PatrickSMcNally
Padawan Learner
Protocol 12: Control of the Press
For example, in the Twenty-First Dialogue Joly has Machiavelli preaching the idea that:
-----
It [the state] can refinance all its uncovered debts in just the same way--treasury bonds, debts owed to municpalities and banks. This applies just to all debts that form a part of what is rather picturesquely called "the floating debt," that is, debts that have no fixed basis and which mature in the more or less distant future... Far from dreading a policy that sees the national debt increase and constantly refinanced, I would want the entire public fortune tied to government bonds... Every last cent in my kingdom would depend on my continued existence.
-----
In contrast, Protocol 21 tells us that:
-----
... nowadays all internal loans are consolidated by so-called flying loans, that is, such as have terms of payment more or less near... If left for long at the disposition of a government these funds evaporate in the payment of interest on foreign loans... When we ascend the throne all of these finances and similar shifts, as not being in accord with our interests, will be swept away so as not to leave a trace, as also will be destroyed all money markets... We shall replace the money markets by grandiose government credit institutions, the object of which will be to fix the price of industrial values in accordance with government views.
-----
Clearly the picture drawn in the Dialogues is much closer to our reality in the last 25 years, although I don't think that one can really understand the modern world by leaning very much on literary fictions from a century ago. Still, Joly's picture of a government to constantly refinance itself with an increasing national debt is much more related to what we've seen for a few decades now than is the image of drawn in the Protocols of money markets being abolished. These are exactly the types of discrepancies which a logical inquiry into the question of whether or not the Protocols were really a blueprint for the 20th century should address. Without that, we're just going back to the simple observation that literary authors such as Dumas, Joly, and others have often suggested dangers of public manipulation through public relations and, yes, of course, we have seen that realized to an enormous degree.
People seem to attach themselves to certain items like the Protocols based more upon a perceived ideological affiliation with the piece. I don't think that the overused charge of "anti-Semitism" captures that problem adequately, but the problem is real enough. People don't really approach such items according to the normal rules of logic by which one tests the authenticity or relevance of a document. Something about the Protocols touches an ideological chord in some people more strongly than do the Dialogues or other similar pieces which preceded them and consequently the rules of logic go out the window.
Perhaps "legalistic" would apply, but not "illiogical." If one is seeking to judge a question such as to what extent are the Protocols really more of an actual revelation of something or other than, say, Joly's Dialogues (or multiple other literary works by Dumas and similar authors which preceded Joly), then one should seek to identify the points which distinguish the Protocols. To do otherwise and then proclaim the Protocols as revelatory work unveiling a special hidden truth is indeed illogical.anart said:I find it interesting that you consistently look for discrepancies in any of the information presented here to 'disprove' things - in a very legalistic and surprisingly illogical manner
For example, in the Twenty-First Dialogue Joly has Machiavelli preaching the idea that:
-----
It [the state] can refinance all its uncovered debts in just the same way--treasury bonds, debts owed to municpalities and banks. This applies just to all debts that form a part of what is rather picturesquely called "the floating debt," that is, debts that have no fixed basis and which mature in the more or less distant future... Far from dreading a policy that sees the national debt increase and constantly refinanced, I would want the entire public fortune tied to government bonds... Every last cent in my kingdom would depend on my continued existence.
-----
In contrast, Protocol 21 tells us that:
-----
... nowadays all internal loans are consolidated by so-called flying loans, that is, such as have terms of payment more or less near... If left for long at the disposition of a government these funds evaporate in the payment of interest on foreign loans... When we ascend the throne all of these finances and similar shifts, as not being in accord with our interests, will be swept away so as not to leave a trace, as also will be destroyed all money markets... We shall replace the money markets by grandiose government credit institutions, the object of which will be to fix the price of industrial values in accordance with government views.
-----
Clearly the picture drawn in the Dialogues is much closer to our reality in the last 25 years, although I don't think that one can really understand the modern world by leaning very much on literary fictions from a century ago. Still, Joly's picture of a government to constantly refinance itself with an increasing national debt is much more related to what we've seen for a few decades now than is the image of drawn in the Protocols of money markets being abolished. These are exactly the types of discrepancies which a logical inquiry into the question of whether or not the Protocols were really a blueprint for the 20th century should address. Without that, we're just going back to the simple observation that literary authors such as Dumas, Joly, and others have often suggested dangers of public manipulation through public relations and, yes, of course, we have seen that realized to an enormous degree.
People seem to attach themselves to certain items like the Protocols based more upon a perceived ideological affiliation with the piece. I don't think that the overused charge of "anti-Semitism" captures that problem adequately, but the problem is real enough. People don't really approach such items according to the normal rules of logic by which one tests the authenticity or relevance of a document. Something about the Protocols touches an ideological chord in some people more strongly than do the Dialogues or other similar pieces which preceded them and consequently the rules of logic go out the window.