I received a link in an email from We Hold These Truths — A Strait Gate Ministry. One thing led to another, and I found myself reading this: Ron Paul and the .
Now, I'm not a Ron Paul "supporter." In fact, I've written what his supporters would called a scathing attack. Well, when Jesus called them serpents, of course they felt attacked. I'm not saying Ron Paul is a Pharisee, per se, but I have said he's not a Christian though he calls himself one. To be clear, I'm still working on being a Christian myself. I want to be one. I just know I'm still receiving the effect (punishment) of the cause that was my iniquitous (serpentine) behavior, sometimes that I actually thought was a blessing (confused).
I don't want to make this a huge post. Let me get to the point.
The David Horowitz site poster/author, Jeanette Pryor, takes Ron Paul's statements and juxtaposes them against passages from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which most people believe post-dates a pamphlet as follows:
Elements of the text in the Protocols were plagiarized from the 1864 book, Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu (Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu), written by the French satirist Maurice Joly. Joly's work attacks the political ambitions of Napoleon III using Machiavelli as a diabolical plotter in Hell as a stand-in for Napoleon's views. In the book, Machiavelli describes a series of steps that he intends to take to become ruler of the world.
Since it was illegal to criticize the monarchy, Joly had the pamphlet printed in Belgium, then tried to smuggle it back into France. The police confiscated as many copies as they could, and it was banned. After it was traced to Joly, he was tried on April 25, 1865, and sentenced to 15 months in prison at Sainte-Pelagie. Joly committed suicide in 1878.
The Joly book was in turn based on material borrowed from a popular novel of the time by EugÃ¨ne Sue titled The Mysteries of the People, in which those plotting to rule the world were the Jesuits instead of Napoleon III. Neither the Joly book nor the Sue book mentioned either Jews or Masons.
So, what's my point? The David Horowitz site poster/author, Jeanette Pryor, is suggesting that Ron Paul is overreaching (to put it politely). Jeanette writes, "There is no intent here to assert that Paul agrees with this anti-Semitic fabrication."
The point Jeanette wants us to accept, regardless, is that the Protocols are fake and Ron Paul's complaints against the neocons bear striking resemblance to the Protocols, so ... it is at least possible that the neocons are nothing as Ron Paul is painting them to be.
Here's the point though. Even if the Protocols were fabricated by the Russians, the Protocols were based upon a critique of Napoleon III, who was in fact rather despotic in many ways even though he did things many also consider to have been improvements, and they were also based upon the Jesuits, who were a military order (an oversimplification) out for Roman Catholic world dominance, including by military means if needs be.
So, just because Ron Paul's points can parallel the Protocols, that does not necessarily do what Jeanette Pryor was hoping to accomplish. What it does do is draw parallels between the neocons and what Joly claimed to see in the Napoleon III's regime and EugÃ¨ne Sue claimed to see in the Jesuits (if I understand Joly's and Sue's works).
The truth is that the neocons base their ideology largely on Leo Strauss. Much of what has followed Straussianism fits Ron Paul's description of the neocons. It's all documented. He's not making it up.