Forum

Auto-translated

Dm. Bykov does not write exclusively about the Russian people; many of the images can be equally attributed to other nations, and it is a pity that you perceive it so one-sidedly.

A person has the right to change their surname if they wish to do so. In my school, an acquaintance with the patronymic Mammedovich changed it to Mikhailovich; Ulyanov became Lenin, Dzhugashvili became Stalin, Chkhartishvili became Akunin, Charles Dodgson became Lewis Carroll, John Chaney became Jack London, Eduard Savenko became Edard Limonov—you can continue the list yourself. In general, only a weak culture and intellectual development allow one to see exclusively a national component in a change of surname (especially regarding a writer).

This is how I understand authority. Let's say a person who does not recognize authorities ALWAYS takes responsibility for their own actions; a person avoiding responsibility ALWAYS looks for authorities (a leader, a boss, parents). For example, regarding parents: can a father be an authority for a child if he sexually uses his offspring? A non-conformist (that is, one who does not recognize authorities) may very well learn from some knowledgeable person and take them as an "authority," but the meaning here will be different. Let's say, if after completing the training it turns out that he did not achieve his goals, he will blame not the teacher (who failed to convey the knowledge) but himself for having sought training from a non-Master. Conversely, a conformist will blame the teacher.

In general, I see that you have a poor understanding of Jewish national culture and history, judging by the extremely ignorant comments about these people (Jews are NOT a nationality, but rather a clan; any person has a chance to join regardless of skin color, anthropological or racial characteristics). Again, Freemasons are some source of evil for you, whereas I lean toward the idea that they were a true refuge for intellectually outstanding people during the period of medieval religious obscurantism. It was the Freemasons who became a force capable of opposing the Church as an institution in the Middle Ages, and plenty of evidence for this can be found.

Overall, there is national mafia—Caucasian, Italian, Jewish; based on the evidence I have, I cannot say that the Jewish one stands out in any way by, say, skill or cruelty among others. Jews carried out revolutions, yes—but subsequently became the very first victims. Again, if you try to separate Jews by national characteristic, the cruelty and atrocities in the Russian people will not decrease. For example, for those who have never been in the army, I recommend the book "Kirza" to strip away idealistic views about the essence of Russians. And overall, it is ridiculous to attribute some mythical omnipotence to the Jewish people, who cannot establish peace with their neighbors (moreover, Palestinians are ethnically the same SEMITES!). Are they the demonic personalities destroying other nations?? They cannot even fully protect their own. By the way, treachery can more likely be attributed specifically to the Arabs, who did not hesitate to organize terrorist operations on Saturdays or Jewish holidays.

And in general, it does not bring you honor to constantly argue using fakes like the Dulles Plan or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

N. Kon:

Texts from M. Joly's book "Dialogue in Hell" are cited according to the 1935 English translation (left column; page number indicated in parentheses). The "Protocols," indicating the chapter number and page, are cited according to their last pre-revolutionary edition (1917). Explanations in the text are taken from an article by Catholic priest Fr. Pierre Charles and William Granger Ryan, "The Studied Elders of Zion" (almanac "The Bridge", N.Y., 1955, p. 159-188). [After a previously unknown copy of Joly's "Dialogue in Hell" was found in Constantinople in 1921, it became clear that the first pages were missing from the originally known copy used by the "author" of the "Protocols." Specifically, the text of the "Protocols" coincides with Joly's "Dialogue" starting from page 80, and this further confirms Graves' version that the forgery was copied specifically from this copy of the "Dialogue"].

"Dialogue" by M. Joly

"Protocols"

Let us leave words and comparisons aside and turn to ideas. Here is how I formulate my system (83). Setting aside phrase-mongering, let us speak of the meaning of each thought... So, I formulate our system... (1,93).
In humanity, the bad instinct is stronger than the good one (83). ...people with bad instincts are more numerous than the good ones... (1,93).
Every person strives for power; everyone would be an oppressor if they could; all, or almost all, are ready to sacrifice the rights of others for their own interests (83). Every person strives for power; every one would like to become a dictator if only he could, but at the same time few would not be ready to sacrifice the benefits of all for the sake of achieving their own benefits (1,93).
What restrains these predatory animals called people? (83). What restrained the predatory animals called people? (1, 93).
At the first stages of social life they obeyed brute force, then—the law, which is again force, but ordered (83). In the beginning of the social order they obeyed brute and blind force, then—the law, which is the same force, only disguised (1,93).
Political freedom is a relative concept (83). Political freedom is an idea, not a fact (1, 93)
The state is destroyed, being either divided or dismembered by its own internal strife, or by becoming prey to other nations (83). Whether the state is exhausted in its own convulsions, or whether internal strife delivers it into the power of external enemies, in any case, it can be considered irrevocably lost... (1,94).
A formed state has two types of enemies: internal and external. What tool should it use in war against external enemies? Would two warring generals communicate their campaign plans to each other and thus facilitate the other's defense? Can one expect them to renounce night attacks, ambushes, traps, battles with superior forces? And these ambushes, and these tricks, all this strategy necessary for conducting war—you do not want to use it against internal enemies, against violators of public order? (83-84). ...if every state has two enemies and if in relation to the external enemy it is permitted and not considered immoral to use any measures of struggle, such as not informing the enemy of defense or attack plans, attacking him at night or with an unequal number of people, then why can such measures regarding the worst enemy, the violator of the social order and prosperity, be called impermissible and immoral? (1,94).
Can one lead, relying only on common sense, frenzied crowds driven only by feelings, passions, and prejudices? (84). Can a sound logical mind hope to successfully lead crowds using reasonable exhortations?..
...Guided exclusively by petty passions, beliefs, customs, traditions, and sentimental theories, people in the crowd and people of the crowd succumb to party schism... (1,94).

Does politics have anything in common with morality? (84). Politics has nothing in common with morality (1, 95).
I would establish, for example, huge financial monopolies—reservoirs of state wealth, from which all private fortunes would depend so much that they would be absorbed along with state credits the day after any political catastrophe. You are an economist, Montesquieu, weigh the significance of this combination! (118). Soon we will begin to establish huge monopolies—reservoirs of colossal wealth, from which even large goyish fortunes will depend so much that they will sink together with the credit of states the day after a political catastrophe... Gentlemen economists present here, weigh the significance of this combination! (VI, 110).
[I would set as a goal] the same development of state dominance, presenting it as its sovereign protector, patron, and rewarder (118). By all means we must develop the importance of our Super-Government, presenting it as a patron and rewarder and remunerator... (VI, 111).
Aristocracy as a political force is dead, but the land-owning bourgeoisie is still dangerous to the government because it is independent: it is necessary to deprive it of means or ruin it completely. To do this, it is sufficient to increase the tax burden on land property to bring agriculture into a state of decline (119). The aristocracy of goys [Goy (Ancient Hebrew) - people (pl. - goyim). In Jewish texts, the word "goy" is also used in relation to Jews, e.g., in the phrase "goy-achat" - "one people". In common speech, "goy" means "non-believer". - Ed. note] as a political force has passed away... but as a territorial owner it is harmful to us because it can be independent in its sources of life. We must therefore dispossess it of land by any means (VI, III).
With large industrialists and manufacturers, one can have profitable deals by encouraging them toward excessive luxury (119). To ruin goyish industry we will launch... a strong need for luxury, all-consuming luxury, which we have developed among the goys (VII, 112).
It is necessary to ensure that there are only proletarians in the state, and a few millionaire soldiers (119). It is necessary to achieve it so that, besides us, in all states there were and only masses of proletariat, a few millionaires loyal to us, policemen, and soldiers (VI, 114).
The falsifier, hired to present Jews as haters, did not always perform the task carefully. He carelessly read phrases from "Dialogue." Here are examples:

"Dialogue" by M. Joly

"Protocols"

It is necessary to incite revolutionary fermentation abroad, from one end of Europe to the other... This will give two advantages: liberal agitation abroad will help justify internal repressions. Moreover, this way all states can be subordinated and order or conflicts can be created in them as desired. It is also important to tangle all the threads of European politics with cabinet intrigues (119). In all Europe, and through its relations on other continents, we must create fermentation, discord, and enmity. In this there is a double benefit: first, by this we keep all countries in respect, knowing well that we are powerful to produce disorder or establish order as desired... Second, with intrigues we will tangle all the threads stretched by us into all government cabinets... (VII, 115).
The power I dream of... must attract all the forces and talents of civilization within which it exists. It must surround itself with publicists, lawyers, administrators (120). Our government must surround itself with all the forces of civilization among which it will have to act. It will surround itself with publicists, practicing lawyers, administrators... (VIII, 117).
Peoples harbor a huge secret love for cruel persecutions. Of all violent actions marked by talent, they speak with an enthusiasm that overrides any reproach: "True, this is not good, but it's clever, it's well done, it's powerful!" (129) The people harbor a special love and respect for geniuses of political power and respond to all their violent actions: "Mean—so mean, but clever!.. A trick, but how played, how majestic, how brazen!" (X, 121).
In Joly's work, Machiavelli predicts a coup d'état. This obviously refers to the coup of Napoleon III, carried out on December 2, 1851. The Russian author, however, attributes this coup to the "Zionist sages," without explaining how such a goal as a world coup can be achieved. Machiavelli goes further, and the police-falsifier invariably follows in his footsteps:

The coup d'état that I will carry out, I will ratify by popular vote. I will tell the people roughly this: "What happened was terrible, I destroyed all of it, I saved you, will you support me? You are free to condemn or justify me" (130). When we carry out our coup d'état, we will then say to the peoples: "Everything went terribly bad, everyone suffered. We are destroying the causes of your torments: nationalities, borders, currency differences... Of course, you are free to pronounce a verdict upon us..." (X, 121).
Machiavelli: With the help of voting without distinction of class and property census, I will establish absolutism with one stroke of the pen. Montesquieu: Yes, because by this census with one stroke you will also destroy the unity of the family... and call forth a multitude of blind forces that will act according to your will (130). ...we must bring ...we must bring ...we must bring differences of class and census to establish the absolutism of the majority. ...we will break the meaning of the goyish family... we will create such a blind power that it will never be able to move anywhere except under the guidance of our agents... (X, 121).
The voting Machiavelli speaks of is a transparent hint at the Napoleonic plebiscite. For his part, the author of the "Protocols" adds a monstrous absurdity—the "absolutism of the majority." The entire parliamentary system, to which the 10th and 11th protocols are dedicated, is copied from "Dialogue," and here again the not-so-smart falsifier leaves traces of his own work:

"Dialogue" by M. Joly

"Protocols"

Everywhere under different names, but almost with the same jurisdiction, one can find ministries, a senate, legislative bodies, a state council, a court of cassation [In Tsarist Russia there were no institutions corresponding to the French court of cassation, therefore it is not in the "Protocols". - Ed. note]. I will spare you from completely useless explanation regarding these forces, the secrets of which are known to you better than to me (132). Under different names in all countries exists roughly the same thing. Representation, Ministry, Senate, State Council, Legislative and Executive Corps. I do not need to explain to you the mechanism of relations between these institutions, as this is well known to you... (X, 122).
Like the god Vishnu, my press will have a thousand hands, and these hands will reach the most diverse shades of thought (153). They [newspapers], like the Indian deity Vishnu, will have a hundred hands, each of which will feel the pulse of any public opinion (XII, 130).

Земля нуля.
Все в ней нулево и кукольно.

Reading content in

Interface language