Democracy Is an Ideal Government for Jewish Influence

[D]emocracy 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[1]

Democracy is now currently defined in Europe as ‘a country run by Jews.’
—Ezra Pound, circa 1940[2]

In his recent State of the Union speech, Joe Biden referred to “democracy” nearly a dozen times. Democracy, he said, was currently “under assault” and “under attack”; the January 6 riot put a “dagger to [its] throat” and was its “gravest threat.” As a result, democracy “must be defended”; and indeed, we must “embrace” it. Or so says our doddering president.

Our polyracial vice president speaks in a similar vein. Regarding Donald Trump, Kamala Harris informs us that “we must recognize the profound threat he poses…to our democracy.” This has been a recurrent message from her for years. When she was running for president herself back in 2019, she called Trump “a clear and present danger to democracy”—and the theme has never left her side.

Mainstream media is no better. The constant banter, on both the left and the right, is that democracy is all, democracy is under threat (by candidate X), and democracy must be protected and defended, no matter the cost. The Atlantic tells us that Trump poses “a systemic threat to democracy.” Trump, in turn, calls Biden “a destroyer of democracy.” On and on it goes. Democracy, it seems, is all-important, the very essence of America, and that one thing to which all else must yield. It is, said Biden, a “sacred cause”; democracy is our secular religion and our secular god, all rolled into one.

Notably, there are several assumptions here, and several points unstated, which cast a whole new light on our beloved and “sacred” democracy. Of specific importance are four assumptions, all of which are false. These are:

• We actually have democracy,
• Democracy is a good thing.
• The only alternative to democracy is authoritarianism.
• “Democracy” is a clear and obvious concept.

Again, all four of these are false, and therefore the current left-right worship of democracy collapses into a pile of nonsense. I discuss all these issues below, but in brief: (1) 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.[3] 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.

(2) 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.

(3) There are in fact several alternatives to democracy, most of which are superior to it—at least, if we believe our wisest thinkers on this matter. 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.[4]

(4) 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, 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 codeword 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 themselves 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 (kratos) 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, 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.”[5] 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 Plato and, later, Aristotle, began to examine alternatives. Better than democracy, said Plato, 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, said Plato, 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, said Plato, is the best that humans can attain.[6]

Democracy was a poor alternative, he wrote, 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 polis. 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.

Of Plato’s five systems, all but a tyranny could plausibly be called ‘democratic’ in the sense that the people willingly accede to the system of rule. If the people agree to put a single, wise ruler in charge, and then to give him dictatorial powers, is that ‘democracy’? In a sense it is, but it would be unlike any current Western form. 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. And even if these are not “free and fair,” as we like to say, they do yield a single man to effectively run the country. China has no elections for its president, but rather the 3,000-member National People’s Congress selects him. Clearly there is no systematic process in either nation for seeking out the wisest ruler, but still, both sitting presidents have proven to be men of vision and substance—unlike, say, virtually every Western “democratic” leader of the past few decades. 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 to the Greeks: 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.[7]

Do President Biden, VP Harris, and all those other politicians understand the difference here? Of course not. Have they studied political theory? Unlikely, to say the least. Have they read Plato or Aristotle? Never. 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. Scores from 8 to 10 are considered “full democracies” and those from 6 to 8 are deemed “flawed democracies.” The two other categories are “hybrid (or mixed) regimes” (4 to 6) and “authoritarian regimes” (0 to 4). 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, proselytized the local populace, and worked their way into positions of influence. As early as 59 BC, Cicero famously remarked on “how influential they are in informal assemblies.”[8] 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. Yes, they were the “chosen” of God, and yes, their Old Testament was viewed as a legitimate part of God’s word; but Jews denied the so-called revelations of Christ, they denied his godhood, and they even were implicated, perhaps directly, in his crucifixion. 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.[9] 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.

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.[10] 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.”[11] “The Revolution was a climatic period for French Jews,” writes Levy-Bruhl; “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 storming of the Bastille and the formation of the newly-democratic National Assembly, there were vigorous debates about what do to with France’s Jews. Jew-defenders like Stanislas Clermont-Tonnerre and Henri Gregoire lobbied on their behalf, and thanks to pressure from wealthy French Jews like Herz Cerfbeer, 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. As Paul Johnson (1995) writes, “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.”[12]

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.”[13] 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.”[14]

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.[15]

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, French writer Edouard Drumont wrote in 1886 that “the only group the Revolution has protected is the Jews.”[16]

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. Drumont wrote, astonishingly, that “Jews possess half of the capital in the world.” Of the estimated 150 billion francs in total wealth in France at the time, he claimed that “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.”[17] By 1873, writer Frederick Millingen could write meaningfully and factually of “the conquest of the world by the Jews.”[18] 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”[19]—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, Hugo Haase, Karl Liebknecht, and Karl Radek in the north, and Kurt Eisner, Ernst Toller, and Eugen Levine in the south. Upon Germany’s surrender and the abdication of the kaiser, other Jews, like Paul Levi, Otto Landesberg, and 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.[20] 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 idea 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 Marxism:

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 bacilli of the Marxist 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.[21]

Both (modern) democracy and Marxism 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.

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 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 on the “far right” 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 Judeocracy, 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. Via the economic structures established in 1944 at Bretton Woods, American Jews like Harry Dexter White, Jacob Viner, and Henry Morgenthau, Jr. managed to push through a system of global economic control based on the U.S. dollar and supported by such novel institutions as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. And later Jewish innovations—such as “quantitative easing” that allows virtually unlimited printing of money—would bring essentially limitless cash into Jewish hands. “Democratic America” 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 the dreaded “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—like strong forms of ethnic nationalism combined with a soft socialism—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. A case could be made for even stricter rules, like ethnic-based requirements (White European ancestry), or even back to the standards of the Founding Fathers and the ancient Greeks—let the men decide! 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.”[22] In 1921. How much worse today, 100 years later?

 

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and the Jewish Question. All his works are available at www.clemensandblair.com, and at his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

 

[1] Volume One, section 3.15. Quoted from Mein Kampf (2022; T. Dalton, ed.), Clemens & Blair.

[2] Cited in Ezra Pound: The Solitary Volcano, by John Tytell (1987), p. 257.

[3] For one widely-cited paper from 2014, see “Testing theories of American politics” by two Jewish academics, M. Gilens and B. Page (Perspectives on Politics, 12(3): 564-581).

[4] One study from 2016 showed that the average US presidential candidate utilizes the grammar of a typical 11- or 12-year-old. The average vocabulary level is a couple of years above that.

[5] Plato, Republic, Book 8, 558c.

[6] See Republic, Books 8 and 9.

[7] Jews provide at least 25% of funding for Republicans and 50% or more for Democrats. See Gil Troy, “The Jewish Vote: Political Power and Identity in US Elections” (2017).

 

[8] This and following quotations are cited in my book Eternal Strangers (2020); Clemen & Blair.

[9] See The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, vol. 1 (2017; Nation of Islam).

[10] Jay Berkovitz, “The French Revolution and the Jews,” AJS Review 20(1), 1995.

[11] “The Jews, the Masons, and the French Revolution,” online at www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com, 2010.

[12] A History of the Jews (1995), pp. 306–307. The Torah indeed teaches a ruthless Jewish supremacy, primarily through their status as “God’s chosen” but also in light of the moral dictates to detest all non-Jews and to strive for world domination.

[13] Moss (op. cit.).

[14] Emperor Nicholas II and the Jews (1924), cited in Moss (ibid.)

[15] Cited in Moss (op. cit.).

[16] La France juive [“Jewish France”], p. 1.

[17] From “Jewry in Music,” cited in Classic Essays on the Jewish Question (2022; T. Dalton, ed), p. 32.

[18] Cited in Classic Essays, p. 45.

[19] According to former Michigan governor Chase Osborn; cited in The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019; T. Dalton), p. 32.

[20] See Volume One, sections 3.8 to 3.15 (pp. 107-122).

[21] Volume One, sec. 3.8 (p. 110). The “filth and fire” reference is a nod to Goethe’s Faust (part 1, line 5356).

[22] The International Jew, vol. 2, p. 206 (2024; T. Dalton, ed., Clemens & Blair).