized social construction.
a couple of issues...
First is that while I don't doubt that the Protocols are not to be taken to be literally true, neither am I convinced of the authenticity of the alleged work by Joly, the existence of which only seems to have been discovered by the world AFTER the discovery of the Protocols. As in so many of these cases, the fact that its prior existence is said to be proved by the fact that the British Museum has a copy of an old edition seems a little suspicious--as the french would say, de trop. Instead of arguing which work came first, or whence any of the ideas were "stolen", I think the phenomenon of such works generally that have served to describe and ascribe authorship to a fairly evident consolidation of global power through deceit need to be studied and understood free of the charges of fraud that are perhaps only half true. Again, my own theory is that WHOEVER benefits from the process of global consolidation of non-democratic power benefits from having the people misunderstand the source of the conspiracy and in fact to ascribe it to convenient scapegoats like "the Jews". A case in point is how the mere existence of the protocols can be said to have served the inetrests of Zionists precisely by having it shown what a vile and meanspirited forgery it is. Which also would seem to help whomever would like people to believe that their plan for global domination, falsely ascribed to the Jews, is itself a fiction. No?
One should separate
One should separate different questions apart here. Also, you seem to be confusing Maurice Joly's play, which is well-known to have been written in 1864 and itself copies from previous authors such as Alexander Dumas, with the copy of Sergei Nilus's THE GREAT WITHIN THE SMALL which sits in a British museum. Nilus was the first known author to publish a copy of the Protocols which the Czarist Okhrana had apparently arranged for him to receive.
But distinct queries to keep apart from each other are, to list only a few:
1) Do the Protocols read like a blueprint for what we've seen in the last few decades?
Only if you can ignore everything which has occurred since Ronald Reagan took office and everything which the Protocols explicitly say about laying the foundations for a stable social order by taxing the rich heavily so as to support social services which keep the population satisfied and content. The Protocols were written as an anti-socialist propaganda piece and so much of what they describe in their future order clearly is socialist in nature.
2) Could the Protocols actually be a direct, unaltered manuscript of a real meeting somewhere?
The parallels with Joly's writings (as well those of Dumas and other authors whom Joly cribbed from) make this impossible. The Protocols were clearly written after 1892 (hence the reference to the Panama scandal in France) yet Joly's Dialogues come from 1864. Even if we were to assume the occurrence of a real meeting similar to what is laid out in the Protocols as the true point of origin for the script, the meeting would have to have occurred before 1864 and hence the reference to Panama scandal proves that the script has at least been altered and is not the original.
3) Do the Protocols foretell events which no one could have predicted except with inside information?
Definitely not. The Protocols predict the rise of the US and Japan as major powers. They predict something like the First World War. And they predict a revolution in Russia. All of these are events which could have been predicted by a well-informed person in the late 19th century. The Protocols were certainly written by people up-to-date on world events, but not in any way which implies special insider knowledge. Many Russian liberals in the late 19th century still hoped that the Czarist government would carry out reforms which would create a stable liberal order. But there's no doubt among anyone willing to examine the record that the signs of a revolution building up in Russia were all right there for several decades prior to 1917. One just has to look at the early beginnings of revolution in 1905 to see how far removed from a conspiracy it was:
-----
January 22, 1905, came to be known in Russian history as "Bloody Sunday." On that day the police of the capital fired at a huge demonstration of workers led by an adventurer and priest named George Gapon, killing, according to the official estimate, one hundred and thirty persons and wounding several hundred. Ironically, Gapon's union had been essentially a "police union," part of policeman Serge Zubatov's plan to infiltrate the labor movement and direct it into officially desirable channels. Ironically too, the workers were converging on the Winter Palace -- ignorant of the fact that Nicholas II was not there -- with icons and the tsar's portraits, as faithful subjects, nay, children, of their sovereign, begging him for redress and help.
-----
-- Nicholas Riasonovsky, A HISTORY OF RUSSIA, p. 407.
No hidden conspiracy there. As far predicting the rise of the USA as a world power, the Battle of Wounded Knee in 1890 completed the expansion to the west and the Spanish-American War of 1898 began the expansion of US imperialism on a world scale. Someone who was well up-to-date on current events in the 1890s could certainly predict that the USA would emerge as a world power.
This only makes it more noteworthy that the Protocols do not reflect our current times today. If they had predicted the rise of a Hollywood B-movie actor into the Presidency to carry out tax cuts on the rich that would have been quite a prophecy. But they don't. If we take the Protocols as a map of the future then it appears unthinkable that Ronald Reagan would enter office as late as the 1980s and proceed to carry out the exact opposite of what is stated in the Protocols.
the pendulum swings back and forth but also moves...
...in a certain direction. the reaction to the excesses of the Bush administration toward the rich (which in reality are not to the rich per se but to their corporate and oligarchical network, i.e. an embryonic government in waiting) will be used to justify a lurch to the left in the sense of giving the "mommy party" a chance to further develop the "nanny state". That is the whole problem with the traditional left/right paradigm--it is a false dichotomy that leads people to believe that there are in fact viable competitors tempering social development when in fact they are two sides of the same coin, a coin with global designs, no pun intended!
I'd be willing to guarantee
I'd be willing to guarantee that nothing which the Democrats do anytime in the next decade will even begin to turn back the effects of Bush's tax cuts for the rich. The Democrats have themselves steadily shifted to the Right in the last 30 years. We saw how when Clinton took office in 1993 the slogan became one of "end welfare as we know it." The Clinton years temporarily slowed down the push to the Right which had begun under Reagan, but they didn't even begun to start reversing it. They only slowed down a process which required some time to stabilize. Don't hold your breath waiting for the Democrats today to reestablish any type of social welfare legislation that has been shredded since 2001. They may give us a kinder, gentler form of economic privatization, but the shift away from social welfare policies over to free market solutions is a long term move that is not going to be turned around. It really comes about for economic reasons which have nothing to do with a conspiracy. Capitalism in the first half of the 20th century was a growing system with production and service steadily increasing. That guarantees the type of profitability which can allow the rich to support social welfare ideas. Since the 1970s capitalism as a global economic system has been running out of room in which to grow profitably and this necessitates a turn towards social spending cutbacks for the sake of private profit. A trend like that is not going to be altered anyone's election.
no, Maurice Joly's book IS in the British Museum.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3612/is_199904/ai_n8843471/pg_4
In August, 1921, an even more spectacular revelation appeared in The Times, when Philip Graves, its Constantinople correspondent, published an article demonstrating that the Protocols were plagiarized from Maurice Joly's little known "Dialogues in Hell" (1864), a fictional political pamphlet directed against Napoleon III and written in the form of a dialogue between Machiavelli and Montesquieu. In the Protocols the part of Machiavelli, slightly rewritten, was attributed to the "wise men of Zion." Graves's evidence came from a certain Mr. X, a Russian refugee in ConstantinopleChristian Orthodox by religion, and Constitutional Monarchist by political conviction-who did not wish his real name to be known. A White Russian who had long been interested in the Jewish question, Mr. X had himself searched for the secret "Masonic organization" in Southern Russia, but the only conspiracy he had found was a monarchist one. In 1921 Mr. X purchased a number of old books from a former officer of the Okhrana, a White Russian refugee like himself. Among these books was a small volume in French lacking the title page. Glancing through it, Mr. X discovered, to his great surprise, that the fictional polemic of Machiavelli bore a very close resemblance to the "revelations" of the old men of Zion. Later this same rare French text was discovered in the British Museum with the name of its author-Parisian lawyer and enlightened French Catholic Maurice Joly-still attached. Joly had no Jewish connections whatsoever. In fact, the fictional dialogues between Montesquieu and Machiavelli in "Dialogues of Hell" were intended to criticize the government of Napoleon III. Subsequently arrested for anti-government propaganda, Joly committed suicide in prison. Although all copies of his pamphlet had apparently been ordered to be burned, one somehow ended up in the hands of the Russian secret police and another in the British Museum.
Well, yes, it was a copy
Well, yes, it was a copy from Russia which was found before anyone thought of the British Museum. Philip Graves received it while he was somewhere around Istanbul.
In any event, one should clearly separate the matter of the common origins shared between Joly's text and that of the Protocols from an analysis of the social directions which capitalism has taken in the last 3 decades and whether or not these do or don't parallel the Protocols.
The gutting of social welfare measures throughout the US and even in the larger capitalist world, including even Israel where privatization has gone ahead steadily, is not some temporary diversion in preparation for renewed social welfare policies. It's part of a long-term trend within global capitalism which no amount of conspiring could alter. As the rate of profit declines and production capacity surges to such a level that it should be possible to attend to all human needs everywhere, the capitalist class steadily turns to impoverishing the majority for the sake of profit. This was analyzed by Karl Marx more than a century ago and the only real genuine error which anyone has ever found in his thinking on this was that by adopting an abstractly defined purely capitalist framework he underestimated the length of time which capitalism as a global phenomenon still had ahead of it while expanding into newer regions. Rosa Luxemburg analyzed a lot of this and showed how as long as global capitalism still had the room to expand at the expense of older, more antiquated systems, which didn't achieve as high a level of production, it would survive. Only when the room for global economic expansion of capital was truly exhausted would the crisis within the system set in. Although it's impossible to guess at the pace which events will take, something like that has certainly been occurring in these last decades. It's a nice thought that a conspiracy exists to build a "nanny state" somewhere, but that's not going to occur under capitalism anymore. Getting caught up in theories which postulate such a conspiracy to actually build a welfare state is just a very wasteful diversion of people's energies.
If one is really interested
If one is really interested in pursuing the antecedents of the Protocols it's a good idea to look up Eugene Sue's THE WANDERING JEW and Alexander Dumas's Giuseppe Belasmo. Although I myself have only gone as far back as Maurice Joly's DIALOGUES, these earlier novels by Sue and Dumas are allegedly where most of Joly's own writing was cribbed from, just as most of what appears in the Protocols up to Protocol 19 was heavily cribbed from Joly.