As I stated at the end of Part 1, I prefer to substitute the terms Carny and Rube for Elders and Goyim. I suspect, for a variety of reasons I hope to clarify, that The Protocols were not written by International Jews (as Henry Ford called them), but as descendants of the Knights Templar, who in their Crusades and other activities not only invented the modern financial system, but came across some kind of information that made them feel superior to the rest of humanity.
My thesis is simple: The Protocols represent an actual and detailed plan to control the world, and that the proof lies in the amazing prescience with which they predict the unfolding of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. The predictions are so precise and correct that they belie a concerted effort on the part of a hidden group to steer the development of modern civilization.
For the sake of brevity, I will not argue all points, but select a few key elements that support my contentions. I leave it to the reader to approach the material with an open mind and make their own conclusions.
The Protocols begin by stating their assumption that all men (other than themselves) are animalistic brutes and can only be governed by force and terror. I don't need to reiterate the observation that the 20th century and into the 21st have been dominated by just these two concepts.
They see freedom and (classic) liberalism as a weakness, or slackened reins, which can be taken up by stronger hands to take over control of society. Basically, the position is that humans are too stupid to handle freedom, and prefer the iron fist of control. Any attempt to relax control only opens the door for new and stricter leaders, not real and abiding freedom.
For the most part, the introduction to the document posits that humans are brutes, might makes right, and money is the tool for subjugation. Spoken like true predatory banksters, if you ask me. To whit:
"10. Is it possible for any sound logical mind to hope with any success to guide crowds by the aid of reasonable counsels and arguments, when any objection or contradiction, senseless though it may be, can be made and when such objection may find more favor with the people, whose powers of reasoning are superficial? Men in masses and the men of the masses, being guided solely by petty passions, paltry beliefs, traditions and sentimental theorems, fall a prey to party dissension, which hinders any kind of agreement even on the basis of a perfectly reasonable argument. Every resolution of a crowd depends upon a chance or packed majority, which, in its ignorance of political secrets, puts forth some ridiculous resolution that lays in the administration a seed of anarchy."
Clearly, the writer believes in the basic tenets of Socialism as an antidote to both Capitalism and Democracy. He depends on the dumbing-down process to ensure the masses cannot reason clearly, and assumes, like Social Darwinists, that humans do not have an innate moral barometer. Thus, without firm guidance from the outside, society will descend into chaos ("anarchy"). He promotes the idea of using Capitalism and Democracy as tools to ensure the decay of society and set up the climate for easy take-over.
I would argue that the writer substitutes the term "capital" for "mercantilism", a concept perfected by the Venetian Republic and exported to other parts of Europe. Mercantilism involves control of money by a bankster class, who uses the power of government to create a regulatory environment favoring themselves...much like we see today.
The writer continues:
"14. In any State in which there is a bad organization of authority, an impersonality of laws and of the rulers who have lost their personality amid the flood of rights ever multiplying out of liberalism, I find a new right - to attack by the right of the strong, and to scatter to the winds all existing forces of order and regulation, to reconstruct all institutions and to become the sovereign lord of those who have left to us the rights of their power by laying them down voluntarily in their liberalism."Here the writer seems to foretell the rise of Political Correctness and the Social Justice Warriors. By corrupting the concept of "rights" from moral Natural Law to increasing demands to have any form of behavior accepted as a right is how he envisions societies eating themselves alive with further and further divisions until the entire system collapses. Keep in mind at this point that the document is at least 120 years old, and that at best only Women's Suffrage was an ongoing political "rights" movement.
The writer further states that the political and the moral cannot coexist. Any leader who is moral and honest will be utterly destroyed, he says, because political power is inconsistent with Truth and Knowledge. On this score, I can agree with his assertions, since he seems to be echoing Lord Acton's famous axiom that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton further seems to have read this document when he warns, “Liberty has not only enemies which it conquers, but perfidious friends, who rob the fruits of its victories: Absolute democracy, socialism.”
I will not endeavor to analyze the text line by line, as that is better left to the reader. Suffice it to say that the introduction to The Protocols seems to clearly foreshadow current events, and indeed the entire history of the 20th century. I have also mentioned how one contemporary of the document, Lord Acton, seems to be reacting to the tenets of this document in his many quotes on liberty and politics.
I will now move on to specific plans on the part of the writer to effect global domination, and their curious parallels to modern civilization.