 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
21
Here is “The Britons” translation of the complete text of Nilus’ notorious “Protocols of the
Wise Men of Zion.”
PROTOCOL NO. 1
“…Putting aside fine phrases we shall speak of the significance of each thought: by
comparisons and deductions we shall throw light upon surrounding facts.
What I am about to set forth, then, is our system from the two points of view, that of
ourselves, and that of the goyim (i.e., human cattle = Non-Jews).
It must be noted that men with bad instincts are more in number than the gook, and
therefore the best results in governing them are attained by violence and terrorization, and
not by academic discussion.
Every man aims at power, everyone would like to become a
dictator if only he could, and rare indeed are the men who would not be willing to sacrifice
the welfare of all for the sake of securing their own welfare.
What has restrained the beasts of prey who are called men?
What has served for their
guidance hitherto?
In the beginnings of the structure of society they were subjected to brutal and blind force;
afterwards to Law, which is the same force, only disguised.
I
draw the conclusion that by
the law of nature, right lies in force.
Political freedom is an idea but not a fact.
This idea one must know how to apply whenever
it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one’s
party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority.
This task is rendered easier if
the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, so-called liberalism, and,
for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power. It is precisely here that the
triumph of our theory appears: the slackened reins of government are immediately, by the
law of life, caught up and gathered together by a new hand, because the blind might of the
nation cannot for one single day exist without guidance, and the new authority merely fits
into the place of the old already weakened by liberalism.
In our day, the power, which has replaced that of the rulers who were liberal, is the power of
gold.
Time was when Faith ruled.
The idea of freedom is impossible of realization because
no one knows how to use it with moderation.
It is enough to hand over a people to self-
government for a certain length of time for that people to be turned into a disorganized mob.
From that moment on we get internecine strife, which soon develops into battles between
classes, in the midst of which States burn down and their importance is reduced to that of a
heap of ashes.
Whether a State exhausts itself in its own convulsions, whether its internal discord brings it
under the power of external foes, in any case, it can be accounted irretrievably lost: it is in
our power.
The despotism of Capital, which is entirely in our hands, reaches out to it a straw
that the State, willy-nilly, must take hold of; if not, it goes to the bottom.
Should anyone of a liberal mind say that such reflections as the above are immoral, I would
put the following questions:
If every State has two foes and if in regard to the external foe it is allowed and not
considered immoral to use every manner and art of conflict, as for example to keep the
enemy in ignorance of plans of attack and defense, to attack him by night or in superior
numbers, then in what way can the same means in regard to a worse foe, the destroyer of
the structure of society and the commonweal, be called immoral and not permissible?
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
