Presidents: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as Presented in Behold a Pale Horse pp. 290-293

Protocol 10

The people that Cooper is writing for claim to believe in one thing above all: The US Constitution. It's almost always clear that they have never read it, do not understand it, and think it says things that it does not. These are the people that think the Declaration of Independence is a legally binding document, are aware of something called the Federalist Papers but that's about it, and they usually tip in favor of odd sovereign citizen positions. It's important also to remember that this book was written in the 1990s and the right-wing militia movement hated Bill Clinton. To be fair, they didn't like George H.W. Bush either, but nothing like their vitriol for Bill Clinton. 

In my opinion, there was nothing that Clinton did to earn their ire. I think that he took office in 1992 and it just coincided with right-wing conspiracism as a movement. Yet he's the president, by default, he must be part of the conspiracy. The conspirators could not allow someone to wield that much power without being in their thrall. Protocol 10, actually makes this case. 

I'm actually surprised here because unlike most of the ambiguous bullshit we've been reading, Protocol 10 can be considered specific...well, comparatively. 

The Elder spends the first page of the Protocol discussing something that he's covered before: keeping the people focused on ideas and concepts rather than specifics. Instead of enumerating specific rights to individuals, they'll call it "liberty" or "freedom." Let the conspiracy theorists talk about "the Constitution" rather than having discussions about the actual Constitution. The Elder explains, "The reason for keeping silence in this respect is that by not naming a principle we leave ourselves freedom of action, to drop this or that out of it without attracting notice; if they were all categorically named they would all appear to have been given."

By not being specific they can do what they please. This is why it is foolish of a conspiracy theorist to make precise claims. It's always, "They're taking our freedoms" but never what freedoms those are. Their champions can help us gain more ground against "them" but because they are never specific we can never gauge success or not. Theorists like Alex Jones or Joe Rogan, can gain followers and money pretty effectively by doing this; as long as you have a talent for playing on the fears of an audience it makes no difference if Monday "they" are losing, Tuesday "we" are winning, and by Wednesday the "end of the world is just around the corner." 

The Elder goes on a strange tangent about using Democracy to undermine the state. Again, we have to remind ourselves that everything the Elder says we are supposed to hate. His argument is that democracy destroys the aristocracy, and the aristocracy is the thing that keeps the state sovereign. The aristocrats cannot be swayed (as he said in Protocol 7) because they have land and means; no matter which king is in charge. Depose the current monarch, and replace it with another doesn't mean anything. Democracy though can change everything because it gives everyone a voice and makes them all equal. The aristocracy disappears in authority and is rendered useless as a political power. Remember, the point is to hate this idea and want, instead, a tyrant supported by an elaborate hierarchy. 

The voting will elect a singular person, for which the Elder uses the word "President." Another quick reference point, this is not an American document. This was originally plagiarized to support the Russian Tsar during the times before the revolution that would wipe them out. "President" can mean any head of state, but the French Revolution initially wanted something like the American system, and as the original document that the Protocols was plagiarized from is about the French, this is why the term is being used instead of "Prime Minister" or whatever (I'm aware that Prime Minister is usually a term for parliamentary style governments). 

The Elder's plan is to appoint someone to be in charge that will be the focus of the people, but will largely be ineffective at doing anything. The primary reason is that no one will be elected to "President" without having some stain on their character, i.e. that they can be blackmailed into obedience. 

Then the Elder gets odd. Here is where the original document, Joly's work, gets philosophical and the plagiarist (and Cooper) are unable to understand what is being said. The Machiavelli character in Joly's work (page 60) makes two arguments. The first is that the power of the president can be guaranteed during a "state of siege." This is an emergency situation that requires a suspension of rights and laws in order to secure the state. Montesquieu, his dialogue partner, remarks that this is what Augustus did to become Emperor of Rome thus destroying the Republic. There was, for instance, the consulship but there were no consuls. 

Machiavelli argues that such a move, is responsible as a leader. Here's the problem: Machiavelli's point concerns Cincinattus, Scipio, and Sullla; who took drastic actions to preserve Rome; but then that power was returned to the state. In the actual Machiavellian philosophical works, the philosopher makes the point that this is sometimes necessary but there is a great danger in the office of dictator. Montesquieu the character agrees but because the actual figure argues for a parliamentary style government he wonders if the legislative body can be used to restrict the head of state. Machiavelli, the character, argues that this is unimportant because the head of state can restrict or diminish the legislative body at will, to which there must be some protections. 

From a political philosophy standpoint this is a very interesting debate. In the Protocols it is less so because the plagiarist does not understand what is being said. The plagiarist seemingly ignores the fact that this is a debate between two characters and combines ideas ignorant of the back and forth between them. For example the elder writes, "we are compelled to introduce into the constitutions of States to prepare for the transition to an imperceptible abolition of every kind of constitution and then the time is come to turn every form of government into our despotism." 

In the original  Montesquieu asks if there could be any guarantee of some basic rights for the individuals in the state. The Machiavelli character responds, "I see that philosophical sensibility returns to you. Be reassured: I would not make any modification of the fundamental basis of the constitution without submitting it for the acceptance of the people by means of universal suffrage." 

The idea is similar in that there is no permanent basis for rights but the Elder misses the point that while Machiavelli would not guarantee protections against despotism, he also would not do so without the people's vote. While the Elder also relies on democracy, here, Joly is making the claim that you would still need the people to want to give up their protections. The plagiarist does not comprehend the discussion, but it's not important that he does. He's just got to pepper his discussion with the word "Goyim" so that the reader knows its the Jews' fault. What are they at fault for? That's never specified, and this is why this book is so dangerous. The Jews through X ruined the Constitution, and that's why the bad thing happened to you. It's much more effective than naming the thing they did, which is why the Elder's original point is important.