Jews and European Democracy
Back in Europe, Jews pressed for democratic “reforms” in all major nations, suspecting or knowing that they could use this system to finally circumvent the fundamental limitations to their power posed by monarchies and the Church. And a major turning point in the advent of democracy was the French Revolution. That event “came to constitute the myth of origin, the birthdate of a new existence” for European Jewry. In the words of Vladimir Moss, “it was the French Revolution that gave the Jews the opportunity to burst through into the forefront of world politics for the first time since the fall of Jerusalem.” “The Revolution was a climatic period for French Jews,” “it marked the beginning of their political emancipation.”
At the dawn of the Revolution in 1789, there were about 40,000 Jews in France, or about 0.1% of the total—just at that threshold at which serious trouble begins. After the formation of the newly-democratic National Assembly, there were vigorous debates about what do to with France’s Jews. Jew-defenders lobbied on their behalf, and thanks to pressure from wealthy French Jews the Assembly eventually agreed to give Jews full and equal civil rights on 27 September 1791. Louis XVI signed the decree into law the next day. Armed, for the first time, with full civil rights, French Jews evidently decided that they could now act with impunity, and with a true revolutionary fervor., “For the first time, a new archetype, which had always existed in embryonic form, began to emerge from the shadows: the revolutionary Jew. … In 1793–4, Jewish Jacobins set up a revolutionary regime in Saint Esprit, the Jewish suburb of Bayonne. Once again, as during the Reformation, traditionalists saw a sinister link between the Torah [i.e., the Old Testament] and subversion.”
And indeed, it would not be long before the coming of the Reign of Terror—a year-long period of particularly bloody reprisals that ran from summer 1793 to summer 1794. Casualty figures vary, but between 15,000 and 45,000 people lost their lives that year, many in the guillotine. And the Jewish-influenced Jacobins led the charge. Many Frenchmen of the day sincerely believed that, in granting the Jews full civil rights, that they would now cease to operate as a Jewish nation and live like true Frenchmen. This, sadly, was a naïvely mistaken view. Napoleon came to power in 1799 as the first great leader of the young Republic, and he quickly learned a hard lesson: “that kindness towards the Jews does not make them more tractable.” Russian military historian Aleksandr Nechvolodov described the situation this way:
Since the first years of the Empire, Napoleon I had become very worried about the Jewish monopoly in France and the isolation in which they lived in the midst of the other citizens, although they had received citizenship. The reports of the departments showed the activity of the Jews in a very bad light: “Everywhere there are false declarations to the civil authorities; fathers declare the sons who are born to them to be daughters. … Again, there are Jews who have given an example of disobedience to the laws of conscription; out of 69 Jews who, in the course of six years, should have formed part of the Moselle contingent, none has entered the army.”
By 1805, Napoleon was fed up with the Jews. He issued this blistering rebuke in the State Council address of April 30:
“The French government cannot look on with indifference as a vile, degraded nation capable of every iniquity takes exclusive possession of two beautiful departments of Alsace; one must consider the Jews as a nation and not as a [religious] sect. It is a nation within a nation; I would deprive them, at least for a certain time, of the right to take out mortgages, for it is too humiliating for the French nation to find itself at the mercy of the vilest nation. Some entire villages have been expropriated by the Jews; they have replaced feudalism. … It would be dangerous to let the keys of France, Strasbourg, and Alsace fall into the hands of a population of spies who are not at all attached to the country”.
All this, then, as a classic lesson in Jewish manipulation of democratic rights and privileges. Looking back with the benefit of hindsight and some historical perspective, “the only group the Revolution has protected is the Jews.”
Into the Twentieth Century
And apart from revolution, what, exactly, did European Jews do with their new, hard-won democratic privileges? They acquired wealth and political influence. Of the estimated 150 billion francs in total wealth in France at the time, “Jews possess at least 80 billion”— or a bit over half. A remarkable assertion, but one that, even if exaggerated, certainly indicates that Jews had enough wealth to achieve powerful influence in democratic France.
Throughout democratic Europe, Jews used their wealth to leverage politicians, to buy clout, to acquire news media, and to take positions of power directly, through popular elections. By the time of the Napoleonic wars between England and France (circa 1810), the Rothschild banking firm was funding, and profiting from, both sides of the war. By 1850, England had some 40,000 Jews and was just crossing the critical 0.1% threshold; by 1868, they had their first Jewish prime minister in Benjamin Disraeli. By 1869, composer Richard Wagner could complain of a European press “entirely directed by Jews.” By 1873, writer Frederick Millingen could write meaningfully and factually of “the conquest of the world by the Jews.” This is what modern democracy has meant to the Jews: vast wealth and global domination—wonderful for them, disastrous for everyone else.
“Democratic America” was a real Jewish paradise by 1900. The Jewish population had crossed 1 million, on its way to 2 million by 1910 and 3.5 million by 1920. Teddy Roosevelt—who “stated twice that his ancestors were Jewish”—became president in 1901, owing to the convenient assassination of William McKinley. Teddy named Oscar Straus to his cabinet in 1906, the first Jew to hold such a position. The next president, William Taft, tried to hold the line on Jewish power, but failed; by December 1911, American Jews had such a grip on Congress that they rammed through the abrogation of the long-standing US-Russia trade pact, overriding Taft’s veto threat. And in 1912, “their man” Woodrow Wilson would become president, furthering Jewish interests on several fronts. We should never forget Wilson’s fateful words, uttered upon throwing America into World War I in April 1917: “The world must be made safe for democracy.” Indeed—for the “democracy” of Jewish power.
Only Germany was able to fend off the Judeo-democratic surge of the nineteenth century. The German Confederation of independent and monarchical states, from 1815 to 1871, largely managed to avoid the democratic movements that were running through Europe. Germany became a united state—actually, an empire—in 1871, governed by Kaiser Wilhelm I and Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Wilhelm II took power in 1888, holding it until Germany’s loss in World War I in 1918.
Germany’s 300,000 Jews had been agitating against the emperor for years, and were surely anxious to implement the “democratic” reforms that had led to fabulous Jewish success in other nations. During World War I, Jewish revolutionaries fought for the overthrow of the Kaiser; notable activists were Rosa Luxemburg. Upon Germany’s surrender and the abdication of the Kaiser, other Jews, like Walter Rathenau, took charge and created the new, “democratic” Weimar regime. Thus began 15 years of Jewish rule in Germany.
Unsurprisingly, such a turn of events struck a number of Germans badly, including one Adolf Hitler, who was a young man of 29, just out of the trenches, when the Jews took control. From his years in Vienna, he already knew firsthand of the pernicious effect of Jews on society, but now he was seeing it play out at the highest levels—in the ability to oust the Kaiser, to impose defeat on the German nation, and to take power. Within three years, inflation began to destroy the German economy, and the hyperinflation of 1922 and 1923 obliterated all personal savings and made daily life impossible. But at least Germany was a (Jewish) democracy. In Mein Kampf, written in 1924 and 1925, Hitler offered a remarkably insightful critique of democracy. From an initially innocent view of the goodness of democracy, he began to study the parliamentary system in Vienna and was appalled at what he saw. The ideas of mass-elected officials, who are, at best, knowledgeable in one or two relevant areas, are called on to make decisions in all areas of governmental concern. Worse, thanks to “majority rule,” parliamentarians can hide behind majority decisions and thus avoid all sense of personal responsibility.
At one point in the text, Hitler even connects the evils of democracy with those of Communism:
“Western democracy, as practiced today, is the forerunner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would be inconceivable without the former. Democracy is the breeding ground in which the virus of the Communist world-pest can grow and spread. By the introduction of parliamentarianism, democracy produced an ‘abomination of filth and fire’—the creative fire of which, however, seems to have died out”.
Both (modern) democracy and Communism reflect Jewish phenomena that are conducive to Jewish power; both are materialistic and agnostic or aspiritual; both raise mediocre or malicious people to positions of power: both are ‘universal’ in the sense that they are not grounded in specific peoples or specific nations; and both are destructive of human well-being.
The “king-maker, king-breaker” Policy
For centuries there has been big money to be made by international bankers in the financing of governments and kings. Such operators are faced with certain thorny problems. We know that smaller banking operations protect themselves by taking collateral, but what kind of collateral can you get from a government, or a king?
What if the banker comes to collect and the king says, “Off with his head “? The process through which one collects a debt from a government or a king is not a subject taught in business schools, and most of us – never having been in the business of financing kings – have not given the problem much thought. But there is a king-financing business, and to those who can ensure collection, it is lucrative indeed.
There are two means used to collaterize loans to kings and governments. Whenever a business firm borrows big money, its creditor obtains a voice in management to protect his investment. Like a business, no government can borrow big unless willing to surrender to the creditor some measure of sovereignty as collateral. Certainly, as we now know, international bankers who have loaned hundreds of billions of dollars to governments around the world, command considerable influence in the policies of such governments.
But the ultimate advantage the creditor has over the king or president is that if the ruler gets out of line, the banker can finance his enemy or rival. Therefore, if you want to stay in the lucrative king-financing business, it is wise to have an enemy or rival waiting in the wings to unseat every king or president to whom you lend. If the king doesn’t have one, you must create one.
Prominent in playing this game was the famous House of Rothschild. Its founder, Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812) of Frankfurt, Germany -the same city that the Talmudic Government re-located to after moving away from Poland in 1773, and where the first meeting of this government – now rebranded as The Illuminati Council had their historic first meeting, from which emerged their blue-print on how to attain global power and dominance –the infamous Protocols of Zion. Meyer kept one of his 5 sons at home to run the Frankfurt branch and sent the others to London, Paris, Vienna and Italy. The Rothschilds became incredibly wealthy by financing governments to fight each other.
If you look back at every war in Europe during the 19th century, you will see that they always ended up with the establishment of a “Balance of Power”. With every re-shuffling there was a balance of power in a new grouping around the House of Rothschild in Britain, France, Germany or Italy. They grouped nations so that if any king got out of line, a war would break out and the war would be decided by which the financing went. Researching the debt positions of the warring nations will usually indicate who was to be punished. The Rothschilds remained different from ordinary bankers in several ways; they were international – not tied to any one country, so that no government or king could nationalize, threaten, jail or kill them; they were close to governments and were focused on government debt, including foreign government debt. They were close to governments. These bankers came to be called “international bankers”.
One major reason for the historical blackout on the role of international bankers in political history is that the Rothschilds are Jewish. The family formed an entity called the Anti-Defamation League, or the ADL, as an instrument to try to convince everyone that any mention of the Rothschilds, Zionism or their allies is an attack on all Jews. In this way they have stifled almost all honest scholarship on international bankers and made the subject taboo in universities and the media. Any individual or book exploring this subject is immediately attacked by the ADL. The ADL has never let truth or logic interfere with its highly professional smear jobs. When no evidence is apparent, the ADL accuses them of being “anti-Semites”.
Since the keystone of the international banking empires has been government bonds, it has been in the interest of these bankers to encourage government debt. The higher the debt the more the interest. Nothing drives government deeply into debt like a war. It has been a common practice for bankers to finance both sides of wars.
But while wars and revolutions have been useful to the bankers in gaining or increasing control over governments, the key to such control has always been control of money. You can control a government if you have it in your debt; a creditor is in a position to demand the privileges of monopoly from the sovereign. Money-seeking governments have granted monopolies in state banking, natural resources, oil concessions and transportation. However, the monopoly over which these bankers most covet is control over a nation’s money. Eventually, these international bankers actually owned as private corporations the central banks of the various European nations, such as the Bank of England, the Bank of France, and so on. Once the government is in debt to the bankers it is at their mercy.
Today, most of the central banks in the world are owned by the Rothschild family and its allies- and all control of these central banks are centralized by the “mother bank” – the BIS, for which we have explained in earlier articles. When the Austrian Rothschilds hired Karl Marx to wrote a blueprint for conquest called “The Communist Manifesto”, the 5th plank read , : “ Centralization of credit in the hands of the state , by means of a central bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly “. The Rothschilds know that you cannot take control of a nation without military force unless that nation has a central bank through which you can control its economy. The Rothschilds set up their own front man in charge of each of the world’s central banks.
How Communism was created by the Rothschilds
By the mid-1820s, the family found great resistance from the rulers, kings, monarchs and Christian bankers in Europe, who felt that these “Jew” bankers were entering areas that they had no place in. Many kings barred the family from doing business with them. Or if they did, it was always grudgingly. Many a times, the family got the “short-end” of the stick. This was a major problem for the family. How to get rid of these pesky rulers, and replace them with another form of government which would be easier to control?
After discussing this within the family over the past decade, they prepared a revolutionary plan. And, this is how it went about. Communism was in fact founded by another branch of the Rothschilds-the Vienna branch in the 1830s. More to the point, via a representative parliamentarian form of democracy, outside forces, particularly wealthy individuals and organizations can intervene and strongly influence who is elected or how those elected act. Either way, democracy becomes “a tool in the hand” of the Jewish group interests as Hitler said; and even better, Jewry can do so from the background, hidden away, out of sight, “shunning the open light.” Combined with a control of the major media—as is the case today in the US and most of Europe—Jews can remain almost entirely invisible to the broader public and thus act with relative impunity. And this is so, even if a few well-informed individuals know otherwise.
Thus we can see that modern democracy perfectly serves Jewish interests. The “freedom” and rights granted to Jews allow them to accrue vast wealth. With this wealth in hand, they can then (a) buy controlling interests in mass media, and (b) buy politicians, who in turn do their bidding. Via the mass media, they then hide their own roles and hide their effect on politicians, keeping the public confused and in the dark about the manipulations of their political system. Pro-Jewish candidates are the only ones taken seriously (by the Jewish media and pro-Jewish politicians) and thus are the only ones in a position to win elections. The masses then vote under conditions of either ignorance, fear, resignation, or despair. The system of Jewish democracy, or Judeo-cracy, thus reinforces and solidifies itself, locking in its gains and blocking any individuals or groups who might pose a threat to this system.
This was certainly the case in Europe by the start of World War II. The major “democratic” nations of England and France (pre-1940) were largely under Jewish control. By contrast, there were several non-democratic and quasi-fascist European leaders that managed to keep their Jewish populations in check; these included Dollfuss in Austria, Pétain in France (post-1940), Metaxas in Greece, Quisling in Norway, Salazar in Portugal, Antonescu in Romania, Tisoof in Slovakia, and Franco in Spain. So there was in fact a close correlation between a nation being “democratic” and its being under Jewish control. American poet Ezra Pound was not far from the mark when he wrote “Democracy is now currently defined in Europe as ‘a country run by Jews.’” After their victory in World War II, democratic Jews rode the wave of success, consolidating their control and accruing even more wealth. “Democratic America”- the “balance wheel” in international politics would now be the means to exercise Jewish control over vast regions of the world.
A Way Forward
If my preceding analysis is even close to correct, then there are some obvious measures that could remedy the situation. First, we need to get over our fixation on democracy. The once-noble concept has been hopelessly corrupted by Jewish influence and now serves their interests above all, at the expense of working people and the middle class. Democracy today is indeed “rule by the Jews,” and the more democracy we have, the more entrenched becomes Jewish power.
Second, we therefore need to seriously consider non-democratic options, including “authoritarianism.” At the present time, nothing is more dangerous to America, to the West, and to the world than Judeo-democracy; therefore, no task is more urgent than undermining it and replacing it with something else. Judeo-democracy has become a Jewish tyranny, and nothing—nothing—is worse than this. Any alternative would be an improvement, and some options would be vast improvements. When you are at the bottom of the barrel, every road is up.
Third, we can consider retaining some aspects of our current political system, but only with drastic modifications. It is absurd, for example, to have elections in which literally every adult can vote; this brings us back to the state of mob-rule. There have to be restrictions: competency tests, educational standards, land- or property-owning qualifications, etc And, votes should once again be a matter of public record; if nothing else, this would put an end to all attempts at vote-rigging and the “stealing” of elections.
Fourth, accept that strong measures will be needed to break the back of Jewish power in the West. This has been true for millennia. And yet, time and again, strong leaders and strong movements have found ways to make it happen. Any nation wishing to be free from corrupting Jewish influence will likely require many fewer Jews than they have today. Recall my 0.1% threshold: this sets the target that nationalist groups should openly strive for.
And fifth, as always, get educated, speak up, organize. Become a knowledgeable critic of the Judeocracy. Raise your voice in support of those rare groups and individuals willing to oppose it.
No matter what you currently know about Jewish power, no matter how bad you think the situation is, it is worse than you know. The world stands on the brink of several multinational wars, thanks to Jewish-inspired aggression. Jewish corruption contaminates virtually every aspect of modern life: economy, government, academia, culture, environment, education. Everything is debased; nothing remains untouched. Consider what Henry Ford had to say about this situation—in 1921: “If you could put a tag marked ‘Jewish’ on every part of your life that is Jew-controlled, you would be astonished at the showing.” In 1921. How much worse today, 100 years later? The fractures are starting to widen between Israel and their minions in Washington.
China and North Korea are the most Juden-frei countries on Earth and the countries that are opposed to them are the most Juden-infested. Democracy, as the Jews understand it, means that the Jewish criminal mafia can exploit the majority with impunity.
As with everything the Jews touch, there’s devaluation, infantilization, and the dumbing down of every concept: for the uneducated masses, democracy is a magic word, a mantra.
It’s a Western piece of ignorance that ‘democracy’ was ‘founded in ancient Greece’ … Genuine democracy was quite known as a practice in ancient India in some of its various societies, and with much less of the slavery problem poisoning the West, only a ‘caste’ system that was more flexible than in more recent India. Also, there’s a mistake in an excessive focus on ‘the Jews’ or in general on problems
The core problem in fact is oligarchism … and many of the oligarchs in any given society are genetically of the same ethnos as the majority or dominant plurality. Where the influence of Jews (or any other foreign group) is strong, it is because they have seduced or built an alliance with the existing oligarchy … this is always fragile, so Jews are always at core ‘insecure’ despite wealth, power etc.
In the USA where something like 40% of billionaires are Jewish, the majority 60% are essentially euro-white ancestry people … who intrinsically have the power to knock out Jewish influence … but they do not do so … though this is a last-ditch option to keep power when things get too rough for even local co-ethnic oligarchs. The permanent bureaucracy, the nuts and bolts machinery of state, is where power is held. The framing around that machine does not matter; the machine can be painted any color the ruling elite class want and be called anything they want because it is the function of the machine—and their oversight of it—that matters. That is their power.
Representative Democracy Is an Ideal Government for Jewish Influence
Instead of a mass of people you need to control, you only need to control the few representatives through effectively bribery and through institutional grooming. Britain is a nuclear power with a population of around 60m. But it only takes a few millions to effectively take over the Labor party over the last 20-30 years. The current leader’s only qualification is his being a tool for the Israel lobby.
But direct democracy shows a better chance. There you need to fully control the media too. It can also be undermined but with much greater difficulty and price.
Democracy is Jew government
“Democracy is the dictatorship of stupid people.” ~Friedrich von Schiller.
But the central point here is that, above all, democracy is a means by which a small, invasive 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 “Judeo-cracy,” or rule by the Jews.
We don’t actually live in a democracy. We live in a Judeo-fascist dictatorship. So many of the oligarchs, apparatchiks and commissars are Jewish and Zionist, and have dumbed down and manufactured the consent of the people to such an extent that most people simply can’t fathom this reality.
The Interest System & Democracy
One obvious fact in the last century has shown that there is a difference in conflicts that involve so-called democratic nations against non-democratic nations. Let me explain.
All those nations that have legislated the use of interest-based banking and financial systems NEVER experience wars, especially civil wars. Civil wars tend to destroy infrastructure, manufacturing and mining entities. This is so because most of it has been bonded to the banks. The bankers will never allow their “collateral and assets” to be destroyed. Rather in these countries, we witness inflation, deflation, and economic recessions. Countries that fall into this category are those in the Collective West (Zone A) and their vassals such as South Africa, Brazil, Kenya, South Korea, Japan, etc.
Compare this to those nations that do not have interest legislated into law. The majority of their infrastructure and mining and manufacturing entities are not bonded to the banks. In these cases, we have violent civil wars and great damage to infrastructure. Countries that fall into this category are Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and Syria.
When South Africa was holding its first elections in 1994, many were fearful that the country would descend into a violent civil war. I assured many of my followers that the country would witness one of the most peaceful elections in the world. And, so it came to pass. How did we know this? We know this by applying the principle of “democracy”. South Africa was also a “democratic” country even under apartheid. Why? Because our economic and financial system was the western model of interest system being law. Thus, no major destruction to property and business entities.
Democracy-The American Version
In 1948, the US was the dominant global power. The Kings of America-the Rockefeller brothers -had designed the shape of the post-war landscape by establishing a new global security system, with the establishment of the UN, the World Bank, the IMF and NATO. These had all emerged from the War and Peace Studies project financed by the Rockefeller Foundation between 1939 and 1941.
One of the aims of the US State Dept and the UN was to bring about the independence of the colonies of European powers in Africa and Asia. These colonies were mostly under the control of the Rothschilds through Britain and France. The family wanted them to move from the Rothschild orbit and into the Rockefeller orbit. Many nationalists in these colonies got taken in by the American slogans of “, democracy and human rights “, etc. Thus, the stage was set. As these former colonies became independent, they were quickly admitted into the UN, and soon were enmeshed within the US financial and economic system.
In 1948, George Kennan, a senior State Dept official, stated that – – – “- – We have about 50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3 % of its population. This disparity is particularly great between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national; security. To do this, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming.”
“We should dispense with the aspiration to “be liked”. We should stop putting ourselves in the position of being our brothers’ keeper and refrain from offering moral and ideological advice. We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better”.
But, the family continued using the slogans. “Freedom, democracy, liberty and equality”, to fool the masses, and their leaders in the 3rd World. This attitude changed after the fall of the Soviet Union, and China became more capitalistic. The ideological war ended and the economic war began, and the use of the NATO/US fist began making its entrance. Now, the US is dealing with straight power concepts.
Likewise, recall what Churchill stated in 1946; “The days of the Empire ruling through force must now give way to an Empire ruled through the mind – the Empires of the Mind, as it’s more cost-effective and produces longer-lasting positive results”. Even internally, the citizens of America have now woken up to the fact that “democracy” in the US is a myth and a con. The very fact of their senators, etc., going all out in spending nearly $300 billion on Ukraine and another $20-30 billion on Israel- both highly unpopular wars for the average American, while disregarding the dire economic, social and educational needs of its own citizens, has brought home this fact like no other. Practically, the fact that most of the elected senators and congressmen in the US work for the Zionist lobby, is not hidden anymore. This leaves the Americans highly distrustful of their political system. At this rate, the US is fast descending into a dictatorship and military rule, with limited freedom and a communist-style government. And this, then, will fully expose the myth and con of democracy foisted on the world by these two families-the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers.
Our next article deals with Gaza and Ukraine. Stay tuned till then.
