The Protocols of Satan, Part 24: The Inevitable Failure of Democracy

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Saturdays
ChrSat20170225-Protocols_of_Satan_24.mp3 — Downloaded 6551 times


The Protocols of Satan, Part 24: The Inevitable Failure of Democracy

In our last segment of this series presenting the Protocols of Satan, we really did not discuss the Protocols at all, except that it is certainly an agenda outlined in the Protocols that organized Jewry would plant their own agents at every point on the political spectrum, infiltrating every party and every prospective movement, latching onto every idea, jumping in at the front of every parade so that they can steer every political argument towards their own favor and their own agenda. For example, in Protocol 9 we read “People of all opinions and of all doctrines are at our service, restorers of monarchy, demagogues, Socialists, communists and other Utopians. We have put them all to work. Every one of them from his point of view is undermining the last remnant of authority, is trying to overthrow all existing order.” Now that the Jews through their banking system and assorted criminal enterprises have virtually monopolized the world’s political authority and have come to rule all of the world’s governments, we cannot imagine their endeavors to maintain control would be any different than the methods which they employed to gain control.

So in The Protocols of Satan, Part 23: Jewish Lies and Motivations we discussed the many so-called “self-hating” or “truth-telling” Jews and saw that while they appeared to be telling some truth, the lies which they perpetuated while doing so are much more dangerous than any confessions which they made concerning Jews. A love of truth and honest historical investigation would still exist without these imagined tattle-tale Jews, but in this manner they fulfill another agenda, outlined in Protocol 16 where we read them boast that “we shall swallow up and confiscate to our own use the last scintilla of independence of thought, which we have for long past been directing towards subjects and ideas useful for us.” In Protocol 13 we read “Growing more and more disaccustomed to reflect and form any opinions of their own, people will begin to talk in the same tone as we because we alone shall be offering them new directions for thought... of course through such persons as will not be suspected of solidarity with us.” With this we can only imagine why David Duke upholds so many Jewish lies as he pretends to be a herald revealing Jewish treachery, or perhaps why Andrew Anglin has an intense hatred for the ultimate truths found in Christian Identity. By wrongly attributing the Hebrew Scriptures to the Jews while complaining of disproportionate Jewish influence over world affairs, they are both in full agreement with the Jews, and they both fulfill those very words found in the Protocols.

We also hope to have fully demonstrated why any true seekers of truth we must reject the so-called self-hating Jews, the Howard Rosenthals, Henry Makows and Nathaniel Kapners, who assume to expose Jewish treachery while all they uphold all of the bigger and more devastating lies.

Now we shall continue our presentation of the so-called Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, employing the translation found in the book The Protocols and World Revolution attributed to Boris Brasol, and published in Boston in 1920 by Maynard, Small & Co. However once again, we will not get very much further into the Protocols this evening, because we want to attempt to quantify something else, which we have discussed from different aspects in the past. That is the failure of liberal democracy.

Democracy is, basically, based on babble. Babble and democracy go hand-in-hand and cannot be separated one from the other. The problem, however, is that people are generally self-centered and short-sighted, so when their preferred side wins they are happy with democracy, and when their side is not in control of the government they are only temporarily disaffected, given the false hope they place in the next election. Nowhere in modern times is this more evident than in the recent American presidential elections.

The authors of the Protocols knew all of this. In the 18th and 19th centuries the secret societies and the Jewish-controlled Press agitated and instigated through war and revolution until parliamentary democracy became the inevitable victor among models for governance. As the Protocols have often expressed and as we have already discussed in several ways, the Jewish money power understood that as soon as this system became prevalent in Europe and elsewhere, that the money power which they controlled could become the new tyrant. The nature of democracy itself results in that circumstance, and it cannot be avoided. Ever since it has prevailed, the people have been virtually brainwashed into believing that representative democracy is the only righteous form of government, and nothing can be further from the truth. With this we shall present the next paragraph of Protocol No. 3:


Unrestrained babblers have converted parliamentary sessions and administrative meetings into oratorical contests. Daring journalists, impudent pamphleteers, make daily attacks on the administrative personnel. The abuse of power is definitely preparing the downfall of all institutions and everything will be overturned by the blows of the infuriated mobs.

A couple of years ago there was a negress in Congress who made the statement that the American Constitution was 400 years old. We had already given the example here of the negro congressional representative who believed that islands could actually tip over. For damage control, a press release was later issued in his name describing him as some sort of comic making a purposeful allegory, which is an obvious lie considering the manner and context in which the statement was made. This is the inevitable result of elected democracy, and these fools are only mouthpieces hired by the money power to do their bidding. Democracy is government based upon babble. That is all it is. It is the perfect form of government for what the Bible calls Mystery Babylon, as the word Babylon is ultimately from a Hebrew word which means confusion.

To understand that democracy has always been that way, here I am going to read from a book titled The Greek Polis and the Invention of Democracy: A Politico-cultural Transformation and its Interpretations, edited by Johann P. Arnason, Kurt A. Raaflaub, and Peter Wagner. The book is a collection of essays written by an assortment of professors of the Classics, Ancient History and Political Science from various universities. The introduction to the book is a characterization of its contents written by the editors. We do not agree with every aspect of the book, and we do not even agree with its title. There are references to democratic institutions in the inscriptions of ancient Sumer, so the Greeks certainly did not invent democracy – the Athenians are only the earliest implementation of democracy of which we have sufficient surviving historical records. We are reading from the introduction to the book, which is attributed to all three editors, and there are no page numbers. Where non-historical people are mentioned, they are among the academics who contributed to the book.

The rise of Greek historiography is one of the cultural innovations widely perceived as at least akin to the democratic spirit. Jonas Grethlein's chapter considers this question from a new angle and raises doubts about the direct connections that have hitherto seemed plausible. For Grethlein, it is crucial that Greek uses and understandings of the past – articulations of cultural memory – had already found expression in "epics, elegy, tragedy, and oratory," and that historiography emerged in a reflected relationship to these pre-existing genres. More precisely, the works of Herodotus and Thucydides, which we have to take as starting-points (speculations about Herodotus's forerunners are inconclusive), demarcate their critical inquiry into the past from earlier modes of commemoration (and Thucydides adds an effort to distinguish his approach to history from that of Herodotus), but they also preserve some basic features of an older view of history that was first spelt out in the Homeric epics. A strong concern with the fragility and uncertainty of human existence in history goes hand in hand with a non-developmental view. The suggestion is not that the notion of development was absent from Greek thought, but neither the epics nor Herodotus and Thucydides imposed it on history. Other modes of memory are too limited in scope to make comparison on the same level possible; as Grethlein argues, it can nevertheless be shown that a critical reference to oratory was of major importance for the emerging genre of historiography. Oratory was "the primary genre besides poetry in which the Greeks encountered their past"; in the form of funeral orations, it became an integral part of democratic institutions, and the exemplary use of the past was a standard device of political rhetoric. As Grethlein sees it, Thucydides' critical attitude to oratory is evident in his reflections on method (now more adequately understood than in earlier scholarship) and in the presentation of particular cases, most famously Pericles' funeral oration. The importance of the latter as a key to the self-understanding of democratic Athens at its most articulate is not in dispute, but Grethlein's reading places a new emphasis on the contrasts between representation and practice. Both this outstanding example and the more general critique of rhetoric indicate a distance from democracy, and a closer look at Herodotus suggests the same conclusions, even if the critical stance is much less pronounced. On a more fundamental level, Grethlein's interpretation stresses the limits to political readings of Greek historiography: if it emerges as a response to and a move beyond the models created by earlier genres, it is by the same token not reducible to direct intellectual effects of fifth-century transformations. But the final conclusion is not that the new horizons opened up by Herodotus and Thucydides have nothing to do with democracy. Despite the critical attitude of the authors and the cultural logic of the genre, a certain affinity with the spirit of democratic politics is apparent in both cases.

A closer look at the operative mechanisms and resources of Athenian democracy helps to clarify its relationship to social and cultural conditions. The role of rhetoric, a key factor in the functioning of democratic politics, should be seen in this perspective. Harvey Yunis shows how the uses and ramifications of rhetoric interacted with a broader set of trends. The perfection of rhetoric as a skill and the elaboration of a discipline dealing with this skill belong in the context of a more general cultural movement: the "consciousness of ability" (Könnensbewusstsein) which Christian Meier (1990: ch.8) [in a separate work] identifies as the closest approximation to an idea of progress in the ancient world. A growing reflexive awareness of human capacities and their perfectibility was one of the main currents of fifth-century culture. With reference to the sociological tradition, it seems appropriate to speak of civilizing processes. In that regard, rhetoric plays a double role: as an important part of an evolving larger complex and – in virtue of its influence on discourse and writing – as a medium of reflexivity across the spectrum. Within its own domain, the reflexive turn began with the separation between form and message, which Yunis singles out as a basic operative distinction: it enables the choice of different forms to present the same message to varying audiences. Further development gave rise to techniques and traditions as well as criteria of expertise, and thus to growing professionalization. Rhetoric served the competitive pursuit of power, but it also fostered a diversity of views while maintaining "the supremacy and decision-making prerogatives of the demos." In a broader sense, reflexive uses of rhetoric made it the "chief mode of public literary expression," and this new role found classic expression in texts as different as Plato's Apology of Socrates and the speeches included in Thucydides' history of the Peloponnesian War. The tradition that evolved out of these beginnings was, as Yunis notes, to dominate public communication until the end of antiquity.

First, we must state that Thucydides was not really critical of oratory itself, but rather he seems to have loved oratory and to have been fascinated with its efficacy, as he dedicated a great deal of time reconstructing the eloquent speeches of generals and statesmen for his history of the Peloponnesian War. But more importantly, notice the attitude of the editors of this work, that they credited rhetoric and democracy as integral components leading to a “civilizing process”, as if there was no civility or civilization before the advent of Greek democracy! So they are also clearly biased in favor of democracy as a righteous form of governance. But where they admit that “rhetoric served the competitive pursuit of power” they seem to fail to understand that the rhetoricians were often in the employ of those who would subvert power for themselves, and that is how the authors of the Protocols understood that they would indeed come to control the world once democracy became the accepted form of government in the Europe and the West.

Not much is known of ancient Rome outside of the legends which the poets have left us, and which were generally accepted and repeated by the later historians. But Rome evidently became a sort of democratic republic by the end of the 6th century BC, and for the most part remained that way until the time of Caesar, a period of nearly five hundred years. However, why Rome was able to remain free of tyrants or sectarian domination for so long is explained by Livy in his History of Rome, written in the first century before Christ, where for instance and among other things he relates that private meetings were forbidden and punished as conspiracies. So there were no known secret societies in ancient Rome. He also relates that any politician who promised any portion of the people benefits from public funds was also dealt with quite severely. In the formative years of the American Republic, this same issue was raised successfully by a congressman named Davy Crockett, but the prudent reasoning behind such austerity is always quickly forgotten. Crockett properly and successfully argued as to why the families of slain military officers should not be given benefits or pensions at the public expense. Compare that attitude to what the imperialist propaganda has led America to value today.

Here is another look at democracy and rhetoric from the Select Orations and Letters of Cicero: Allen and Greenough's Edition revised by J. B. Greenough and G. L. Kittredge. This is also from the introduction to the book, under the heading Roman Oratory:

From the earliest times of which we have historical knowledge, up to the establishment of the Empire as the result of Civil War, the constitution of Rome was republican, in so far that all laws were passed and all magistrates elected by a vote of all the citizens. The principle of "representation," however, which to us seems inseparable from republican institutions, was unknown to the Romans. All laws were passed, and all officers were elected, at what we should call a mass meeting of the entire body of citizens, convened at the central seat of government. The absence of newspapers, also, made a distinct difference between ancient political conditions and those of our own times. Conversation and public addresses were the only means of disseminating political ideas. And even the scope of public addresses was much limited; for meetings could be called by a magistrate only, and could be addressed by only such persons as the presiding magistrate would permit. Obviously, under such a regime, public speaking, which even now has a distinct potency in state affairs, must have been far more efficacious as a political instrument than it is today.

There were usurers in ancient Rome, and surely some of them were proto-Jews, which are the ancient Canaanite merchants. Livy wrote on several occasions of the strife between common Romans and the usurers over the rate of interest. Later, in Imperial Rome, usurers like Seneca had a great deal of influence over military policy, and according to the Roman historian Dio Cassius, the Iceni revolt of Boudicca was one consequence of that influence. But there are many other ways to demonstrate that the money power also had undue influence, and frequently had subliminal control, of the policies of Imperial Rome. Returning to our introduction from the Select Orations and Letters of Cicero:

To this must be added the fact that under Roman polity the only means of social advancement was success in a political career. The Senate, the Roman peerage (see p. l), consisted practically only of persons who had been elected to one or more of the three graded magistracies, quaestorship, praetorship, consulship (the cursus honorum: see p. liv). Hence every ambitious Roman, of high or low estate, had to become a politician and follow the regular course of office-holding. The curule magistrates were at once generals, judges, and statesmen. To achieve success, therefore, a politician had to show ability in all of these directions. Occasionally, to be sure, a man succeeded by virtue of a single talent, – like Marius, who owed his advancement solely to his valor and military skill; but such instances were rare. Next to military fame, the strongest recommendation to the favor of the people was oratorical ability. Then, as now, the orator's power to move the multitude in public affairs was the readiest means of advancement. Further, political prosecutions, and private suits prompted by political motives, were of the commonest occurrence, and these afforded an eloquent advocate abundant opportunity to make himself known and to secure the favor of large bodies of supporters. Again, the Senate was a numerous and somewhat turbulent body, always more or less divided in a partisan sense; and, though it had no legislative functions, it still exercised a very strong influence on politics. To be able to sway this large assembly by force of oratory was of great moment to an aspiring Roman. Finally, though the contention for office ceased with the consulship, there still continued among the consulares, who formed almost a distinct class in society and public life, a vehement rivalry to be regarded as the leading man in the state. For all these reasons, the art of oratory was perhaps more highly esteemed and of greater practical value in the later period of the Roman Republic than at any other time in the history of the world.

The government of Rome had divided powers. The assemblies of ordinary citizens had authority over things such as the elections, legislation, and criminal trials, while the Senate controlled such things as the state finances, the treasury and the issuance of money, the administration of magistrates, the conduct of war, and foreign policy. Where our authors speak of partisan politics, they do not mean to refer to actual political parties, which were seen as conspiracies against the people and were outlawed, as they were in Athens, but rather to class divisions among the population which had devolved into a partisanship of its own, the state becoming divided between Patricians or Optimates, which were the aristocrats, the middle-class Equestrians who often switched sides in support of nobles or commoners, and Plebeians or populists, representing the common people. But these were factions, and not parties. Surely there were proto-Protocolists (i.e. proto-Jews) amongst the factions of ancient Rome subverting power for the bankers of their own time.

In times of war, a dictator was appointed by the Senate who had absolute power for the course of the war. Only he was not permitted to bring his armies to Rome, and that is the crux of the issue as Caesar and his armies crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC. But Caesar’s claim to rulership was based not only on his military might or prowess. Rather, he based it on his ancestry. He even minted coins showing his claim to have descended from Aeneas, the Trojan prince who led a remnant of his people to Italy, and the Roman goddess Venus. By this he claimed to be a rightful ruler of the Roman people and a civil war ensued. While we have value for the writings of Virgil, much of his epic Aeneid is propaganda in this and in other respects, and in this fashion it perpetuated and popularized Julius Caesar’s claim to rightful rulership on behalf of his heir Octavian, also known as Augustus Caesar, who was a patron of Virgil. In Virgil’s defense, however, Strabo of Cappadocia independently repeated the assertions of Caesar’s lineage in his Geography, and Strabo seems to have been a somewhat discerning historian in his own right.

Caesar is considered a hero in modern popular culture, where if representative democracy, or even direct democracy as the Romans had, is considered a righteous form of government, and if dictatorship is generally despised, Caesar should be considered a villain. But Caesar was considered a hero in his own life because the democratic Republic had disintegrated and failed the people, so the inevitable dictatorship followed. Caesar’s main adversaries were the aristocracy, and therefore if it were not for Julius Caesar, perhaps the inevitable result of democracy which is mentioned here by the authors of the Protocols would have played out in ancient Rome and the abuse of power would have led to “the downfall of all institutions and everything” may have been “overturned by the blows of the infuriated mobs.” As they boasted in earlier portions of the Protocols, the authors simply understood history, and knew how to employ that understanding to their own advantage.

This has been a long digression, but we hope to have shown the connection between rhetoric and democracy from the very beginning. In a democratic system, it is not the wisest or most prudent man who wins, it is not the man with the clearest plan of action or the greatest vision, and it is not the Truth which prevails, but rather, it is whoever can give the most persuasive argument and seduce the people with the most eloquent cunning who prevails. This has been known from the very dawn of the first democratic governments in Europe. So democracy always devolves into a battle of cunning expressed in rhetoric. This is a timeless lesson for our own people: no matter what system of government we think will be best for us, we will be ruled by tyrants if we do not choose to be ruled by God.

But when the cunning takes the form of useful idiots, like the negro American congressapes whom we have already mentioned, who are absolutely ignorant of both history and nature, then we must be aware that we are at the mercy of the bankers and behind-the-scenes powers who control them. One astute observer of the democratic process was Adolf Hitler, and for very much the same reasons, he had despised the parliamentary process, because it lent itself to the oratorical contests of unrestrained babblers described here in the Protocols. However, in Hitler’s Germany and just before his own rise to power the situation was a little different, the Marxist Proletariat, funded by world Jewry, were the “infuriated mobs” who were “preparing the downfall of all institutions”. But at an earlier time, in the years before the Great War which led to the Weimar government, Adolf Hitler was able to observe the workings and failures of the Austrian parliament in Vienna first-hand, and to see through its incurable problems. So here we will present some of his observations. Once again, we will see that Adolf Hitler agrees with the authors of the Protocols, although, of course, his aspirations were precisely the opposite of the Jews who wrote them.

In Volume 1, Chapter 2 of Mein Kampf, Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna, Hitler described one aspect of parliamentary democracy in Austria which infuriated him, and he said:

While in Vienna I continued to follow with a vivid interest all the events that were taking place in Germany, whether connected with political or cultural question. I had a feeling of pride and admiration when I compared the rise of the young German Empire with the decline of the Austrian State. But, although the foreign policy of that Empire was a source of real pleasure on the whole, the internal political happenings were not always so satisfactory. I did not approve of the campaign which at that time was being carried on against William II. I looked upon him not only as the German Emperor but, above all, as the creator of the German Navy. The fact that the Emperor was prohibited from speaking in the Reichstag made me very angry, because the prohibition came from a side which in my eyes had no authority to make it. For at a single sitting those same parliamentary ganders did more cackling together than the whole dynasty of Emperors, comprising even the weakest, had done in the course of centuries.

Kaiser Wilhelm II was anti-Masonic, although his father had been a Freemason, and also anti democratic. In one of his more famous moments he was attributed as having said that “If a British parliamentarian comes to sue for peace, he must first kneel before the imperial standard, for this is a victory of monarchy over democracy.” He was attributed as having said that after the German success in the Spring Offensive of March, 1918. We have not discussed the British democracy here, but the bankers had bought that for themselves in the revolution led by Oliver Cromwell.

Continuing with Hitler, we will again present a portion of Mein Kampf which we had already presented earlier in this series, but which we cannot pass over in the context of our presentation here.

In Volume 1, Chapter 3 of Mein Kampf, Political Reflections Arising Out of My Sojourn in Vienna, Hitler very aptly described the sort of person who most frequently obtains political office in a democratic system:

GENERALLY SPEAKING A MAN SHOULD NOT PUBLICLY TAKE PART IN POLITICS BEFORE he has reached the age of thirty, though, of course, exceptions must be made in the case of those who are naturally gifted with extraordinary political abilities. That at least is my opinion to-day. [We do not necessarily agree that there should be an exception.] And the reason for it is that until he reaches his thirtieth year or thereabouts a man's mental development will mostly consist in acquiring and sifting such knowledge as is necessary for the groundwork of a general platform from which he can examine the different political problems that arise from day to day and be able to adopt a definite attitude towards each. A man must first acquire a fund of general ideas and fit them together so as to form an organic structure of personal thought or outlook on life – a Weltanschauung. Then he will have that mental equipment without which he cannot form his own judgments on particular questions of the day, and he will have acquired those qualities that are necessary for consistency and steadfastness in the formation of political opinions. Such a man is now qualified, at least subjectively, to take his part in the political conduct of public affairs.

If these pre-requisite conditions are not fulfilled, and if a man should enter political life without this equipment, he will run a twofold risk. In the first place, he may find during the course of events that the stand which he originally took in regard to some essential question was wrong. He will now have to abandon his former position or else stick to it against his better knowledge and riper wisdom and after his reason and convictions have already proved it untenable. If he adopt the former line of action he will find himself in a difficult personal situation; because in giving up a position hitherto maintained he will appear inconsistent and will have no right to expect his followers to remain as loyal to his leadership as they were before. And, as regards the followers themselves, they may easily look upon their leader's change of policy as showing a lack of judgment inherent in his character. Moreover, the change must cause in them a certain feeling of discomfiture vis-a-vis those whom the leader formerly opposed.

If he adopts the second alternative--which so very frequently happens to-day--then public pronouncements of the leader have no longer his personal persuasion to support them. And the more that is the case the defence of his cause will be all the more hollow and superficial. He now descends to the adoption of vulgar means in his defence. While he himself no longer dreams seriously of standing by his political protestations to the last – for no man will die in defence of something in which he does not believe – he makes increasing demands on his followers. Indeed, the greater be the measure of his own insincerity, the more unfortunate and inconsiderate become his claims on his party adherents. Finally, he throws aside the last vestiges of true leadership and begins to play politics. This means that he becomes one of those whose only consistency is their inconsistency, associated with overbearing insolence and oftentimes an artful mendacity developed to a shamelessly high degree.

Should such a person, to the misfortune of all decent people, succeed in becoming a parliamentary deputy it will be clear from the outset that for him the essence of political activity consists in a heroic struggle to keep permanent hold on this milk-bottle as a source of livelihood for himself and his family. The more his wife and children are dependent on him, the more stubbornly will he fight to maintain for himself the representation of his parliamentary constituency. For that reason any other person who gives evidence of political capacity is his personal enemy. In every new movement he will apprehend the possible beginning of his own downfall. And everyone who is a better man than himself will appear to him in the light of a menace.

I shall subsequently deal more fully with the problem to which this kind of parliamentary vermin give rise.

What Adolf Hitler is saying, is that unless a man has a firm foundation in knowledge and experience, he cannot be a reliable or even an able leader. Therefore he will be apt to do anything simply to retain his office. This sort of person will inevitably sell himself out for the sake of keeping his office.

This is the nature of the bramble-bush in the Parable of the Trees of the Forest found in Judges chapter 9, that if any tree can ascend to the position of a ruler, the trees of the basest sort will naturally ascend to that position. Such is the essence of representative democracy, it is natural law, and there is no way to avoid it. Hitler may have understood that if he were more acutely aware of the parable.

After discussing what he had considered to be the breakdown of democracy in Austria in his own lifetime, which Hitler at first attributed to a lack of a sufficient number of ethnic Germans in the parliament, he came to a greater realization. So later in that same chapter of Mein Kampf he wrote:

Then I began to reflect seriously on the whole thing. I went to the Parliament whenever I had any time to spare and watched the spectacle silently but attentively. I listened to the debates, as far as they could be understood, and I studied the more or less intelligent features of those 'elect' representatives of the various nationalities which composed that motley State. Gradually I formed my own ideas about what I saw.

A year of such quiet observation was sufficient to transform or completely destroy my former convictions as to the character of this parliamentary institution. I no longer opposed merely the perverted form which the principle of parliamentary representation had assumed in Austria. No. It had become impossible for me to accept the system in itself. Up to that time I had believed that the disastrous deficiencies of the Austrian Parliament were due to the lack of a German majority, but now I recognized that the institution itself was wrong in its very essence and form.

A number of problems presented themselves before my mind. I studied more closely the democratic principle of 'decision by the majority vote', and I scrutinized no less carefully the intellectual and moral worth of the gentlemen who, as the chosen representatives of the nation, were entrusted with the task of making this institution function.

Thus it happened that at one and the same time I came to know the institution itself and those of whom it was composed. And it was thus that, within the course of a few years, I came to form a clear and vivid picture of the average type of that most lightly worshipped phenomenon of our time – the parliamentary deputy. The picture of him which I then formed became deeply engraved on my mind and I have never altered it since, at least as far as essentials go.

Once again these object-lessons taken from real life saved me from getting firmly entangled by a theory which at first sight seems so alluring to many people, though that theory itself is a symptom of human decadence.

Democracy, as practised in Western Europe to-day, is the fore-runner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would not be conceivable 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 abortion of filth and fire, the creative fire of which, however, seems to have died out.

I am more than grateful to Fate that this problem came to my notice when I was still in Vienna; for if I had been in Germany at that time I might easily have found only a superficial solution. If I had been in Berlin when I first discovered what an illogical thing this institution is which we call Parliament, I might easily have gone to the other extreme and believed – as many people believed, and apparently not without good reason – that the salvation of the people and the Empire could be secured only by restrengthening the principle of imperial authority. Those who had this belief did not discern the tendencies of their time and were blind to the aspirations of the people.

Adolf Hitler had initially had the same solution to the decadence of democracy that Julius Caesar had. Perhaps the reason why Hitler is not exalted in the eyes of the people of today like Caesar is, lies in the fact that in Rome there were no newspapers – there was no Press for the Jews to control and set the public opinion. But like Julius Caesar, Hitler was a hero to the common people of his own nation, at his own time.

Returning to continue his discussion of Austria’s particular problems, Hitler comes to the realization that a true and great leader cannot possibly participate in the democratic system and at the same time maintain his integrity and his virtue along with his conviction. So he writes:

Since this problem was specially difficult in regard to Austria, I was forced while still quite young to go into the essentials of the whole question more thoroughly than I otherwise should have done.

The aspect of the situation that first made the most striking impression on me and gave me grounds for serious reflection was the manifest lack of any individual responsibility in the representative body.

The parliament passes some acts or decree which may have the most devastating consequences, yet nobody bears the responsibility for it. Nobody can be called to account. For surely one cannot say that a Cabinet discharges its responsibility when it retires after having brought about a catastrophe. Or can we say that the responsibility is fully discharged when a new coalition is formed or parliament dissolved? Can the principle of responsibility mean anything else than the responsibility of a definite person?

Is it at all possible actually to call to account the leaders of a parliamentary government for any kind of action which originated in the wishes of the whole multitude of deputies and was carried out under their orders or sanction? Instead of developing constructive ideas and plans, does the business of a statesman consist in the art of making a whole pack of blockheads understand his projects? Is it his business to entreat and coach them so that they will grant him their generous consent?

Is it an indispensable quality in a statesman that he should possess a gift of persuasion commensurate with the statesman's ability to conceive great political measures and carry them through into practice?

Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail to win over a majority of votes to support his policy in an assembly which has been called together as the chance result of an electoral system that is not always honestly administered?

Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has worthily appraised a great political concept before that concept was put into practice and its greatness openly demonstrated through its success?

In this world is not the creative act of the genius always a protest against the inertia of the mass?

What shall the statesman do if he does not succeed in coaxing the parliamentary multitude to give its consent to his policy? Shall he purchase that consent for some sort of consideration?

Or, when confronted with the obstinate stupidity of his fellow citizens, should he then refrain from pushing forward the measures which he deems to be of vital necessity to the life of the nation? Should he retire or remain in power?

In such circumstances does not a man of character find himself face to face with an insoluble contradiction between his own political insight on the one hand and, on the other, his moral integrity, or, better still, his sense of honesty?

Where can we draw the line between public duty and personal honour?

Must not every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself to the level of a political jobber?

All modern politicians are only political jobbers.

And, on the other hand, does not every jobber feel the itch to 'play politics', seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him personally but with an anonymous mass which can never be called to account for their deeds?

Regardless of how good or bad things get in a nation with a parliamentary system, people are prone to re-electing their own leaders, to never blaming their own party or leaders for the bleak results, and the leaders go on to collect their salaries and their pensions indefinitely. They are never held accountable for failure. On the rare occasion that they are ousted at the polls, they keep all of the salaries and other perquisites which they had collected, and their pension, and usually go on to work in government in another capacity, or as lobbyists for the private interests which helped them get elected in the first place. A United States Congressman is eligible for some form of pension after only 5 years, while many common people have no pension even after a lifetime of work. Davy Crockett would be flabbergasted. There seem to only be rewards for such politicians, and there are never any penalties for mediocrity. Hitler continues, his questions leading to greater and greater conclusions:

Must not our parliamentary principle of government by numerical majority necessarily lead to the destruction of the principle of leadership?

Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual personality?

Or may it be presumed that for the future human civilization will be able to dispense with this as a condition of its existence?

But may it not be that, to-day, more than ever before, the creative brain of the individual is indispensable?

The parliamentary principle of vesting legislative power in the decision of the majority rejects the authority of the individual and puts a numerical quota of anonymous heads in its place. In doing so it contradicts the aristocratic principle, which is a fundamental law of nature; but, of course, we must remember that in this decadent era of ours the aristocratic principle need not be thought of as incorporated in the upper ten thousand.

Hitler is appropriately describing the state of decadence among the German aristocracy, many of whom had also already intermarried with Jews – as he attested in other places. But the aristocracy arose from men of old who were no different from the rest of their tribal kinsmen except in their ability as leaders at some particular time, and throughout the medieval period men who excelled and benefitted their tribes and their nations were continually added to the aristocracy, so Hitler’s philosophy does not damage the aristocratic principle. Problematically, with the rise of finance and materialism, many of the new aristocrats were actually Jews, but we digress. Hitler continues:

The devastating influence of this parliamentary institution might not easily be recognized by those who read the Jewish Press, unless the reader has learned how to think independently and examine the facts for himself. This institution is primarily responsible for the crowded inrush of mediocre people into the field of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in political life; because under these circumstances the situation does not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship but rather for a man who is capable of bargaining for the favour of the majority. Thus the situation will appeal to small minds and will attract them accordingly.

The narrower the mental outlook and the more meagre the amount of knowledge in a political jobber, the more accurate is his estimate of his own political stock, and thus he will be all the more inclined to appreciate a system which does not demand creative genius or even high-class talent; but rather that crafty kind of sagacity which makes an efficient town clerk. Indeed, he values this kind of small craftiness more than the political genius of a Pericles. Such a mediocrity does not even have to worry about responsibility for what he does. From the beginning he knows that whatever be the results of his 'statesmanship' his end is already prescribed by the stars; he will one day have to clear out and make room for another who is of similar mental calibre. For it is another sign of our decadent times that the number of eminent statesmen grows according as the calibre of individual personality dwindles. That calibre will become smaller and smaller the more the individual politician has to depend upon parliamentary majorities. A man of real political ability will refuse to be the beadle for a bevy of footling cacklers; and they in their turn, being the representatives of the majority – which means the dunder-headed multitude – hate nothing so much as a superior brain.

Adolf Hitler had the exact same view of democracy and the mob, or “dunder-headed multitude”, that the authors of the Protocols had, and that is because it is generally true. This is exactly why the authors of the Protocols knew that they would come to be rulers of the world, once the world was deceived into accepting governance by parliamentary democracy through the deceit of Liberalism. The common man does not have the education or the foundation in practical relative experience necessary to be a leader of the people. Most men do not have the information required to choose a ruler of their own. So the best speaker persuades the people on an emotional basis, and gets the votes, rather the best leader. The authors of the Protocols knew that their party could always employ the best speakers, and that they were also in a position to smear any viable competition through their own control of the Press, as we have read here in this paragraph from Protocol No. 3 which we currently discuss.

Hitler continues to discuss the failures of the democratic system:

For footling deputies it is always quite a consolation to be led by a person whose intellectual stature is on a level with their own. Thus each one may have the opportunity to shine in debate among such compeers and, above all, each one feels that he may one day rise to the top. If Peter be boss to-day, then why not Paul tomorrow?

This new invention of democracy is very closely connected with a peculiar phenomenon which has recently spread to a pernicious extent, namely the cowardice of a large section of our so-called political leaders. Whenever important decisions have to be made they always find themselves fortunate in being able to hide behind the backs of what they call the majority.

In observing one of these political manipulators one notices how he wheedles the majority in order to get their sanction for whatever action he takes. He has to have accomplices in order to be able to shift responsibility to other shoulders whenever it is opportune to do so. That is the main reason why this kind of political activity is abhorrent to men of character and courage, while at the same time it attracts inferior types; for a person who is not willing to accept responsibility for his own actions, but is always seeking to be covered by something, must be classed among the knaves and the rascals. If a national leader should come from that lower class of politicians the evil consequences will soon manifest themselves. Nobody will then have the courage to take a decisive step. They will submit to abuse and defamation rather than pluck up courage to take a definite stand. And thus nobody is left who is willing to risk his position and his career, if needs be, in support of a determined line of policy.

One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice. And just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapable of any political line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude.

Hitler goes on to explain how any real leader elected to the legislative body will forever be opposed by his peers, who actually fear and despise men superior to themselves. With this He concludes:

The inevitable result is that the intellectual level of the ruling class sinks steadily. One can easily forecast how much the nation and State are bound to suffer from such a condition of affairs, provided one does not belong to that same class of 'leaders'.

Then after some more discussion of his perspective of the application of these observations to the situation in Austria, he says:

There is no other principle which turns out to be quite so ill-conceived as the parliamentary principle, if we examine it objectively.

In our examination of it we may pass over the methods according to which the election of the representatives takes place, as well as the ways which bring them into office and bestow new titles on them. It is quite evident that only to a tiny degree are public wishes or public necessities satisfied by the manner in which an election takes place; for everybody who properly estimates the political intelligence of the masses can easily see that this is not sufficiently developed to enable them to form general political judgments on their own account, or to select the men who might be competent to carry out their ideas in practice.

And we must interject, that for this reason the people look to entertainers and the Jewish press to inform them. Because they cannot inform themselves, they naturally turn to their idols.

Whatever definition we may give of the term 'public opinion', only a very small part of it originates from personal experience or individual insight. The greater portion of it results from the manner in which public matters have been presented to the people through an overwhelmingly impressive and persistent system of 'information'.

In the religious sphere the profession of a denominational belief is largely the result of education, while the religious yearning itself slumbers in the soul; so too the political opinions of the masses are the final result of influences systematically operating on human sentiment and intelligence in virtue of a method which is applied sometimes with almost-incredible thoroughness and perseverance.

By far the most effective branch of political education, which in this connection is best expressed by the word 'propaganda', is carried on by the Press. The Press is the chief means employed in the process of political 'enlightenment'. It represents a kind of school for adults. This educational activity, however, is not in the hands of the State but in the clutches of powers which are partly of a very inferior character. While still a young man in Vienna I had excellent opportunities for coming to know the men who owned this machine for mass instruction, as well as those who supplied it with the ideas it distributed. At first I was quite surprised when I realized how little time was necessary for this dangerous Great Power within the State to produce a certain belief among the public; and in doing so the genuine will and convictions of the public were often completely misconstrued. It took the Press only a few days to transform some ridiculously trivial matter into an issue of national importance, while vital problems were completely ignored or filched and hidden away from public attention.

And most observant people – who are themselves a minority of the population – readily see this same phenomenon on a daily basis in our own time. The reporting on non-news and even fake news, while real issues are ignored or purposely misrepresented, has always been the method of the Jewish press to form public opinion for its own purposes.

The Press succeeded in the magical art of producing names from nowhere within the course of a few weeks. They made it appear that the great hopes of the masses were bound up with those names. [We see this all the time in our own election cycles. For example, Barak Obama went from relative obscurity in the Illinois State Legislature to the U.S. Senate to President in only a few short years.] And so they made those names more popular than any man of real ability could ever hope to be in a long lifetime. All this was done, despite the fact that such names were utterly unknown and indeed had never been heard of even up to a month before the Press publicly emblazoned them. At the same time old and tried figures in the political and other spheres of life quickly faded from the public memory and were forgotten as if they were dead, though still healthy and in the enjoyment of their full vigour. Or sometimes such men were so vilely abused that it looked as if their names would soon stand as permanent symbols of the worst kind of baseness. In order to estimate properly the really pernicious influence which the Press can exercise one had to study this infamous Jewish method whereby honourable and decent people were besmirched with mud and filth, in the form of low abuse and slander, from hundreds and hundreds of quarters simultaneously, as if commanded by some magic formula.

These highway robbers would grab at anything which might serve their evil ends.

Here Hitler explains the fulfillment of the objectives of this very passage which we are discussing from the Protocols this evening, so we will repeat it: “Unrestrained babblers have converted parliamentary sessions and administrative meetings into oratorical contests. Daring journalists, impudent pamphleteers, make daily attacks on the administrative personnel. The abuse of power is definitely preparing the downfall of all institutions and everything will be overturned by the blows of the infuriated mobs.” Hitler is discussing both the unrestrained babblers, and the methods which the Jews use to smear their upright opponents, all from his own observations. This is the Protocols in operation and Hitler is writing in the 1920’s, only two decades after their original publication.

Going on to describe how the Press destroyed the reputations of prospective politicians which it did not like by slandering them, Hitler says in a sort of semi-conclusion:

These are the kind of beings that fabricate more than two-thirds of what is called public opinion, from the foam of which the parliamentary Aphrodite eventually arises.

In Volume 1, Chapter 4 of Mein Kampf, Munich, Hitler wrote that “In Bismarck's time Austria could still be looked upon as a German State; but the gradual introduction of universal suffrage turned the country into a parliamentary babel, in which the German voice was scarcely audible.”

In Volume 1, Chapter 5 of Mein Kampf, The World War Hitler wrote that “I was then a soldier and did not wish to meddle in politics, all the more so because the time was inopportune. I still believe that the most modest stable-boy of those days served his country better than the best of, let us say, the 'parliamentary deputies'. My hatred for those footlers was never greater than in those days when all decent men who had anything to say said it point-blank in the enemy's face; or, failing this, kept their mouths shut and did their duty elsewhere. I despised those political fellows and if I had had my way I would have formed them into a Labour Battalion and given them the opportunity of babbling amongst themselves to their hearts' content, without offence or harm to decent people.” Throughout Mein Kampf Hitler complained of parliamentary babblers, in regard to issues such as the South Tyrol or the diminished German sea power.

In Volume 1, Chapter 10 of Mein Kampf, Why the Second Reich Collapsed, Hitler discusses some of the peripheral issues related to the failures of democracy.

One visible result of wrong educational system was the fear of shouldering responsibility and the resultant weakness in dealing with obvious vital problems of existence.

In today’s world children are purposely being taught by the schools that they have no responsibility, that nothing is their fault when they fail, that there are no winners and losers. All children get trophies for every activity, and no child is left behind, while in reality every child is left behind. [I witnessed this in the school systems in New Jersey with my own children, in the 1980’s.] But we see here in Hitler’s words that academic Marxism is not a recent phenomenon. Hitler continues:

The starting point of this epidemic, however, was in our parliamentary institution where the shirking of responsibility is particularly fostered. Unfortunately the disease slowly spread to all branches of everyday life but particularly affected the sphere of public affairs. Responsibility was being shirked everywhere and this led to insufficient or half-hearted measures being taken, personal responsibility for each act being reduced to a minimum….

But the greatest damage of all has come from the practice of debasing religion as a means that can be exploited to serve political interests, or rather commercial interests. The impudent and loud-mouthed liars who do this make their profession of faith before the whole world in stentorian tones so that all poor mortals may hear – not that they are ready to die for it if necessary but rather that they may live all the better. They are ready to sell their faith for any political quid pro quo. For ten parliamentary mandates they would ally themselves with the Marxists, who are the mortal foes of all religion. And for a seat in the Cabinet they would go the length of wedlock with the devil, if the latter had not still retained some traces of decency….

So there were John Hagees and Franklin Grahams in Germany in the 1920’s, just as they are prevalent in America today. But the real point Hitler is making here is connected to his statement much earlier in Mein Kampf, that democracy is the breeding-ground for Marxism, and Marxism is the inevitable result of democracy. We see this same process has unfolded in our own time in America. So where the Jews in this Protocol No. 3 have boasted that “The abuse of power is definitely preparing the downfall of all institutions and everything will be overturned by the blows of the infuriated mobs”, it is evident that they themselves have encouraged the abuse of power in the democratic system so that they can bring to fruition the “downfall of all institutions” in a more subliminal fashion, and replace the old values with their own Marxist values. This is precisely what they have managed to do in America. Hitler continues:

One of the silliest notions that one hears expressed to-day is that in Germany the parliamentary institution has ceased to function since the Revolution. This might easily be taken to imply that the case was different before the Revolution. But in reality the parliamentary institution never functioned except to the detriment of the country. And it functioned thus in those days when people saw nothing or did not wish to see anything. The German downfall is to be attributed in no small degree to this institution. But that the catastrophe did not take place sooner is not to be credited to the Parliament but rather to those who opposed the influence of this institution which, during peace times, was digging the grave of the German Nation and the German Reich.

From the immense mass of devastating evils that were due either directly or indirectly to the Parliament I shall select one the most intimately typical of this institution which was the most irresponsible of all time. The evil I speak of was seen in the appalling shilly-shally and weakness in conducting the internal and external affairs of the Reich. It was attributable in the first place to the action of the Reichstag and was one of the principal causes of the political collapse.

Everything subject to the influence of Parliament was done by halves, no matter from what aspect you may regard it….

Hitler goes on to explain many things he described as having been done by “half-measures”, ostensibly due to the constant need for compromise in such a parliamentary system. So he concludes, in part:

The crime committed by the so-called German Reichstag in this regard was sufficient of itself to draw down upon it the curses of the German Nation for all time. On the most miserable of pretexts these parliamentary party henchmen filched from the hands of the nation and threw away the weapons which were needed to maintain its existence and therewith defend the liberty and independence of our people. If the graves on the plains of Flanders were to open to-day the bloodstained accusers would arise, hundreds of thousands of our best German youth who were driven into the arms of death by those conscienceless parliamentary ruffians who were either wrongly educated for their task or only half-educated. Those youths, and other millions of the killed and mutilated, were lost to the Fatherland simply and solely in order that a few hundred deceivers of the people might carry out their political manoeuvres and their exactions or even treasonably pursue their doctrinaire theories.

Hitler then went on to describe the equally treacherous role of the Jewish Marxist Press in those same crimes. This is a signal example of the lack of responsibility for bad outcomes inherent in the parliamentary system. The young men who died should have been at home, and the politicians who sent them to their deaths should have been buried at Flanders. In Volume 1, Chapter 11 of Mein Kampf, titled Race and People, Hitler discusses the nature of the Jew in relation to the failure of democracy, and we will save that portion for another time.

Repeating a portion of Protocol No. 2: “The administrators chosen by us from among the people in accordance with their capacity for servility will not be experienced in the art of government, and consequently they will easily become pawns in our game, in the hands of our scientists and wise counselors, specialists trained from early childhood for governing the world. As you are aware, these specialists have obtained the knowledge necessary for government from our political plans, from the study of history, and from the observation of every passing event.” Our 18th and 19th century forebears should have studied the Classics and they may have seen the dismal record of democracy before accepting the Jewish and Freemasonic propaganda. It is evident that the authors of the Protocols certainly did study, as they knew just what would be the result.

When we return to the Protocols of Satan, we hope to actually discuss a much larger portion of this Protocol No. 3, but feel it necessary throughout this series to lay a foundation of understanding deep enough so that our listeners may come to understand all of our positions not only on the Protocols, but related to our outlook of the world which the demons behind the Protocols have created.

Ultimately, there will only be justice with our God and His Christ. In the meantime, we must see why this system called democracy can never produce a solution.