The Protocols of Satan, Part 14

  • Christogenea Saturdays
ChrSat20161008-Protocols_of_Satan_14.mp3 — Downloaded 3553 times
 
00:00

 

The Protocols of Satan, Part 14

For two-and-a-half segments of this series presenting the Protocols of Satan, we took a long digression to discuss Jewish control of the newspapers and glossy magazines of Europe and America from the mid-19th century and until the time of the Second World War. Excluding actual books, newspapers and magazines were of course the only media until the 1920’s and even with the advent of radio and television, they remained the most influential form of media until long after both the World Wars were concluded. But just as importantly as their control of most of the major newspapers was the Jewish control of most of the advertising and all of the major international news agencies throughout that same period. With that, they were able to control even those newspapers which they did not own or for which they did not hold positions as editors or writers.

Through their media control, Jews were the foremost creators of public opinion throughout those important decades which have shaped the modern world. Jews created the circumstances and influenced the public opinion by which Czarist Russia and both Imperial and National Socialist Germany were destroyed for the advancement of the world-wide propagation of Jewish capitalism. For the Jews who orchestrate the media, and manipulate entire national populations like marionettes in their orchestra, generations of White Christians destroyed one another in war, and today the whole world lies under the thumb of the Jewish usury oppression of international brokerages and banks. The Protocols reflect the definite and calculated plan of action by which the Jews have accomplished their world dominion.

Here we shall continue our presentation of the first of the so-called Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, as they are found in the book The Protocols and World Revolution attributed to Boris Brasol, and published in Boston in 1920 by Maynard, Small & Co. As we have already done in this series, we shall also quote the translation of the Protocols made by Victor Marsden in that same decade, because a second insight into the original language of the writers often expedites an understanding of their original intent.

We left off where the Protocols offer a very foreboding statement:

From [the] temporary evil to which we are now obliged to have recourse will emerge the good of an unshakable government, which will reinstate the orderly functioning of the mechanism of popular existence now interrupted by liberalism.

With this we commented in two respects. Firstly, the Protocols seem to have surfaced in the very late 1800’s, and the revolutions in Russia as well as the first World War were looming just over the horizon. It may well be that those events were planned at such an early time, in order to usher in the capitalist New World Order, the rule of capital leading to an inevitable Jewish World Supremacy.

Secondly, we see the real reason why Liberalism is always burdened with the seemingly inevitable development of bureaucracy. The people complain of “red tape”, and it certainly is the “Reds” who wrap them in that tape. The Jews who convinced the world of Liberalism so that they may usher in the rule of capital only did so that they may institute their own form of tyranny. Everywhere that we have Liberal government, we have endless bureaucracy because the Jews actually hate liberty. So bureaucracy is rapidly developed within any Liberal government in order to restrain liberty and place the people under an invisible tyranny.

Rabbi Lewis Browne, an early 19th century writer and radio commentator who like to consider himself a “philosopher” (along with 6 millions other jewish devils) wrote in his first book, Stranger than Fiction, that "It was little wonder that the Churchmen, came to speak of the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot". Among many other things, he also openly boasted that “No agitators did more to bring on the Revolution of 1848 than those two Jews, Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne.”

Before we continue, we would like to contrast two completely opposing attitudes towards government, that of Bastiat and that of Adolf Hitler. The following is from an essay by the French statesman Frédéric Bastiat. It was written in 1848, as Europe was plunged into another social revolution agitating for democracy. To Bastiat, the state was a fictional entity by which all of its members seek to live at the expense of everyone else. Of course, he was writing cynically because he was a defender of a free-market economy and a supposed right to economic liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. He was an enemy of Socialism, but not only Marxist Socialism, which is not really Socialism at all. So Bastiat wrote the following:

As, on the one hand, it is certain that we all address some such request to the state, and, on the other hand, it is a well-established fact that the state cannot procure satisfaction for some without adding to the labor of others, while awaiting another definition of the state, I believe myself entitled to give my own here. Who knows if it will not carry off the prize? Here it is:

The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.

For, today as in the past, each of us, more or less, would like to profit from the labor of others. One does not dare to proclaim this feeling publicly, one conceals it from oneself, and then what does one do? One imagines an intermediary; one addresses the state, and each class proceeds in turn to say to it: “You, who can take fairly and honorably, take from the public and share with us.” Alas! The state is only too ready to follow such diabolical advice; for it is composed of cabinet ministers, of bureaucrats, of men, in short, who, like all men, carry in their hearts the desire, and always enthusiastically seize the opportunity, to see their wealth and influence grow. The state understands, then, very quickly the use it can make of the role the public entrusts to it. It will be the arbiter, the master, of all destinies. It will take a great deal; hence, a great deal will remain for itself. It will multiply the number of its agents; it will enlarge the scope of its prerogatives; it will end by acquiring overwhelming proportions.

But what is most noteworthy is the astonishing blindness of the public to all this. When victorious soldiers reduced the vanquished to slavery, they were barbarous, but they were not absurd. Their object was, as ours is, to live at the expense of others; but, unlike us, they attained it. What are we to think of a people who apparently do not suspect that reciprocal pillage is no less pillage because it is reciprocal; that it is no less criminal because it is carried out legally and in an orderly manner; that it adds nothing to the public welfare; that, on the contrary, it diminishes it by all that this spendthrift intermediary that we call the state costs?

This certainly seems to represent the prevalent view of the purpose of government in this era of individualistic capitalism. Bastiat was a classical Liberal, an economist cast in the mold of Adam Smith, and a Freemason. Smith and Bastiat were the models upon which the Austrian school of economic Libertarianism is based, the system prevailing in the West today because it is most accommodating to Jewish capitalism since it promotes open borders and condemns trade protectionism. Bastiat seems to have seen the prevalence of parasitism to be the inevitable outcome for the Liberal state. However Bastiat seems to have taken it for granted that such a system of government was just and inevitable. He had also avidly defended capitalism and usury, and wrote a famous essay on the topic simply called Capital and Interest which is still widely considered to be the last word on the supposedly inevitable benefits of the capitalist system.

However Bastiat’s view of the State, as well as his promotion of classical liberalism and usury as a necessity to economy is antithetical to Christianity. And while we would not promote such statism at all, a contrasting model of the state is the definition offered by Adolf Hitler, which is based on the Christian principle of a state as an institution representing the interests of a particular extended family of people, which in turn is the true and Christian concept of nationhood. Hitler also promoted the additional Christian principle of the self-sacrifice of the individual for the benefit of that family of people and the wider Nation which they constitute. Hitler had envisioned a State which was unencumbered by the disease of parasitism. So in Book 2, chapter 2 of Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote the following:

“A State may be considered as a model example if it adequately serves not only the vital needs of the racial stock it represents but if it actually assures by its own existence the preservation of this same racial stock, no matter what general cultural significance this statal institution may have in the eyes of the rest of the world. For it is not the task of the State to create human capabilities, but only to assure free scope for the exercise of capabilities that already exist. On the other hand, a State may be called bad if, in spite of the existence of a high cultural level, it dooms to destruction the bearers of that culture by breaking up their racial uniformity. For the practical effect of such a policy would be to destroy those conditions that are indispensable for the ulterior existence of that culture, which the State did not create but which is the fruit of the creative power inherent in the racial stock whose existence is assured by being united in the living organism of the State. Once again let me emphasize the fact that the State itself is not the substance but the form.”

Earlier in Mein Kampf, in Book 1 Chapter 4, Hitler had written that:

“The following may be proclaimed as a truth that always holds good:

“A State has never arisen from commercial causes for the purpose of peacefully serving commercial ends; but States have always arisen from the instinct to maintain the racial group, whether this instinct manifest itself in the heroic sphere or in the sphere of cunning and chicanery. In the first case we have the Aryan States, based on the principles of work and cultural development. In the second case we have the Jewish parasitic colonies. But as soon as economic interests begin to predominate over the racial and cultural instincts in a people or a State, these economic interests unloose the causes that lead to subjugation and oppression.”

In the so-called western democracies that “subjugation and oppression” is executed under the mask of bureaucracy and the restriction of liberties for the presumed public good. Then writing about the relationship of Capital to the State, Hitler said in Book 1, Chapter 8 of Mein Kampf:

“On such principles the attitude of the State towards capital would be comparatively simple and clear. Its only object would be to make sure that capital remained subservient to the State and did not allocate to itself the right to dominate national interests. Thus it could confine its activities within the two following limits: on the one side, to assure a vital and independent system of national economy and, on the other, to safeguard the social rights of the workers.”

So National Socialism sincerely sought to protect the rights of the common people of the nation from the usurious capitalists. Hitler wanted an economy free of the parasitism that the Freemason Bastiat promoted as both inevitable and also as beneficial in a Liberal system. For Hitler the State came into existence as an organism organizing and defending the substance of a particular tribe or nation of people, and properly a nation was of course a wider growth of a particular tribe, or tribes, who are all of the same origin and race. For Bastiat, the State merely regulated the economic interests of a group of people living in the geographic area under its control.

Hitler himself very eloquently summed up the difference, once again from Mein Kampf, in Book 1 Chapter 4 where he wrote:

The triumphant progress of technical science in Germany and the marvellous development of German industries and commerce led us to forget that a powerful State had been the necessary pre-requisite of that success. On the contrary, certain circles went even so far as to give vent to the theory that the State owed its very existence to these phenomena; that it was, above all, an economic institution and should be constituted in accordance with economic interests. Therefore, it was held, the State was dependent on the economic structure. This condition of things was looked upon and glorified as the soundest and most normal arrangement.

This is, to a great extent, the model which is perpetuated by Liberalism. In America today the government is treated as an agency for the benefit of international corporations. So Hitler continues:

Now, the truth is that the State in itself has nothing whatsoever to do with any definite economic concept or a definite economic development. It does not arise from a compact made between contracting parties, within a certain delimited territory, for the purpose of serving economic ends. The State is a community of living beings who have kindred physical and spiritual natures, organized for the purpose of assuring the conservation of their own kind and to help towards fulfilling those ends which Providence has assigned to that particular race or racial branch. Therein, and therein alone, lie the purpose and meaning of a State. Economic activity is one of the many auxiliary means which are necessary for the attainment of those aims. But economic activity is never the origin or purpose of a State, except where a State has been originally founded on a false and unnatural basis. And this alone explains why a State as such does not necessarily need a certain delimited territory as a condition of its establishment. This condition becomes a necessary pre-requisite only among those people who would provide and assure subsistence for their kinsfolk through their own industry, which means that they are ready to carry on the struggle for existence by means of their own work. People who can sneak their way, like parasites, into the human body politic and make others work for them under various pretences can form a State without possessing any definite delimited territory. This is chiefly applicable to that parasitic nation which, particularly at the present time preys upon the honest portion of mankind; I mean the Jews.

For these reasons among others, Hitler had to be destroyed, and since then the system of traditional Liberalism which was promoted by Bastiat and which favors the Jewish capitalists has prevailed. Hitler’s ideas were not new, as they were in turn developed out of the organic socialism of French and German philosophers and economists who were among Bastiat’s contemporaries. But socialism is not Marxism, and that is another Jewish media deception. Under Marxism, the state controls the tools of production, but true socialism demands that the producers themselves remain in control of such tools. Yet even today, many presumed economic experts remain confused, and accept the false dichotomy of Bastiat Liberalism vs predatory Marxism, as if one or the other are inevitable while the Jews were beneficiaries of both. We may discuss this at further length, perhaps when we present the 22nd Protocol, titled The Power of Gold. Gold only has power within a State if the State allows it such power, which is why the inevitable outcome of Bastiat’s Liberalism was Jewish capitalist supremacy and the imposition of a bureaucratic tyranny over all of the states which Liberalism had infected, coupled with the military conquest of all States which had resisted its power.

PROTOCOL NO. I, continued:

In working out an expedient plan of action it is necessary to take into consideration the meanness, vacillation, changeability of the mob, its inability to appreciate and respect the conditions of its own existence and of its own well-being. It is necessary to realize that the power of the masses is blind, unreasoning, and void of discrimination, prone to listen to right and left. The blind man cannot guide the blind without bringing them to the abyss; consequently, members of the crowd, upstarts from the people, even were they men of genius but incompetent in politics, cannot step forward as leaders of the mob without ruining the entire nation.

Only the person prepared from childhood to autocracy can understand the words which are formed by political letters.

We will briefly discuss this last statement first. In the Middle Ages as well as in the courts of the great nations of antiquity, princes and the sons of the noble classes were given tutors at an early age which provided them with an intensive education in the history, language, culture, economy and other subjects relevant to the times. All of this was done to prepare them for their positions as rulers and leaders in the next generation. The Romans, and the Persians, Babylonians and Egyptians before them, took the noble youth of subject states and educated them along with their own children under such tutors. Members of the non-ruling classes rarely received such an education, because it was irrelevant to the conduct of their daily lives. But in the old Israelite kingdom, all of the people were commanded to gather at the Sabbaths and hear the words of the Scriptures, so that they would understand the laws of God and be educated relevant to the conduct of a Godly society. This ideal was also woven into the fabric of the educational system in America, until the first part of the 20th century when the Jews launched an assault on the teaching of the Bible and Christianity in the schools, a discussion which we shall reserve for commentary in the appropriate portions of the later Protocols.

The Jews understood the tractability of the uneducated masses, and knew that through their control of the media that they themselves could ultimately control a sufficient percentage of the masses for their own advantage. In Volume 1, Chapter 8 of Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler described in part the nature of the democratic political process where he wrote:

Because of a certain vanity, which is always one of the blood-relations of unintelligence, the general run of politicians will always eschew those schemes for the future which are really difficult to put into practice; and they will practise this avoidance so that they may not lose the immediate favour of the mob. The importance and the success of such politicians belong exclusively to the present and will be of no consequence for the future. But that does not worry small-minded people; they are quite content with momentary results.

Hitler had one advantage in his own rise to power, that the mobs of Germany at that time were racially homogenous. But on the other hand, discussing 1920’s Germany Hitler had described the same despair which many people in all Western nations suffer today, in Volume 1 Chapter 12 of Mein Kampf:

The fact that millions of our people yearn at heart for a radical change in our present conditions is proved by the profound discontent which exists among them. This feeling is manifested in a thousand ways. Some express it in a form of discouragement and despair. Others show it in resentment and anger and indignation. Among some the profound discontent calls forth an attitude of indifference, while it urges others to violent manifestations of wrath. Another indication of this feeling may be seen on the one hand in the attitude of those who abstain from voting at elections and, on the other, in the large numbers of those who side with the fanatical extremists of the left wing.

We had already explained, in our discussion of the Jewish control of the German newspapers, that the German politicians were described as having commonly resorted to the newspapers in order to determine the public opinion, while at the same time the Jews who owned and ran those newspapers were actually creating that so-called opinion. Of course, this phenomenon still persists today, and is very much exacerbated by the ubiquitous presence of electronic media controlled by those same Jews.

So long as a people are caught up in a capitalist system, they are reduced to the level of beasts competing one against the other for their daily bread. In that manner they may be so much more easily manipulated by the Jewish-controlled media that they are little more than the tractable mob which the Protocols describe here.

In Volume 2, Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler is discussing the general physical health of a nation, and the importance of physical health to one’s mental capacity, so he wrote the following:

Just as, in general, the racial quality is the preliminary condition for the mental efficiency of any given human material, the training of the individual will first of all have to be directed towards the development of sound bodily health. For the general rule is that a strong and healthy mind is found only in a strong and healthy body. The fact that men of genius are sometimes not robust in health and stature, or even of a sickly constitution, is no proof against the principle I have enunciated. These cases are only exceptions which, as everywhere else, prove the rule. But when the bulk of a nation is composed of physical degenerates it is rare for a great spirit to arise from such a miserable motley. And in any case his activities would never meet with great success. A degenerate mob will either be incapable of understanding him at all or their will-power is so feeble that they cannot follow the soaring of such an eagle.

The State that is grounded on the racial principle and is alive to the significance of this truth will first of all have to base its educational work not on the mere imparting of knowledge but rather on physical training and development of healthy bodies. The cultivation of the intellectual facilities comes only in the second place. And here again it is character which has to be developed first of all, strength of will and decision. And the educational system ought to foster the spirit of readiness to accept responsibilities gladly. [Today the educational system in America teaches its children that everyone wins, and they do not have to accept responsibility for their actions or their performance. Fault lies everywhere but in the individual child.] Formal instruction in the sciences must be considered last in importance. Accordingly the State which is grounded on the racial idea must start with the principle that a person whose formal education in the sciences is relatively small but who is physically sound and robust, of a steadfast and honest character, ready and able to make decisions and endowed with strength of will, is a more useful member of the national community than a weakling who is scholarly and refined. A nation composed of learned men who are physical weaklings, hesitant about decisions of the will, and timid pacifists, is not capable of assuring even its own existence on this earth. In the bitter struggle which decides the destiny of man it is very rare that an individual has succumbed because he lacked learning. Those who fail are they who try to ignore these consequences and are too faint-hearted about putting them into effect. There must be a certain balance between mind and body. An ill-kept body is not made a more beautiful sight by the indwelling of a radiant spirit. We should not be acting justly if we were to bestow the highest intellectual training on those who are physically deformed and crippled, who lack decision and are weak-willed and cowardly. What has made the Greek ideal of beauty immortal is the wonderful union of a splendid physical beauty with nobility of mind and spirit.

And here once again Hitler was borrowing from ideas which had long been tried and proven to be true, as British general and scholar William Francis Butler had said a century before him that “The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.” Yet from the late 19th century, that distinction has become generally accepted in all of the nations of the West. For every genius like George Patton, there are now ten thousand dolts like Omar Bradley.

So the Jews of today lambast Adolf Hitler for wanting to create a so-called “master race”, when in reality he only wanted to educate the German people and encourage them to participate in the maintenance of a healthy nation that may withstand challenges such as the onslaught of Jewish subversion which they were already suffering through the Weimar period. As the Protocols assert, the uneducated mob certainly cannot “appreciate and respect the conditions of its own existence and of its own well-being.” Hitler’s mistake, in the eyes of the Jews, was that he tried to educate the mobs. And here we also see that Hitler would, in part, agree with the Protocols where they claim that “members of the crowd, upstarts from the people, even were they men of genius but incompetent in politics, cannot step forward as leaders of the mob without ruining the entire nation.” But we would assert that in such cases, the ruin of the nation would come from Jewish subterfuge in their opposition to any real leader of a nation who would arise to resist the supremacy of the Jew.

So the Protocols continue to present the Jewish theory of control in this manner:

PROTOCOL NO. I, continued:

The people left to themselves, that is to upstarts from among them, are ruined by party dissensions created by greed for power and honors, and by the disorders resulting therefrom. Is it possible for the masses of the people to direct the affairs of the state without rivalry, and without interjecting personal interests? Are they capable of protecting themselves against external enemies?—This is impossible, since a plan divided into as many parts as there are minds in a mob loses its unity, and consequently, becomes incomprehensible and unworkable.

If today’s leaders, even the founders of the American nation, were truly educated in ancient history they may have better foreseen their own deficiencies. While many of them were well read, enough of them were not educated sufficiently. In the democracy of Athens, as it is described by Thucydides, political parties were barred. The Athenians understood that every political party was in essence a conspiracy against the State. In the ancient Roman Republic, groups of men were not permitted to meet privately, as each private meeting also represented a conspiracy. And in the Roman Republic, if a politician offered to open the public treasury for the benefit of any particular individual or group, he risked being hanged. Yet there were no safeguards against any of these things in the founding documents of this nation, and as soon as the first congress was elected the government was embroiled in party politics. Some of the founders had written of the dangers of political factions, but the mobs eventually prevailed. The primary instigator seems to have been Alexander Hamilton in his formation of a Federalist party, while his primary opponents, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, seemed to have then formed a party of their own as a defense. Hamilton’s Federalists never prevailed to gain power, but Hamilton certainly prevailed in rapidly ushering in party politics, and poisoning the political operation of the nation right from the beginning. However with no safeguards against political parties in its founding documents, the outcome was inevitable.

But the authors of the Protocols understood that inevitability:

PROTOCOL NO. I, continued:

Only an autocrat can outline great and clear plans which allocate in an orderly manner all the parts of the mechanism of the government machinery. From this it is concluded that the government which is the most efficient for the benefit of a country must be concentrated in the hands of one responsible person. Civilization cannot exist without absolute despotism, for government is carried on not by the masses, but by their leader, whoever he may be. A barbarous crowd shows its barbarism on every occasion. The moment the mob grasps liberty in its hands it is speedily changed to anarchy, which is in itself the height of barbarism.

The Jews who sold Western Civilization on the concept of Liberalism and government by the people fully understood that government by the people would lead to failure, so that those who could control the masses, ostensibly through the newspapers, and also the power of money would easily become the ultimate rulers of society. But the Protocols had already boasted, earlier in this section, that “Our power in the present tottering condition of all forms of power will be more invincible than any other, because it will remain invisible until the moment when it has gained such strength that no cunning can any longer undermine it.” And even though there are those of us who do see the despotic Jewish control of Western society, most of the people in the West continue in their blindness. This is in spite of the fact that to some of us, it is obviously flaunted before their very eyes. All world leaders make pilgrimage to the Israeli state and kiss the wall in Jerusalem and the asses of the rabbis. All world leaders are visited by the Jewish Chabad organization on a regular basis. Most of the governments of the world have in one degree or another outlawed criticism of Jews or any refutation of Jewish historical claims in their legislation.

In a Canadian news item from Wednesday, we read that a tenured Lethbridge professor [was] accused of anti-Semitism [and] suspended from his position. The rather liberal college professor was “alleged to be promoting conspiracy theories and denying the Holocaust has been suspended without pay by the University of Lethbridge.” An often repeated adage is that if you want to know who really rules over you, you should consider who it is that you are not permitted to criticize. The saying is generally attributed to Voltaire. As the apostle had written of Jesus Christ, the foremost critic of the Jews, “Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.”

Getting back to our subject, the authors of the Protocols have asserted here that “Only an autocrat can outline great and clear plans which allocate in an orderly manner all the parts of the mechanism of the government machinery’, because otherwise the democracy is continually bogged down in constant parliamentary bickering over how or whether every certain thing should be done. Little of note is ever accomplished in a parliamentary democracy, because with all of the divisions and strife resulting from self-serving interests, the government is bogged down eternally.

And here Adolf Hitler also agreed with the authors of the Protocols. As Hitler explains in Volume 1, Chapter 3 of Mein Kampf, initially he was an ardent supporter of the parliamentary system of government, and he especially admired the way that it had been developed in Britain. But after careful observation of its workings, eventually he realized not only its general ineffectiveness, but also the lack of any real responsibility for failure which is inherent in such a system, and that had soured him on the virtues of that system. So he wrote:

The aspect of the situation that first made the most striking impression on me and gave me grounds for serious reflection was the manifest lack of any individual responsibility in the representative body.

The parliament passes some acts or decree which may have the most devastating consequences, yet nobody bears the responsibility for it. Nobody can be called to account. For surely one cannot say that a Cabinet discharges its responsibility when it retires after having brought about a catastrophe. Or can we say that the responsibility is fully discharged when a new coalition is formed or parliament dissolved? Can the principle of responsibility mean anything else than the responsibility of a definite person?

Is it at all possible actually to call to account the leaders of a parliamentary government for any kind of action which originated in the wishes of the whole multitude of deputies and was carried out under their orders or sanction? Instead of developing constructive ideas and plans, does the business of a statesman consist in the art of making a whole pack of blockheads understand his projects? Is it his business to entreat and coach them so that they will grant him their generous consent?

Is it an indispensable quality in a statesman that he should possess a gift of persuasion commensurate with the statesman's ability to conceive great political measures and carry them through into practice?

Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail to win over a majority of votes to support his policy in an assembly which has been called together as the chance result of an electoral system that is not always honestly administered?

Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has worthily appraised a great political concept before that concept was put into practice and its greatness openly demonstrated through its success?

In this world is not the creative act of the genius always a protest against the inertia of the mass?

What shall the statesman do if he does not succeed in coaxing the parliamentary multitude to give its consent to his policy? Shall he purchase that consent for some sort of consideration?

Or, when confronted with the obstinate stupidity of his fellow citizens, should he then refrain from pushing forward the measures which he deems to be of vital necessity to the life of the nation? Should he retire or remain in power?

In such circumstances does not a man of character find himself face to face with an insoluble contradiction between his own political insight on the one hand and, on the other, his moral integrity, or, better still, his sense of honesty?

Where can we draw the line between public duty and personal honour?

Must not every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself to the level of a political jobber?

And, on the other hand, does not every jobber feel the itch to 'play politics', seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him personally but with an anonymous mass which can never be called to account for their deeds?

Must not our parliamentary principle of government by numerical majority necessarily lead to the destruction of the principle of leadership?

Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality?

Or may it be presumed that for the future human civilization will be able to dispense with this as a condition of its existence?

But may it not be that, to-day, more than ever before, the creative brain of the individual is indispensable?

The parliamentary principle of vesting legislative power in the decision of the majority rejects the authority of the individual and puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In doing so it contradicts the aristocratic principle, which is a fundamental law of nature; but, of course, we must remember that in this decadent era of ours the aristocratic principle need not be thought of as incorporated in the upper ten thousand.

The devastating influence of this parliamentary institution might not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless the reader has learned how to think independently and examine the facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in political life; because under these circumstances the situation does not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will attract them accordingly.

The Jewish newspapers and other media perpetuated the promotion of the systems of Liberalism until the Jew themselves were able to consolidate enough power to assert their own tyranny.

So Hitler, where in this aspect he is found in agreement with the authors of the Protocols, also came to understand that only an autocratic government could actually accomplish anything in the interests of the nation. But he had a solution which would combine both democracy and autocracy, while also having the ability to hold leaders more directly accountable for their bad decisions. Therefore in Volume 1, Chapter 12 of Mein Kampf he wrote:

The nature and internal organization of the new movement make it anti-parliamentarian. That is to say, it rejects in general and in its own structure all those principles according to which decisions are to be taken on the vote of the majority and according to which the leader is only the executor of the will and opinion of others. The movement lays down the principle that, in the smallest as well as in the greatest problems, one person must have absolute authority and bear all responsibility.

In our movement the practical consequences of this principle are the following:

The president of a large group is appointed by the head of the group immediately above his in authority. He is then the responsible leader of his group. All the committees are subject to his authority and not he to theirs. There is no such thing as committees that vote but only committees that work. This work is allotted by the responsible leader, who is the president of the group. The same principle applies to the higher organizations--the Bezirk (district), the Kreis (urban circuit) and the Gau (the region). In each case the president is appointed from above and is invested with full authority and executive power. Only the leader of the whole party is elected at the general meeting of the members. But he is the sole leader of the movement. All the committees are responsible to him, but he is not responsible to the committees. His decision is final, but he bears the whole responsibility of it. The members of the movement are entitled to call him to account by means of a new election, or to remove him from office if he has violated the principles of the movement or has not served its interests adequately. He is then replaced by a more capable man, who is invested with the same authority and obliged to bear the same responsibility.

One of the highest duties of the movement is to make this principle imperative not only within its own ranks but also for the whole State.

The man who becomes leader is invested with the highest and unlimited authority, but he also has to bear the last and gravest responsibility.

The man who has not the courage to shoulder responsibility for his actions is not fitted to be a leader. Only a man of heroic mould can have the vocation for such a task.

Human progress and human cultures are not founded by the multitude. They are exclusively the work of personal genius and personal efficiency.

Because of this principle, our movement must necessarily be anti-parliamentarian, and if it takes part in the parliamentary institution it is only for the purpose of destroying this institution from within; in other words, we wish to do away with an institution which we must look upon as one of the gravest symptoms of human decline.

The Jews labelled Hitler a dictator, and demeaned and ridiculed his form and theory of government. However at the same time they themselves knew that democracy always fails, while endeavoring to install their own autocracy over the West. Being the hypocrites that they are, if Hitler were a Jew, the Jews would have idolized him. Now the Jews have accomplished their own endeavor, but their autocratic government still remains invisible to the masses, as they boasted that it would.

PROTOCOL NO. I, continued:

Look at those beasts, steeped in alcohol, stupefied by wine, the unlimited use of which is granted by liberty.

In February of 2014 we find a BBC article announcing a Government policy that read Alcohol floor price announced for England and Wales, regulating the price of alcohol as a desperate measure to curb excessive drinking. One line from the article informs us that “Crime Prevention Minister Norman Baker said: ‘The coalition government is determined to tackle alcohol-fuelled crime, which costs England and Wales around £11bn a year.’” Of course the plan was ridiculed, but the struggle continues to persist. In any event, we see the British government cited merely economic concerns as a reason to address the problem, in the spirit of Frédéric Bastiat.

A study can be done which would demonstrate that Jews who control the liquor industry are purposely selling certain products at or below cost in order to encourage more people to drink and thus grow their market share. The BBC article complained of companies which were doing that very thing, selling certain products below cost in particular markets. But that is beyond the scope of our discussion this evening.

But Britain is not the only place where this problem is recognized. A November, 2013 article from Deutsche Welle Akadamie announced Russia to raise vodka prices to fight excessive drinking. The article says that “With hundreds of thousands of Russians dying of excessive drinking every year, the Kremlin says it plans to hike minimum prices for strong spirits, including vodka. But the move may not yield the desired effect.” Also discussed were previous attempts by Putin’s government to raise prices and taxes, as well as eliminate advertising for alcoholic beverages, which had evidently been ineffective. The article when on to voice concerns over home made alcohol, evidently something which is popular in Russia, which would not be affected by the price controls.

America had its own prohibition struggle in the 1920’s, which is something which we may discuss at greater length in a future segment of this series. But there are some things which government will never be able to effectively control, and consumption of alcohol is one of them. Things which God Himself put on this earth, the State will never effectively control, and only exerts itself vainly whenever it tries.

Christian doctrine permits alcohol consumption, however it clearly teaches moderation and is critical of drunkeness, and in the Middle Ages Christian moderation was frequently enforced at the community level. According to Oxford Scholarship Online, “The doctrines and beliefs of Christianity were favourable to the production and consumption of alcohol, especially wine. The Church taught that wine was an inherently good gift of God to be used and enjoyed. Individuals could choose not to drink, but to despise it was prohibited as heresy. The Church favoured drinking in moderation but rejected its abuse as a sin. Those who could not drink in moderation were urged to abstain in order to avoid sinning.” So for man the challenge is to balance the existence of alcoholic beverages with their use in moderation.

It is not a coincidence, that perhaps the Jews as a people seem to have been more successful with that endeavor than the Christian societies. In Jeremiah chapter 35 we find an account where the prophet was told to deal with some of the Rechabites. These people were Canaanites, intruders into the land of Judah, and the Canaanites are the true ancestors of today’s Jews. Yahweh God wanted to make an example, that the Rechabites would be more faithful to the wishes of their ancestors than God’s own people were to Him. So we read:

1 The word which came unto Jeremiah from the LORD in the days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, saying, 2 Go unto the house of the Rechabites, and speak unto them, and bring them into the house of the LORD, into one of the chambers, and give them wine to drink. 3 Then I took Jaazaniah the son of Jeremiah, the son of Habaziniah, and his brethren, and all his sons, and the whole house of the Rechabites; 4 And I brought them into the house of the LORD, into the chamber of the sons of Hanan, the son of Igdaliah, a man of God, which was by the chamber of the princes, which was above the chamber of Maaseiah the son of Shallum, the keeper of the door: 5 And I set before the sons of the house of the Rechabites pots full of wine, and cups, and I said unto them, Drink ye wine. 6 But they said, We will drink no wine: for Jonadab the son of Rechab our father commanded us, saying, Ye shall drink no wine, neither ye, nor your sons for ever: 7 Neither shall ye build house, nor sow seed, nor plant vineyard, nor have any: but all your days ye shall dwell in tents; that ye may live many days in the land where ye be strangers. 8 Thus have we obeyed the voice of Jonadab the son of Rechab our father in all that he hath charged us, to drink no wine all our days, we, our wives, our sons, nor our daughters; 9 Nor to build houses for us to dwell in: neither have we vineyard, nor field, nor seed: 10 But we have dwelt in tents, and have obeyed, and done according to all that Jonadab our father commanded us.

Then a little further on in the same chapter wee see the objective of this interchange between Jeremiah and the Rechabites:

12 Then came the word of the LORD unto Jeremiah, saying, 13 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Go and tell the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Will ye not receive instruction to hearken to my words? saith the LORD. 14 The words of Jonadab the son of Rechab, that he commanded his sons not to drink wine, are performed; for unto this day they drink none, but obey their father's commandment: notwithstanding I have spoken unto you, rising early and speaking; but ye hearkened not unto me.

The greatest advantage which the Jew has over the Christian is that throughout the Middle Ages and more recent history, most Jews were generally not caught up in the bread and circuses, the gambling, prostitution, alcoholism and other vices which the Jews have also consistently promoted among Whites, and that too is a topic which must be discussed at length in later segments of these Protocols of Satan.