I Know Aristotle (and Machiavelli): The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as presented in Behold a Pale Horse pp. 317-318

 Protocol 18

This week's protocols is weird. It's spaceman, UFO weird; and the only anti-Semitism in it is a few "goys" and "Goyims" thrown in there as if to remind us what this book is supposed to be; but generally this protocol is weird because it is so bland. This is one of those protocols I'd have one of my classes read because it's short but it also doesn't say anything. The subject of this protocol is the ruler of the conspiracy. 

We are 66 pages (according to the PDF of Cooper's book acquired from the internet archive) in and there is little that we know about the rulers of the conspiracy. What little we do know is almost always contradicted by something else. On one hand the kings and rulers must be members of the conspiracy on the other hand they can be regular people who are blackmailed by the conspiracy. The problem is one of consistency, does the conspiracy want to control things from the throne or from behind the throne? Throughout most of the book, and indeed, all other conspiracy works; we have the impression of the "hidden hand" which guides everything. Yet, if you have total authority, then why hide? The rulers only gain the security of anonymity from concealment. 

Lest anyone be confused, I've framed this debate much more interestingly than the Elder (or our plagiarist) has.

The first paragraph begins with a discussion of surveillance and control. The control will be achieved through the use of good speakers. Remember, this was written in the late 19th century and then plagiarized in the very early 20th--so a good speaker is entertainment. Of particular interest is that they are going to "astroturf" the crowd and somehow this will give the conspiracy a pretext to search and follow the crowd. I don't quite understand how. Unless, the speaker is going to attack the state and the conspiracy itself; but that detail is left to our imagination. 

Then we get my favorite part "..."

These ellipses are increasing in frequency and I suspect that our plagiarist is getting bored with his own book, but there is another possibility: that these sections are failed attempts at ideas. This happens to me--it happens to everyone that writes; you get an idea in your head and you begin writing only to find out that the idea has no traction. My notebooks (because I handwrite a lot of stuff) are full of abandoned ideas. If I begin a new word document, it starts as document "36" because there are 35 ideas I've had to abandon. Sometimes I save them, most times I do not. What I certainly don't do is submit them for publication. When Cooper does this, or Alex Jones, I get it--they think length equals authority. So very little gets cut, and I suppose that the plagiarist deserves some moderate credit for making it obvious when the subject is being changed. 

The subject is changed, and our second subject concerns security of the ruler. The suggestion is strange, the conspiracy's ruler (either figurehead or real) will have only the thinnest of guards. The thinking is that, "we shall not admit so much as a thought that there could exist against him any sedition with which he is not strong enough to contend and is compelled to hide from it." 

So there plan is to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that there are no threats to the ruler? That seems like a plan that is doomed to fail. Pretending the ruler doesn't need elaborate security isn't enough to protect them from the times that they do. I get the point that the Elder is going for, but this is just a bad plan. 

In the preceding paragraph we are told that the discovery of frequent conspiracies against the ruler is a sign of weakness. This is borrowed directly from the actual Machiavelli, who, in the Discourses discussed conspiracies as being legitimate threats against the state; and his recommendation is to not do things that will earn the enmity of those people that have the power to conduct them. The solution offered by the conspiracy is "According to strictly enforced outward appearances our ruler will employ his power only for the advantage of the nation and in no wise for his own or dynastic profits."

In Aristotle's Politics, he describes a tyrant as someone that acts for themselves. A ruler that seeks their own profit rather than one that puts the kingdom first. One of his recommendations to prevent tyranny is for the tyrant to act in a manner beneficial to the people to secure his own authority. So, for selfish reasons, he should appear altruistic. The effect is the same because, ala Kant, we do not have insight into the internal motivations of a person. Aristotle would use this same reasoning in his rather tepid defense of slavery--the slave is incapable of ruling therefore must be ruled, but the master must rule toward the virtue of the slave. In effect, this becomes a worker/owner relationship that Marx thought was exploitative, the difference according to Marx was in terminology and I'll avoid long philosophical discourse here. The point is that if the secret Jewish conspiracy is going to rule to our benefit in order to appear to be benefactors, then it's no different than if they were our benefactors. The conspiracy is saying, we'll help you so you want us in charge. This isn't the problem that the intended audience is supposed to think it is. It's also telling because it reveals that the Tsar, who has elaborate security and does not act in beneficence of the people, is supposed to be the good guy here.  

This is just a boring Protocol. The final two recommendations is that the ruler will always look at petitions from the crowd so the crowd can never deny that the ruler has seen it. Ok, good. This isn't a bad thing. While the final one is that criminals within the conspiracy, within the ruler's orbit will be arrested and punished immediately so as to eliminate any appearance of corruption. 

Again, I'm in. I'm beginning to think that maybe this Cabal should rule the world.