[D]emocracy has grow to be a software within the hand of that [Jewish] race that, due to its interior objectives, should shun the open mild—because it has at all times finished and can at all times do. Solely the Jew can reward an establishment which is as corrupt and false as himself.
—Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, circa 1924Democracy is now at the moment outlined in Europe as ‘a rustic run by Jews.’
—Ezra Pound, circa 1940
In his current State of the Union speech, Joe Biden referred to “democracy” practically a dozen instances. Democracy, he stated, was at the moment “underneath assault” and “underneath assault”; the January 6 riot put a “dagger to [its] throat” and was its “gravest risk.” In consequence, democracy “have to be defended”; and certainly, we should “embrace” it. Or so says our doddering president.
Our polyracial vice chairman speaks in an analogous vein. Concerning Donald Trump, Kamala Harris informs us that “we should acknowledge the profound risk he poses…to our democracy.” This has been a recurrent message from her for years. When she was working for president herself again in 2019, she known as Trump “a transparent and current hazard to democracy”—and the theme has by no means left her aspect.
Mainstream media is not any higher. The fixed banter, on each the left and the suitable, is that democracy is all, democracy is underneath risk (by candidate X), and democracy have to be protected and defended, irrespective of the fee. The Atlantic tells us that Trump poses “a systemic risk to democracy.” Trump, in flip, calls Biden “a destroyer of democracy.” On and on it goes. Democracy, it appears, is all-important, the very essence of America, and that one factor to which all else should yield. It’s, stated Biden, a “sacred trigger”; democracy is our secular faith and our secular god, all rolled into one.
Notably, there are a number of assumptions right here, and a number of other factors unspoken, which solid a complete new mild on our beloved and “sacred” democracy. Of particular significance are 4 assumptions, all of that are false. These are:
- We really have
- Democracy is an efficient factor.
- The one different to democracy is authoritarianism.
- “Democracy” is a transparent and apparent idea.
Once more, all 4 of those are false, and subsequently the present left-right worship of democracy collapses right into a pile of nonsense. I focus on all these points under, however in short: (1) Our present programs of presidency within the US, Canada, and Europe resemble true democracy in identify solely. What we have now is a faux democracy, or “democracy,” which is used to placate and stupefy the plenty in order that they don’t query the present energy buildings of the West or search alternate options. It has lengthy been acknowledged that the US, for instance, is way nearer to an oligarchy (“rule by the wealthy few”) than to a populist democracy by which the desire of the plenty prevails. Crucially, although, the particular identities of these “wealthy few” are by no means examined. Other than this, even of their very workings, the American (and Western) programs are a far cry from true democracy, as I’ll present.
(2) Democracy is nice for many who revenue instantly from it: the elite, the wealthy, celebrities, pop stars. However for the overwhelming majority of individuals within the so-called democratic nations, the fee to their well-being is very excessive—and largely unacknowledged.
(3) There are the truth is a number of alternate options to democracy, most of that are superior to it—at the least, if we imagine our wisest thinkers on this matter. Even on the face of it, democracy, as a “rule by the individuals,” is definitely mass-rule, or mob-rule; and everybody is aware of that the mental and ethical stage of the mass could be very low certainly. A fundamental evaluation of any marketing campaign speech confirms this level.
(4) All through historical past, there have been many variants on the democratic mannequin, so to talk of ‘democracy’ as a single, clear concept is ridiculous. Almost everybody who makes use of the time period at present, and definitely these in energy, haven’t any actual concept of what the speculation is.
However the central level right here is that, above all, democracy is a way by which a small, invasive minority—the Jews—have confirmed in a position to assume energy, to accumulate huge wealth, and to largely impose their will on a non-Jewish majority, all whereas preserving these info largely hidden from view. “Democracy,” or rule by the individuals, is now a codeword for “Judeocracy,” or rule by the Jews. How this happened is an enlightening story.+
Democracy or “Democracy”?
When our main figures communicate of democracy, it’s not clear what they imply—nor do I believe they even know themselves what they imply. It’s pointless to speak about issues if we don’t even perceive the phrases we’re utilizing. So here’s a transient evaluation; apologies to these already educated on these issues.
Actual, authentic democracy was invented circa 550 BC by the traditional Greek legislator Cleisthenes, when he determined that “the individuals” (deme or demos) must be the last word ruling energy (kratos) within the city-state of Athens. Thus, the grownup male residents—not the ladies, not the foreign-born—usually convened on a hilltop in Athens to debate the problems of the day, and to vote on numerous proposals, nice and small; they did so brazenly and publicly. Notably, the individuals did not vote for particular person leaders; practically all management positions, together with the chief of the Meeting (who was the de facto president of the polis), had been chosen by lot, at random, from amongst a gaggle of citizen volunteers. Think about that: your president chosen by lot! No campaigns, no advertisements, no bribery, no kickbacks, no meaningless guarantees—simply pull a reputation out of a hat. And it labored.
The system had its execs and cons: on the one hand, governmental rule was easy, direct, and clear; on the opposite, each uneducated, semi-ignorant man had an equal say to the wisest. It put the lesser males on a par with the best and greatest. And in doing so, “it grants a form of equality to equals and unequals alike.” However general, it labored spectacularly nicely, and set the stage for the flourishing of Athenian tradition over the following 300 years.
However as Athens grew in measurement and energy, and as foreigners and slaves elevated in quantity, the problems turned extra complicated, the democratic course of turned extra unwieldy, and the easy, direct democracy had a tough time adapting. Thus, main thinkers like Plato and, later, Aristotle, started to look at alternate options. Higher than democracy, stated Plato, was oligarchy: rule by the (wealthy) few. They is likely to be money-grubbers, however at the least that they had some administration expertise and a vested curiosity within the flourishing of the nation. Higher nonetheless was timocracy, or rule by the honor-seekers. Reasonably than striving to construct wealth, because the oligarchs would, timocrats would emphasize the glory and glory of the city-state; this was an excellent possibility. However better of all, stated Plato, was an aristocracy: rule by the perfect, which means the wisest or probably the most simply. An aristocracy may very well be a small group of smart males, or it may very well be a single smart particular person; this was largely irrelevant. What was necessary was that you simply sought out, educated, and skilled your wisest males, or man, after which you allow them to lead. And that, stated Plato, is the perfect that people can attain.
Democracy was a poor different, he wrote, however there was one system even worse: tyranny. Democracy itself was already a form of tyranny—of the pleasure-seekers, of the “majority”—however a proper tyrant, as a single man, may rule with impunity, enrich himself and his cronies, and produce break upon the polis. The tyrant was, in a way, the mirror picture of the smart, aristocratic philosopher-king of the perfect system. In each instances, a single man guidelines, however the tyrant is neither smart nor simply, and has merely seized energy by drive; whereas the aristocratic ruler, by advantage of his knowledge and justice, rightly assumes energy and workouts it with due care and discretion.
Of Plato’s 5 programs, all however a tyranny may plausibly be known as ‘democratic’ within the sense that the individuals willingly accede to the system of rule. If the individuals conform to put a single, smart ruler in cost, after which to offer him dictatorial powers, is that ‘democracy’? In a way it’s, however it might be not like any present Western kind. Arguably, that is the system of governance in Russia at present, and to a lesser extent, China. Each rulers are “autocrats,” within the language of our oligarchs, however Russia does have nationwide elections by which a number of individuals are on the poll. And even when these aren’t “free and honest,” as we wish to say, they do yield a single man to successfully run the nation. China has no elections for its president, however relatively the three,000-member Nationwide Individuals’s Congress selects him. Clearly there is no such thing as a systematic course of in both nation for looking for out the wisest ruler, however nonetheless, each sitting presidents have confirmed to be males of imaginative and prescient and substance—not like, say, nearly each Western “democratic” chief of the previous few a long time. Trendy democracy, it appears, is nearly designed to supply mediocre or incompetent leaders. And that is exactly what we get.
However to conclude the purpose: Trendy “democracy” is scarcely something just like the Athenian authentic. “Democracy” is marked by various traits that might have been appalling to the Greeks: it has common suffrage (ladies, minorities, and foreign-born can vote); it’s a consultant system, not direct (we vote for senators and representatives, who in flip vote on points); we vote for people, together with the president; and corrupting cash gushes by way of the system like a torrent—primarily Jewish cash, because it seems.
Do President Biden, VP Harris, and all these different politicians perceive the distinction right here? In fact not. Have they studied political concept? Unlikely, to say the least. Have they learn Plato or Aristotle? By no means. When such individuals use the phrase ‘democracy,’ they actually have no idea what they’re speaking about. Clearly, our modern-day “democracy” is one thing very completely different, one thing that has mutated from the noble Greek ideally suited, retaining solely the identify. Worse, it has grow to be positively detrimental to nationwide well-being.
World State of Democracy
Numerous teams monitor the state of democracy worldwide, probably the most distinguished being the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) and their annual “Democracy Index.” They fee 167 nations (all these over 500,000 individuals) on a scale from 0 to 10. Scores from 8 to 10 are thought-about “full democracies” and people from 6 to eight are deemed “flawed democracies.” The 2 different classes are “hybrid (or combined) regimes” (4 to six) and “authoritarian regimes” (0 to 4). By this measure, 74 nations are some variations of democracy, representing 45% of the worldwide inhabitants. And practically the identical proportion—about 40%—stay underneath authoritarian programs, with the biggest being China and Russia.
For 2023, the highest-rated nation was Norway (9.81) and the bottom was Afghanistan (0.26). America got here in at 7.85 (“flawed”), down from 8.22 (“full”) in 2006.
We notice a number of related factors right here. Once more, democracy is unquestioningly portrayed pretty much as good and constructive. Its lone different, authoritarianism, is portrayed as unfavorable and evil (and paired with the slanted phrase “regime”). Any motion towards authoritarianism is a “decline” or “downgrade” and any motion towards full democracy is an “enchancment.” Sadly for the oldsters on the EIU, the worldwide common fell in 2023 to a brand new all-time low of 5.23.
Vital too is the truth that the EIU is a completely Jewish establishment. It’s run by the Economist Group, a British media firm owned primarily by Exor and the Rothschild household. Exor is a Dutch holding firm whose present CEO is the Jew John Elkann. We will thus perceive the fixation and the ethical valuation of democracy world wide; for Jews, it’s an all-important situation.
The Jewish Angle
So, how do Jews slot in to this image? Right here we’d like a bit extra historical past. Jews first got here to prominence amongst Western energy buildings in the course of the Roman Empire; they migrated to Rome, proselytized the native populace, and labored their method into positions of affect. As early as 59 BC, Cicero famously remarked on “how influential they’re in casual assemblies.” In 35 BC, Horace, in one in every of his Satires, makes an attempt to influence the reader of a sure level: “and if you don’t want to yield, then … similar to the Jews, we are going to compel you to concede to our crowd.” Evidently, their energy of “persuasion” was notable, even again then. Emperor Tiberius expelled them from Rome in 19 AD, and within the yr 41, Claudius issued a letter to the Alexandrians, blaming the Jews “for fomenting a basic plague which infests the entire world.” He would expel them from Rome, as soon as once more, in 49.
Clearly the Jews had been a distinguished and troublesome minority. However in an empire, usually with a hereditary lineage, that they had nearly no capability to imagine direct energy. They corrupted numerous officers with their gold, and networked collectively to undermine enemies, however their affect was at all times oblique and constrained.
As Rome fell and Christianity rose to energy, Jews once more had been shut out of the halls of energy. Sure, they had been the “chosen” of God, and sure, their Outdated Testomony was seen as a legit a part of God’s phrase; however Jews denied the so-called revelations of Christ, they denied his godhood, they usually even had been implicated, maybe instantly, in his crucifixion. Jews may purchase wealth by way of usury and finance, and will manipulate nobles by way of loans and monetary favors, however their paths to political energy had been nonetheless largely blocked. European monarchies had been hereditary, and the Church had its personal inflexible hierarchy that rigorously excluded non-Christians. A couple of ‘conversos’ or crypto-Jews—ethnic Jews who transformed (actually or in any other case) to Christianity—could have labored their method as much as positions of energy, however these had been the exceptions.
Democracy slowly reestablished itself in Europe from across the yr 1000 AD, in such locations as Iceland, the Isle of Man, and Sicily, nevertheless it was at all times along with monarchical rule. For the following a number of centuries, nascent European parliaments struggled for energy towards each their monarchs and the Church. It was a three-way battle, with no clear winner.
Trendy, democratic parliaments first appeared within the 1200s in England and Scotland, and these absolutely would have grow to be corrupted by Jewish affect, had the British Jews not been expelled by Edward I within the yr 1290. England then remained primarily Jew-free for practically 400 years, till Cromwell rescinded the expulsion edict in 1656. It was throughout these proto-democratic, Jew-free centuries that England attained lots of her best triumphs, each when it comes to tradition and world affect.
In america, the creation of the nation in 1776 and the ratification of the Structure in 1788 established democracy there, however as with England throughout its Golden Age, there have been few Jews—maybe solely 3,000 or so—and thus they might exert no actual impact, apart from as main merchants in slaves. However their numbers grew steadily, and by 1855 there have been round 50,000 Jews, representing about 0.2% of the whole. This will appear small, and for every other minority it might be inconsequential, however as soon as Jews exceed even 0.1% of a given inhabitants, corruption begins to set in. And certainly, by this time, America had its first Jewish consultant (Lewis Levin) and its first Jewish senator (David Yulee); Jews had been already making their presence felt in Washington.
Jews had been definitely energetic in the course of the US Civil Conflict, sometimes as agitators and profiteers. Common William Sherman complained that Tennessee “swarms with dishonest Jews who will smuggle powder, pistols, percussion caps, and so on. [to the enemy].” Ulysses S. Grant agreed, issuing two orders expelling “Jews, as a category” from Tennessee (which Lincoln countermanded). Ultimately, just a few hundred died within the warfare however many made fortunes.
By the tip of the warfare, American Jews numbered round 100,000, representing about 0.3% of the whole. However they had been quickly to embark on an exponential progress; by 1940, America had some 4.8 million Jews, or about 3.9% of the whole inhabitants—a recipe for whole catastrophe.
Jews and European Democracy
Again in Europe, Jews pressed for democratic “reforms” in all main nations, suspecting or figuring out that they might use this method to lastly circumvent the basic limitations to their energy posed by monarchies and the Church. And a significant turning level within the creation of democracy was the French Revolution. That occasion “got here to represent the parable of origin, the birthdate of a brand new existence” for European Jewry. Within the phrases of Vladimir Moss, “it was the French Revolution that gave the Jews the chance to burst by way of into the forefront of world politics for the primary time for the reason that fall of Jerusalem.” “The Revolution was a climatic interval for French Jews,” writes Levy-Bruhl; “it marked the start of their political emancipation.”
On the daybreak of the Revolution in 1789, there have been about 40,000 Jews in France, or about 0.1% of the whole—simply at that threshold at which severe hassle begins. After the storming of the Bastille and the formation of the newly-democratic Nationwide Meeting, there have been vigorous debates about what do to with France’s Jews. Jew-defenders like Stanislas Clermont-Tonnerre and Henri Gregoire lobbied on their behalf, and because of stress from rich French Jews like Herz Cerfbeer, the Meeting finally agreed to offer Jews full and equal civil rights on 27 September 1791. Louis XVI signed the decree into regulation the following day.
Armed, for the primary time, with full civil rights, French Jews evidently determined that they might now act with impunity, and with a real revolutionary fervor. As Paul Johnson (1995) writes, “For the primary time, a brand new archetype, which had at all times existed in embryonic kind, started to emerge from the shadows: the revolutionary Jew. … In 1793–4, Jewish Jacobins arrange a revolutionary regime in Saint Esprit, the Jewish suburb of Bayonne. As soon as once more, as in the course of the Reformation, traditionalists noticed a sinister hyperlink between the Torah [i.e., the Old Testament] and subversion.”
And certainly, it might not be lengthy earlier than the approaching of the Reign of Terror—a year-long interval of significantly bloody reprisals that ran from summer season 1793 to summer season 1794. Casualty figures fluctuate, however between 15,000 and 45,000 individuals misplaced their lives that yr, many within the guillotine. And the Jewish-influenced Jacobins led the cost.
Many Frenchmen of the day sincerely believed that, in granting the Jews full civil rights, that they might now stop to function as a Jewish nation and stay like true Frenchmen. This, sadly, was a naïvely mistaken view. Napoleon got here to energy in 1799 as the primary nice chief of the younger Republic, and he shortly realized a tough lesson: “that kindness in the direction of the Jews doesn’t make them extra tractable.” Russian navy historian Aleksandr Nechvolodov described the state of affairs this manner:
For the reason that first years of the Empire, Napoleon I had grow to be very frightened concerning the Jewish monopoly in France and the isolation by which they lived within the midst of the opposite residents, though that they had obtained citizenship. The reviews of the departments confirmed the exercise of the Jews in a really unhealthy mild: “All over the place there are false declarations to the civil authorities; fathers declare the sons who’re born to them to be daughters. … Once more, there are Jews who’ve given an instance of disobedience to the legal guidelines of conscription; out of 69 Jews who, in the middle of six years, ought to have shaped a part of the Moselle contingent, none has entered the military.”
By 1805, Napoleon was fed up with the Jews. He issued this blistering rebuke within the State Council handle of April 30:
The French authorities can not look on with indifference as a vile, degraded nation able to each iniquity takes unique possession of two lovely departments of Alsace; one should contemplate the Jews as a nation and never as a [religious] sect. It’s a nation inside a nation; I’d deprive them, at the least for a sure time, of the suitable to take out mortgages, for it’s too humiliating for the French nation to seek out itself on the mercy of the vilest nation. Some complete villages have been expropriated by the Jews; they’ve changed feudalism. … It will be harmful to let the keys of France, Strasbourg, and Alsace fall into the palms of a inhabitants of spies who’re in no way connected to the nation.
All this, then, as a traditional lesson in Jewish manipulation of democratic rights and privileges. Trying again with the good thing about hindsight and a few historic perspective, French author Edouard Drumont wrote in 1886 that “the one group the Revolution has protected is the Jews.”
Into the Twentieth Century
And other than revolution, what, precisely, did European Jews do with their new, hard-won democratic privileges? They acquired wealth and political affect. Drumont wrote, astonishingly, that “Jews possess half of the capital on the planet.” Of the estimated 150 billion francs in whole wealth in France on the time, he claimed that “Jews possess at the least 80 billion”—or a bit over half. A exceptional assertion, however one which, even when exaggerated, definitely signifies that Jews had sufficient wealth to attain highly effective affect in democratic France.
All through democratic Europe, Jews used their wealth to leverage politicians, to purchase clout, to accumulate information media, and to take positions of energy instantly, by way of widespread elections. By the point of the Napoleonic wars between England and France (circa 1810), the Rothschild banking agency was funding, and benefiting from, either side of the warfare. By 1850, England had some 40,000 Jews and was simply crossing the crucial 0.1% threshold; by 1868, that they had their first Jewish prime minister in Benjamin Disraeli. By 1869, composer Richard Wagner may complain of a European press “fully directed by Jews.” By 1873, author Frederick Millingen may write meaningfully and factually of “the conquest of the world by the Jews.” That is what fashionable democracy has meant to the Jews: huge wealth and international domination—great for them, disastrous for everybody else.
“Democratic America” was an actual Jewish paradise by 1900. The Jewish inhabitants had crossed 1 million, on its method to 2 million by 1910 and three.5 million by 1920. Teddy Roosevelt—who “said twice that his ancestors had been Jewish”—turned president in 1901, owing to the handy assassination of William McKinley. Teddy named Oscar Straus to his cupboard in 1906, the primary Jew to carry such a place. The following president, William Taft, tried to carry the road on Jewish energy, however failed; by December 1911, American Jews had such a grip on Congress that they rammed by way of the abrogation of the long-standing US-Russia commerce pact, overriding Taft’s veto risk. And in 1912, “their man” Woodrow Wilson would grow to be president, furthering Jewish pursuits on a number of fronts. We should always always remember Wilson’s fateful phrases, uttered upon throwing America into World Conflict I in April 1917: “The world have to be made protected for democracy.” Certainly—for the “democracy” of Jewish energy.
Solely Germany was in a position to fend off the Judeo-democratic surge of the nineteenth century. The German Confederation of unbiased and monarchical states, from 1815 to 1871, largely managed to keep away from the democratic actions that had been working by way of Europe. Germany turned a united state—really, an empire—in 1871, ruled by Kaiser Wilhelm I and Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Wilhelm II took energy in 1888, holding it till Germany’s loss in World Conflict I in 1918.
Germany’s 300,000 Jews had been agitating towards the emperor for years, and had been absolutely anxious to implement the “democratic” reforms that had led to fabulous Jewish success in different nations. Throughout World Conflict I, Jewish revolutionaries fought for the overthrow of the kaiser; notable activists had been Rosa Luxemburg, Hugo Haase, Karl Liebknecht, and Karl Radek within the north, and Kurt Eisner, Ernst Toller, and Eugen Levine within the south. Upon Germany’s give up and the abdication of the kaiser, different Jews, like Paul Levi, Otto Landesberg, and Walter Rathenau, took cost and created the brand new, “democratic” Weimar regime. Thus started 15 years of Jewish rule in Germany.
Unsurprisingly, such a flip of occasions struck various Germans badly, together with one Adolf Hitler, who was a younger man of 29, simply out of the trenches, when the Jews took management. From his years in Vienna, he already knew firsthand of the pernicious impact of Jews on society, however now he was seeing it play out on the highest ranges—within the capability to oust the kaiser, to impose defeat on the German nation, and to take energy. Inside three years, inflation started to destroy the German economic system, and the hyperinflation of 1922 and 1923 obliterated all private financial savings and made every day life not possible. However at the least Germany was a (Jewish) democracy.
In Mein Kampf, written in 1924 and 1925, Hitler supplied a remarkably insightful critique of democracy. From an initially harmless view of the goodness of democracy, he started to check the parliamentary system in Vienna and was appalled at what he noticed. The thought of mass-elected officers, who’re, at greatest, educated in a single or two related areas, are known as on to make choices in all areas of governmental concern. Worse, because of “majority rule,” parliamentarians can disguise behind majority choices and thus keep away from all sense of non-public accountability.
At one level within the textual content, Hitler even connects the evils of democracy with these of Marxism:
Western democracy, as practiced at present, is the forerunner of Marxism. The truth is, the latter could be inconceivable with out the previous. Democracy is the breeding floor by which the bacilli of the Marxist world-pest can develop and unfold. By the introduction of parliamentarianism, democracy produced an ‘abomination of filth and fireplace’—the artistic fireplace of which, nevertheless, appears to have died out.
Each (fashionable) democracy and Marxism replicate Jewish phenomena which can be conducive to Jewish energy:; each are materialistic and agnostic or aspiritual; each increase mediocre or malicious individuals to positions of energy: each are ‘common’ within the sense that they aren’t grounded in particular peoples or particular nations; and each are harmful of human well-being.
Extra to the purpose, through a consultant parliamentarian type of democracy, exterior forces, significantly rich people and organizations can intervene and strongly affect who’s elected or how these elected act. Both method, democracy turns into “a software within the hand” of the Jewish group pursuits Hitler stated; and even higher, Jewry can accomplish that from the background, hidden away, out of sight, “shunning the open mild.” Mixed with a management of the most important media—as is the case at present within the US and most of Europe—Jews can stay nearly fully invisible to the broader public and thus act with relative impunity. And that is so, even when a number of well-informed people on the “far proper” know in any other case.
Thus we are able to see that fashionable democracy completely serves Jewish pursuits. The “freedom” and rights granted to Jews enable them to accrue huge wealth. With this wealth in hand, they’ll then (a) purchase controlling pursuits in mass media, and (b) purchase politicians, who in flip do their bidding. By way of the mass media, they then disguise their very own roles and conceal their impact on politicians, preserving the general public confused and in the dead of night concerning the manipulations of their political system. Professional-Jewish candidates are the one ones taken significantly (by the Jewish media and pro-Jewish politicians) and thus are the one ones able to win elections. The plenty then vote underneath situations of both ignorance, worry, resignation, or despair. The system of Jewish democracy, or Judeocracy, thus reinforces and solidifies itself, locking in its positive aspects and blocking any people or teams who may pose a risk to this method.
This was definitely the case in Europe by the beginning of World Conflict II. The main “democratic” nations of England and France (pre-1940) had been largely underneath Jewish management. In contrast, there have been a number of non-democratic and quasi-fascist European leaders that managed to maintain their Jewish populations in test; 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 the truth is an in depth correlation between a nation being “democratic” and its being underneath Jewish management. American poet Ezra Pound was not removed from the mark when he wrote “Democracy is now at the moment outlined in Europe as ‘a rustic run by Jews.’”
After their victory in World Conflict II, democratic Jews rode the wave of success, consolidating their management and accruing much more wealth. By way of the financial buildings established in 1944 at Bretton Woods, American Jews like Harry Dexter White, Jacob Viner, and Henry Morgenthau, Jr. managed to push by way of a system of worldwide financial management based mostly on the U.S. greenback and supported by such novel establishments because the Worldwide Financial Fund and the World Financial institution. And later Jewish improvements—akin to “quantitative easing” that permits nearly limitless printing of cash—would deliver primarily limitless money into Jewish palms. “Democratic America” would now be the means to train Jewish management over huge areas of the world.
A Manner Ahead
If my previous evaluation is even near right, then there are some apparent measures that would treatment the state of affairs. First, we have to recover from our fixation on democracy. The once-noble idea has been hopelessly corrupted by Jewish affect and now serves their pursuits above all, on the expense of working individuals and the center class. Democracy at present is certainly “rule by the Jews,” and the extra democracy we have now, the extra entrenched turns into Jewish energy.
Second, we subsequently want to significantly contemplate non-democratic choices, together with the dreaded “authoritarianism.” At the moment, nothing is extra harmful to America, to the West, and to the world than Judeo-democracy; subsequently, no job is extra pressing than undermining it and changing it with one thing else. Judeo-democracy has grow to be a Jewish tyranny, and nothing—nothing—is worse than this. Any different could be an enchancment, and a few choices—like robust types of ethnic nationalism mixed with a delicate socialism—could be huge enhancements. When you find yourself on the backside of the barrel, each street is up.
Third, we are able to contemplate retaining some facets of our present political system, however solely with drastic modifications. It’s absurd, for instance, to have elections by which actually each grownup can vote; this brings us again to the state of mob-rule. There should be restrictions: competency exams, academic requirements, land- or property-owning {qualifications}, and so on. A case may very well be made for even stricter guidelines, like ethnic-based necessities (White European ancestry), and even again to the requirements of the Founding Fathers and the traditional Greeks—let the boys determine! And, votes ought to as soon as once more be a matter of public document; if nothing else, this may put an finish to all makes an attempt at vote-rigging and the “stealing” of elections.
Fourth, settle for that robust measures will likely be wanted to interrupt the again of Jewish energy within the West. This has been true for millennia. And but, again and again, robust leaders and robust actions have discovered methods to make it occur. Any nation wishing to be free from corrupting Jewish affect will doubtless require many fewer Jews than they’ve at present. Recall my 0.1% threshold: this units the goal that nationalist teams ought to brazenly attempt for.
And fifth, as at all times, get educated, communicate up, arrange. Develop into a educated critic of the Judeocracy. Elevate your voice in assist of these uncommon teams and people prepared to oppose it.
It doesn’t matter what you at the moment learn about Jewish energy, irrespective of how unhealthy you assume the state of affairs is, it’s worse than you understand. The world stands on the point of a number of multinational wars, because of Jewish-inspired aggression. Jewish corruption contaminates nearly each side of recent life: economic system, authorities, academia, tradition, atmosphere, schooling. Every part is debased; nothing stays untouched.
Take into account what Henry Ford needed to say about this case—in 1921: “If you happen to may put a tag marked ‘Jewish’ on each a part of your life that’s Jew-controlled, you’ll be astonished on the displaying.” In 1921. How a lot worse at present, 100 years later?
Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited a number of books and articles on politics, historical past, and the Jewish Query. All his works can be found at www.clemensandblair.com, and at his private web site www.thomasdaltonphd.com.
Notes
Quantity One, part 3.15. Quoted from Mein Kampf (2022; T. Dalton, ed.), Clemens & Blair.
Cited in Ezra Pound: The Solitary Volcano, by John Tytell (1987), p. 257.
For one widely-cited paper from 2014, see “Testing theories of American politics” by two Jewish lecturers, M. Gilens and B. Web page (Views on Politics, 12(3): 564-581).
One examine from 2016 confirmed that the common US presidential candidate makes use of the grammar of a typical 11- or 12-year-old. The typical vocabulary stage is a few years above that.
Plato, Republic, E-book 8, 558c.
See Republic, Books 8 and 9.
Jews present at the least 25% of funding for Republicans and 50% or extra for Democrats. See Gil Troy, “The Jewish Vote: Political Energy and Id in US Elections” (2017).
This and following quotations are cited in my guide Everlasting Strangers (2020); Clemen & Blair.
See The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, vol. 1 (2017; Nation of Islam).
Jay Berkovitz, “The French Revolution and the Jews,” AJS Evaluate 20(1), 1995.
“The Jews, the Masons, and the French Revolution,” on-line at www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com, 2010.
A Historical past of the Jews (1995), pp. 306–307. The Torah certainly teaches a ruthless Jewish supremacy, primarily by way of their standing as “God’s chosen” but in addition in mild of the ethical dictates to detest all non-Jews and to attempt for world domination.
Moss (op. cit.).
Emperor Nicholas II and the Jews (1924), cited in Moss (ibid.)
Cited in Moss (op. cit.).
La France juive [“Jewish France”], p. 1.
From “Jewry in Music,” cited in Traditional Essays on the Jewish Query (2022; T. Dalton, ed), p. 32.
Cited in Traditional Essays, p. 45.
In line with former Michigan governor Chase Osborn; cited in The Jewish Hand within the World Wars (2019; T. Dalton), p. 32.
See Quantity One, sections 3.8 to three.15 (pp. 107-122).
Quantity One, sec. 3.8 (p. 110). The “filth and fireplace” reference is a nod to Goethe’s Faust (half 1, line 5356).
The Worldwide Jew, vol. 2, p. 206 (2024; T. Dalton, ed., Clemens & Blair).
