The Myth of “Democracy” and its Origins Part 1 (of a 2 Part Series)

The Beginning

 Democracy or representative government existed in various forms throughout the ages. The current form of democracy that we know today is very different from what was practiced in the past. This new “strain” entered the modern age in 1848-1850, in Europe.

Democracy Is an Ideal Government for Jewish Influence

Democracy has become a tool in the hand of that [Jewish] race that, because of its inner goals, must shun the open light—as it has always done and will always do. Only the Jew can praise an institution which is as corrupt and false as himself. —Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, circa 1924

Democracy is now currently defined in Europe as ‘a country run by Jews.’ — Ezra Pound, circa 1940.

  • Our current systems of government in the US, Canada, and Europe resemble true democracy in name only. What we have is a fake democracy, or “democracy,” which is used to placate and stupefy the masses so that they don’t question the current power structures of the West or seek alternatives. It has long been recognized that the US, for example, is far closer to an oligarchy (“rule by the rich few”) than to a populist democracy in which the will of the masses prevails. Crucially, though, the specific identities of those “rich few” are never examined. Apart from this, even in their very workings, the American (and Western) systems are a far cry from true democracy, as I will show.
  • Democracy is good for those who profit directly from it: the elite, the rich, celebrities, pop stars. But for the vast majority of people in the so-called democratic nations, the cost to their well-being is extraordinarily high—and largely unacknowledged.
  • There are in fact several alternatives to democracy, most of which are superior to it.  Even on the face of it, democracy, as a “rule by the people,” is actually mass-rule, or mob-rule; and everyone knows that the intellectual and moral level of the mass is very low indeed. A basic analysis of any campaign speech confirms this point.
  • Throughout history, there have been many variants on the democratic model, so to speak of ‘democracy’ as a single, clear idea is ridiculous. Nearly everyone who uses the term today, and certainly those in power, have no real idea of what the theory is.

But the central point here is that, above all, democracy is a means by which a small  minority—the Jews—have proven able to assume power, to acquire vast wealth, and to largely impose their will on a non-Jewish majority, all while keeping these facts largely hidden from view. “Democracy,” or rule by the people, is now a code word for “Judeocracy,” or rule by the Jews. How this came about is an enlightening story.

Democracy or “Democracy”?

When our leading figures speak of democracy, it is not clear what they mean—nor do I think they even know them what they mean. It is pointless to talk about things if we don’t even understand the words we are using. So here is a brief review, apologies to those already knowledgeable on these matters.

Real, original democracy was invented circa 550 BC by the ancient Greek legislator Cleisthenes, when he decided that “the people” (deme or demos) should be the ultimate ruling power in the city-state of Athens. Thus, the adult male citizens—not the women, not the foreign-born—regularly convened on a hilltop in Athens to debate the issues of the day, and to vote on various proposals, great and small; they did so openly and publicly. Notably, the people did not vote for individual leaders; nearly all leadership positions, including the leader of the Assembly (who was the de facto president of the polis), were selected by lot, at random, from among a group of citizen volunteers. Imagine that: your president chosen by lot! No campaigns, no ads, no bribery, no kickbacks, and no meaningless promises—just pull a name out of a hat. And it worked. The system had its pros and cons: on the one hand, governmental rule was simple, direct, and transparent; on the other, every uneducated, semi-ignorant man had an equal say to the wisest. It put the lesser men on a par with the greatest and best. And in doing so, “it grants a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.” But overall, it worked spectacularly well, and set the stage for the flourishing of Athenian culture over the next 300 years.

But as Athens grew in size and power, and as foreigners and slaves increased in number, the issues became more complex, the democratic process became more unwieldy, and the simple, direct democracy had a hard time adapting. Thus, leading thinkers like Aristotle, began to examine alternatives. Better than democracy, was oligarchy: rule by the (rich) few. They might be money-grubbers, but at least they had some management skills and a vested interest in the flourishing of the nation. Better still was timocracy, or rule by the honor-seekers. Rather than striving to build wealth, as the oligarchs would, timocrats would emphasize the honor and glory of the city-state; this was a very good option. But best of all was an aristocracy: rule by the best, meaning the wisest or the most just. An aristocracy could be a small group of wise men, or it could be a single wise individual; this was largely irrelevant. What was important was that you sought out, educated, and trained your wisest men, or man, and then you let them lead. And that is the best that humans can attain.

Democracy was a poor alternative, but there was one system even worse: tyranny. Democracy itself was already a sort of tyranny—of the pleasure-seekers, of the “majority”—but a formal tyrant, as a single man, could rule with impunity, enrich himself and his cronies, and bring ruin upon the nation. The tyrant was, in a sense, the mirror image of the wise, aristocratic philosopher-king of the best system. In both cases, a single man rules, but the tyrant is neither wise nor just, and has simply seized power by force; whereas the aristocratic ruler, by virtue of his wisdom and justice, rightly assumes power and exercises it with due care and discretion. Arguably, this is the system of governance in Russia today, and to a lesser extent, China. Both rulers are “autocrats,” in the language of our oligarchs, but Russia does have national elections in which multiple people are on the ballot. China has no elections for its president, but rather the 3,000-member National People’s Congress selects him. Modern democracy, it seems, is virtually designed to produce mediocre or incompetent leaders. And this is precisely what we get.

But to conclude the point: Modern “democracy” is scarcely anything like the Athenian original.

“Democracy” is marked by a number of characteristics that would have been appalling: it has universal suffrage (women, minorities, and foreign-born can vote); it is a representative system, not direct (we vote for senators and representatives, who in turn vote on issues); we vote for individuals, including the president; and corrupting money gushes through the system like a torrent—primarily Jewish money, as it turns out. When such people use the word ‘democracy,’ they literally do not know what they are talking about. Clearly, our modern-day “democracy” is something very different, something that has mutated from the noble Greek ideal, retaining only the name. Worse, it has become positively detrimental to national well-being.

Global State of Democracy

A number of groups track the state of democracy worldwide, the most prominent being the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) and their annual “Democracy Index.” They rate 167 nations (all those over 500,000 people) on a scale from 0 to 10. By this measure, 74 nations are some versions of democracy, representing 45% of the global population. And nearly the same proportion—about 40%—live under authoritarian systems, with the largest being China and Russia.

For 2023, the highest-rated nation was Norway (9.81) and the lowest was Afghanistan (0.26). The United States came in at 7.85 (“flawed”), down from 8.22 (“full”) in 2006.

We note a few relevant points here. Again, democracy is unquestioningly portrayed as good and positive. Its lone alternative, authoritarianism, is portrayed as negative and evil (and paired with the slanted word “regime”). Any movement toward authoritarianism is a “decline” or “downgrade” and any movement toward full democracy is an “improvement.” Sadly for the folks at the EIU, the global average fell in 2023 to a new all-time low of 5.23.

Significant too is the fact that the EIU is a thoroughly Jewish institution. It is run by the Economist Group, a British media company owned primarily by Exor and the Rothschild family. Exor is a Dutch holding company whose current CEO is the Jew John Elkann. We can thus understand the fixation and the moral valuation of democracy around the world; for Jews, it is an all-important issue.

The Jewish Angle

So, how do Jews fit in to this picture? Here we need a bit more history. Jews first came to prominence among Western power structures during the Roman Empire; they migrated to Rome and worked their way into positions of influence. As early as 59 BC, Cicero famously remarked on “how influential they are in informal assemblies.” In 35 BC, Horace, in one of his Satires, attempts to persuade the reader of a certain point: “and if you do not wish to yield, then … just like the Jews, we will compel you to concede to our crowd.” Evidently, their power of “persuasion” was notable, even back then. Emperor Tiberius expelled them from Rome in 19 AD, and in the year 41, Claudius issued a letter to the Alexandrians, blaming the Jews “for fomenting a general plague which infests the whole world.” He would expel them from Rome, once again, in 49.

Clearly the Jews were a prominent and troublesome minority. But in an empire, often with a hereditary lineage, they had virtually no ability to assume direct power. They corrupted various officials with their gold, and networked together to undermine enemies, but their influence was always indirect and constrained.

As Rome fell and Christianity rose to power, Jews again were shut out of the halls of power. Jews could acquire wealth through usury and finance, and could manipulate nobles through loans and financial favors, but their paths to political power were still largely blocked. European monarchies were hereditary, and the Church had its own rigid hierarchy that rigorously excluded non-Christians. A few ‘conversos’ or crypto-Jews—ethnic Jews who converted (honestly or otherwise) to Christianity—may have worked their way up to positions of power, but these were the exceptions. Democracy slowly reestablished itself in Europe from around the year 1000 AD, in such places as Iceland, the Isle of Man, and Sicily, but it was always in conjunction with monarchical rule. For the next several centuries, nascent European parliaments struggled for power against both their monarchs and the Church. It was a three-way battle, with no clear winner.

Modern, democratic parliaments first appeared in the 1200s in England and Scotland, and these surely would have become corrupted by Jewish influence, had the British Jews not been expelled by Edward I in the year 1290. England then remained essentially Jew-free for nearly 400 years, until Cromwell rescinded the expulsion edict in 1656. It was during those proto-democratic, Jew-free centuries that England attained many of her greatest triumphs, both in terms of culture and world influence.

In the United States, the creation of the country in 1776 and the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 established democracy there, but as with England during its Golden Age, there were few Jews—perhaps only 3,000 or so—and thus they could exert no real effect, other than as leading traders in slaves.  But their numbers grew steadily, and by 1855 there were around 50,000 Jews, representing about 0.2% of the total. This may seem small, and for any other minority it would be inconsequential, but once Jews exceed even 0.1% of a given population, corruption begins to set in. And indeed, by this time, America had its first Jewish representative (Lewis Levin) and its first Jewish senator (David Yulee); Jews were already making their presence felt in Washington. Jews were certainly active during the US Civil War, typically as agitators and profiteers. General William Sherman complained that Tennessee “swarms with dishonest Jews who will smuggle powder, pistols, percussion caps, etc. [to the enemy].” Ulysses S. Grant agreed, issuing two orders expelling “Jews, as a class” from Tennessee (which Lincoln countermanded). In the end, only a few hundred died in the war but many made fortunes. By the end of the war, American Jews numbered around 100,000, representing about 0.3% of the total. But they were soon to embark on an exponential growth; by 1940, America had some 4.8 million Jews, or about 3.9% of the total population—a recipe for total disaster.

In order for us to better understand how the international bankers came to dominate the world in the last 100 years, let’s go back in time to……

The Beginning

The present financial system, while recognizing private ownership, is based largely on interest. Money is a most fundamental tester of human character. Money will expose most people very deeply. All this is well known, but less well known is the process by which this power of money  has been brought under the absolute control of a small group of people. An integral part of that seizure of power is the process of obtaining complete political control of the world.

 Since historical times, money consisted of a coinage which had a value as a metal, was minted by the state, and issued debt-free. These coins were the principal medium of exchange. Gold and silver were the most acceptable metal for coinage. But gold had to be well protected by those who possessed large quantities of it. As trade developed from the 12th century onwards, it became customary to ask the local goldsmiths (who had the best strong-rooms and who were regarded as honest), to take care of their gold. So it was that the merchants kept their gold with these goldsmiths and, in return, were issued receipts by the goldsmith. As these receipts were INDIVIDUAL and not BEARER receipts, the risk of theft was cut down. Over a period of time, the goldsmith soon realized that he always had considerable stocks of gold on his hands, since it never happened that all his clients would ask for all their gold at the same time. The receipts issued by the goldsmiths were in themselves “forms of money “, since it was safer to carry, as well as transact trade. Traders used what was, in effect, an early cheque system, by giving these receipts to traders for goods.  The real dividing line between the old system and the new, the conception of modern finance, was determined by the following:

The goldsmiths, realizing that they held what was in effect “idle money”, decided to issue their own receipts as though it was backed by their own gold – THUS CREATING MONEY, and to lend the receipts as money, with interest. These receipts were often used to purchase real physical assets. The goldsmith issued receipts in EXCESS of his gold holdings, being aware of the fact – on the basis of long experience – that all of the receipts that he had issued would never be presented for gold at the same time. Consequently, his reputation for prompt payment on demand would remain unimpeded. While the goldsmith was lending his illegal money at interest, , and acquiring real wealth, the cost to him was nothing more than ink and paper. As a result he began to acquire land and property. It also enabled him to buy more gold, which enabled him to expand credit (by issuing more receipts).  The goldsmith net worth kept on increasing, using his clients gold as a foundation to start this fraudulent process.

 It will be easily understood that this discovery was bound to have global ramifications, with historical and political importance. The goldsmiths, now turned bankers, had discovered a formula by which they could acquire wealth with ease, and at a rate that no one else could match. The one condition for success was complete secrecy, along with the full backing of the state, so that the new method would be legalized and protected, and its monopoly maintained.

 Since gold is scare and the quantity mined is limited, it was impossible to make counterfeit money. It was only when the goldsmith realized he could issue more receipts than there was gold that he became a counterfeiter. He had the ability to inflate the money supply (by issuing more receipts than there was gold), and he frequently did this. This only worked for a short while; as the volume of receipts increased in circulation, money supply increased and the price of goods increased- as more money now chased the same amount of goods. The receipt holders began to lose confidence in their receipts (paper money), and returned them to the goldsmith to claim their gold. When more receipt holders showed up than there was gold, the goldsmith went bankrupt, and was frequently jailed, if not murdered, for the majority of goldsmiths were Jews. To avoid this, the Jewish goldsmith ran for his life, taking with him whatever wealth he could carry on his person. Since diamonds are the most potable form of wealth, it was only natural that the international diamond business remained in their hands; examples are the control of De Beers Diamonds by the Oppenheimer and Rothschild families.

 The people’s check on the goldsmiths acted as a restraint to the inflation of money (paper receipts). This limited the greed of the goldsmiths and forced them into looking for a better and safer way of increasing their wealth. The only way this could be done was to include the state into their scheme. With the backing of the State, their aim was to make their gold receipts as “legal tender”; and to prohibit the receipt holder from redeeming the receipts back into gold bullion. Thirdly, was to make all other paper receipts “counterfeit”, and finally, that gold could no longer be used as money.

 This posed an additional problem for the goldsmith, now turned banker. He now had to include the State in his scheme to increase his personal wealth and power. The leader of the State, or King, when approached by the bankers with this scheme, sometimes decided to eliminate the bankers altogether and operate the scheme for themselves. The bankers then were had to replace the King with someone the bankers felt could be trusted and controlled. This process was costly and extremely risky, but the enormity of the long-term wealth and power that could be accumulated by this method was worth all the extra hazards.

 Many times, the Kings themselves were clients of the goldsmiths/bankers. At times, the King could not repay these loans, and the King should often have these bankers killed. Since the Kings were Christian rulers, and the bankers being Jews, the justification for their murders was that these Jews killed Jesus Christ. And so, these Jewish bankers began the practice, known in politics, as the “king-maker, King-breaker” policy. If any King did not play ball, the bankers would finance a rival to become King, a rival on the payroll of the bankers.

It is in the nature of usury that it needs an ever-expanding market. The parasite cannot live indefinitely on one and the same victim only. He must continuously bring new ones into his net. On the other hand, the current order (political, economic, social, and religious) did not suit the plan of the bankers. For them to succeed, they must destroy all forms of existing order, and replace it with their own – the so-called NEW WORLD ORDER. It was essential to gain total control of all political entities, for the very existence of separate and independent political entities was intolerable to those who had discovered the key to world power. If religion taught men to obey moral laws incompatible with the wishes of the bankers, then every belief in God had to be eliminated or suppressed. The aim of personal material enrichment, or greed, had to be proclaimed as the only worthy aspiration. The schemes of the bankers had, at all times, to be carried out so as to take advantage of political changes and economic opportunities, and to orchestrate these adjustments, and even violent events, which would pave their way for the “next phase”. The bankers had to take many such steps in order to achieve their goals- a State-backed central bank.

The Jewish Conquest of Europe Begins

In the 8th Century, Christian Spain fell to the Muslims. Many Jews (of the Sephardic branch-those who originate in the Middle East) followed the Muslims into Spain. Many Jews became advisors to the Muslim rulers, and occupied key positions as tax collectors, as Finance Ministers, and as administrators. From these positions, more power was acquired, and their influence was increased.

 When Muslim-ruled Spain fell to the Christians in 1494, the majority of the Muslims were expelled from Spain. Two years later, the Jews followed the Muslims. The Jews were more hated than the Muslims, as they saw a Muslim conqueror, and a Jewish administrator. As previously noted, the ruling and governing body of the Jews was the Talmudic Council (which moved to Spain from the Middle East in 780 with the conquest by the Muslims), was based in Toledo, Spain. This Talmudic Council then re-located its base to Eastern Poland in 1497, where it would remain till 1773, when it moved to Frankfurt, Germany, and renamed itself the Illuminati Council. The Jewish bankers instead moved to Holland, at that time a colony of Spain, and re-established themselves in Amsterdam.

The Levant Trading Company to the Dutch East India Company

By the late 1500s, Holland broke away from Spain. Within that time period, these goldsmiths or bankers grew strong roots in Amsterdam.  When the nascent Ottoman Empire conquered Constantinople in 1453, it disrupted the flow of trade between China and Europe – along the legendary Silk Route. Venice was at the western end of this trade route. Business declined so much that the main company dealing in the Silk Route trade abandoned Venice and moved to Amsterdam.

     And In 1602, the Levant Trading Company now became the Dutch East India Company (the DEIC), with a charter from the state to conduct business in Asia.  The Levant trading Company from Venice and Genoa were historically traders. Now, with their re-location to Amsterdam, they became bankers, financing the Dutch East India Company. In this venture, they teamed up with the Jewish bankers who had fled Spain in the late 1490s. Instead of relying on trade conducted by land, many European nations began to trade via the sea routes.

 In 1609, these Levant and Jewish bankers then formed the Bank of Amsterdam- the world’s first central bank. With a central bank and a State-chartered company, the Dutch began its rise to becoming a colonial power.  DEIC became the world’s first formally listed public company.  It was influential in the rise of corporate-led globalisation in the early modern period. In many respects, modern-day corporations are all the ‘direct descendants’ of the DEIC model. It was their 17th century institutional innovations and business practices that laid the foundations for the rise of giant global corporations in subsequent centuries – as a highly significant and formidable socio-politico-economic force of the modern-day world – to become the dominant factor in almost all economic systems today. They also served as the direct model for the organisational reconstruction of the British East India Company in 1657. The Company, for nearly 200 years of its existence (1602–1800), had effectively transformed itself from a corporate entity into a state or an empire in its own right.

 With increasing importance of foreign posts, the Company is often considered the world’s first true transnational corporation. To further its trade routes, the DEIC-funded exploratory voyages revealed largely unknown landmasses to the western world. DEIC navigators and cartographers helped shape geographical knowledge of the world as we know it today. In 1799, all assets were taken over by the government with DEIC territories becoming Dutch government colonies.

Target England

Holland was situated on continental Europe. Although its economy was now booming, it faced a hefty military bill as it was forced to have a large standing army to defend itself from land invasions, along with a huge navy to conquer foreign lands for trade. It could do one, but not both. Dutch Jewish finance found a solution to this dilemma – England. England was an island, with a capable population, good climate, rich, good seamen and fighters, along n efficient administration. It would make an ideal base. But, the one problem was that England was run by a Catholic monarchy.  Before we go onto how Jewish finance took over England, we need to make a small, but important detour.

The Birth of Protestantism

 In Europe, between the 9th and 18th Century, Jews were routinely attacked, killed, and expelled. All of this was a reaction to the cruelty of Jewish moneylenders, their practice of satanic rituals, and the Christian belief that the Jews killed Jesus (pbuh).

 To reduce the power of the Church, the Talmudic Government aimed to destroy Christianity in Europe, along with the monarchy system. In 1501, the Talmudists appointed a Swiss Jewish secret agent by the name of Cohen, who changed his name to John Calvin- in order to disguise his Jewish identity. He preached a new religion, first called Calvinism. As the idea grew into a religion protesting the old order of the Church- it changed into what we now know as the Protestant religion! Calvin moved throughout Europe, supported by the covert network of the Talmudic government.

 Another Jew, Huldrich Zwingle became a reformer like Cohen. It was he who set Zurich on the path to becoming a world banking center. He denied that lending money on interest was a sin. Luther, another Swiss Jew stated that it was sinful for a Christian to lend money. While the Catholic Church did not fully lift its injunction against lending money until 1836 (when the Rothschilds lent money to the Pope), capital markets and banks began to function almost as soon as these changes made large scale investments possible.

 The Talmudic Government followed the policy of “divide-and –rule” in respect to the Catholic Church, and they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. In short, the Protestant religion was an invention of Jewish finance!

 The English Revolution

 The leading Jewish banker in Amsterdam was a man called Solomon Medina. Using Amsterdam as a base Jewish financial power was directed towards England and the destruction of the ruling Stuart Dynasty. How this came about is a long story, and here we will do a short version.

Jewish finance succeeded in weakening of the Catholic Church in England. They imposed their new false religion, Protestantism, over England and the installation of their agent, Cromwell, to the leadership position. Solomon’s main agents in this plot were Menessah ben Israel and Oliver Cromwell.

 Between 1600 and 1650, England was thrown into internal turmoil and external wars with both Holland and France. At the conclusion of war between England and Holland in 1674, the Jewish bankers elevate plain William Stradholder to the rank of Captain General of the Dutch military, and he became known as William, Prince of Orange. A few years later he marries Princess Mary of England, and after much intrigue, in 1689, William of Orange and Mary become the King and queen of England. From them follows the British House of Windsor.

The Bank of England

 To recoup the cost of financing all the events leading to the takeover of the English throne, the new King of England, Prince William, grants Solomon Medina and his nominees a bank charter. This bank charter became established in 1694 as the Bank of England. The monies loaned over the years, !.25 million pounds, constituted the Bank’s capital.

 The Jewish bankers never intended that England be allowed to pay off the debt. Their plan was to create international conditions which would plunge the European nations deeper into debt. In 4 years, from 1694 to 1698, the national debt increased from 1.25 million pounds to 16 million pounds. The debt accumulated because of wars. The events leading up to the French Revolution show how, between 1698 and 1815, the English national debt increased to 85 million pounds.

 In 1744, English Prime Minister Peel passed a law through Parliament which effectively gave the Bank of England monopoly powers to issue and control the value of currency.

 Over the next 5 decades, the Jewish financiers in London plotted and planned the take-down of the French monarchy. With the French Revolution of 1789, they succeeded. Remember the Talmudic government had transferred its headquarters from Poland to Frankfurt, Germany in 1773. 25 years later, this force, in conjunction with Anglo-Dutch finance brought about the French Revolution. And six years after this event, Nathan Rothschild –in 1895- moves to London. A few years later, his youngest brother-Jacob- moves to Paris. The scene is now set up for the next act.

The story continues in Part 2 – – –

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Posts by Month