The End: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as Presented in Behold a Pale Horse pp. 330-332

 Protocol 24

We come to the end of the book within a book. I’ll have thoughts on the entire thing and a summary next week, but we do still have to deal with this final protocol.

“I pass now to the method of confirming the dynastic roots of King David to the last strata of the Earth.”

This is one of those meaningless statements that sounds cool. Alex Jones does this all of the time; he goes on long rants about how he’s “for humanity” and it sounds really cool until you consider that it’s just vacuous in meaning. I’m sure Nilus worked really hard on this statement, but there’s nothing here. The elder is going to confirm the dynastic roots. Ok, that’s a sensible thing, but then he’s going to do so until the end of the Earth. I get the metaphor, but I’m not buying it.

The Elder seems confused here. Is he taking over or is he ruling from the shadows? The first sentence makes me think that they are going to rule directly, but two paragraphs later he says, “Certain members of the seed of David will prepare the kings and their heirs, selecting not by right of heritage but by eminent capacities…” the sentence then describes that the chosen few will learn the mysteries and secrets of running government. So the elder is first going to confirm the dynastic roots of the line of David, then he's going to establish a meritocracy. If the latter is the case then why establish the former? They cancel each other out. Either we are rules by right of inheritance or by the capable. Sometimes blood is capable but that is independent of the requirement. Contradictory claims by the Elder are nothing new to us though.

We get another paragraph closing with “…” which is frustrating because it shows what nonsense this depressingly influential book is.

“Direct heirs will often be set aside from ascending the throne if in their time of training they exhibit frivolity, softness and other qualities that are the ruin of authority, which render them incapable of governing and in themselves dangerous for kingly office.”

Again, I agree with the Elder. I don’t want the douchebag son of the king ruling just because he’s the son of the king. Remember, we’re supposed to hate this idea. There’s a method by which to remove the king if he becomes incapable of ruling, which I cannot complain about.

The brain of the king must be capable of the kind of government that he is to run. Again, I agree with this, but is our plagiarist making the claim that the Tsar isn’t capable of doing so? It’s a weird thing to add, and an even weirder thing to ask us to despise. The only solution to this rather minor conundrum is that Nilus, our plagiarist, lost his train of thought again. He’s attempting to allege a conspiracy to usurp the powers of Europe and Russia; but then stumbled into the idea that perhaps rule by blood could be improved. It’s also odd for him to frame rule by the descendant of the house of David as a bad thing, since Jesus, was allegedly of the house of David (if you count Mary’s bloodline, but we are not given a genealogy chart for that).

So our leader must be not be greedy or frivolous. Also he must be intelligent. This last feature requires someone to determine whether the ruler is intelligent enough to be in charge so there will be a group of three individuals who will judge the fitness of the ruler. I suppose, as a technical matter, we have a “who watches the watcher” problem—but more practically, why not just put one of those three in charge? Or perhaps all three as a triumverate?

The problem being presented is a problem that all conspiracy theories face when they get large enough: either they are just the government as it is, or they face a layering of control. Who judges the king? Ok, who then creates the judges? Ok, who establishes the rules for creating the judges, that create the king? In Democratic forms of government this is solved, even in straight monarchies this is solved. In a conspiracy theory it’s all arbitrary because the practical problems are never considered.

Then it ends. The entire thing ends.

“Our supreme lord must be of an exemplary irreproachability.”

That is the last sentence of the work. It seemed to be lacking something, so I went to check another version, and it’s the same. The entire work ends on a command that the ruler should be a good person.

This still sat odd with me, so I went to the Maurice Joly work, and that work ends on Dialogue 25. Interestingly, the Elder spends a short paragraph discussing how the ruler should avoid and despise sensual pursuits—but Machiavelli in the Joly work, claims the opposite. His example is the Henry IV’s adultery is what made him popular. While the historical Machiavelli was a bit of a cad, I’m not entirely sure that this was the factor which endeared King Henry IV to the people. I think I see his point though, that the ascetic king would be alienating, it doesn’t matter here. Nilus’s religious fundamentalism will not allow him to endorse anything of the kind. Though he could have put such a recommendation into the mouth of the Elder because we’re supposed to despise him.

Perhaps I am caught in the web here. Maybe this is why Nilus is saying that the Jewish cabal leader ought be ascetic? Given how this book is ending, I don’t think that Nilus is that clever.

So that ends it. We are now done with the most infamous conspiracy work in history. Thoughts and wrap-up next week.