- Christogenea Saturdays
The Protocols of Satan, Part 26: The New Lords of the Manor in the Fall of Feudalism
Over the past few episodes of these Protocols of Satan, we hope to have elucidated the fact that Democracy as a form of government has a long history of failure since ancient times, and that it was doomed to fail as soon as it developed in the modern world. Democracy fails because it is built on a foundation of empty rhetoric and compromise, and not on any firm foundation of ability and leadership qualities. But Jewry, as it conspired to overthrow the princes of Europe through the secret societies and the infiltration of other institutions, understood that the introduction of Democracy in the concept of Liberalism, spread through the false religions of humanism and egalitarianism, would most assuredly enable them to usurp power for themselves through their control of the banks and the money power, which also afforded them control of the media so that they had the tools they needed to manipulate the perception of consensus among the people. The unsuspecting people are taught to be proud of the past 200 years of democracy, but the historical record shows that it has been two hundred years of war and failure, while the International Jews have accumulated greater and greater wealth and power.
But Democracy gives the common people a false sense of empowerment, and therefore the concept is popular. Not wishing to be bound to their own marginally Christian nobility, they have become willing slaves for the Jewish bankers. The truth is that democracy is a deception, because all people are not equal, and all ideas are not equally valid. The freedom of speech and the ability to openly express oneself are wonderful, but when everyone uses that freedom to express opinions about everything, that is not good because not everyone has equally valid information or equal cognitive faculties as a basis upon which to formulate sound opinions on many subjects. Everyone caught up in the deception is drowned out by the volume of the noise. So from both political democracy and the democratic equality of ideas there can come nothing but failure and division.
Today we have social media as a perfect example to reflect upon this problem. For example, there are Bible experts who have never read a word of Hebrew or Greek and know little about history, and there are flat-earth proponents who have never studied the heavenly bodies through a telescope. They work as grocery store clerks during the day, and in one night they can watch a few 15-minute You-tube videos and become experts on virtually any topic. So because everyone has an opinion, and everyone has an equal opportunity to be heard, we have a population of experts at everything who in reality know nothing, and we are all divided, and the Jew rules over us because in the end he still controls the money supply and the media. But once again we digress…
Some of tonight’s program will be a little repetitive, but we feel it is important to cover every aspect of these Protocols that we can, from every relevant historical perspective that we can possibly understand. If we learn from our history, perhaps one day we will stop repeating our mistakes.
Making our exhibition of the failure of democracy, we have only presented a few lines of Protocol No. 3 related to this phenomenon. Now we shall continue with just a few more lines of 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. Without further summary or reflection, we will continue from where we had left off:
Protocol No. 3:
The people are shackled by poverty to heavy labor more surely than they were by slavery and serfdom. They could liberate themselves from those in one way or another, whereas they cannot free themselves from misery.
In Part 9 of these Protocols of Satan we quoted an architectural writer named Matthew Johnson, who had attributed a loss of community in the transformation from medieval to Victorian England to industrialization where he said, in part: “A powerful link was argued between a ‘medieval’ or pre-industrial way of life that involved a sense of community and closeness to Nature on the one hand and the technical and aesthetic principles of hand-made ‘medieval’ art and individually designed architecture on the other. Both were seen by many Victorians to relate to a sense of community and a more human, less alienated way of ordering human affairs that had been lost with industrialisation. The study of earlier forms of art and architecture, then, became for the Victorian mind a moral and political, as much as an historical, exercise.” We then commented that such industrialization was made possible by the rise of Liberal government and the capitalist system where economic self-interest became the primary basis for society. The loss of community naturally results when men are compelled to compete against one another, rather than for one another, as they had in the Medieval past. So now every aspects of life seems to revolve around the economic condition, which is nearly everyone’s primary concern. This is the worship of mammon.
The pundits of the popular media labelled this yearning to a return to the past as Romanticism. In turn, this was opposed to industrialization under Jewish capitalism that they labelled as being Progressive, a term related to reform, innovation, liberalism and libertarianism at one time or another, and even today. Then because all ideas are equal, every sort of immorality becomes acceptable, and every perversion is reduced to a mere choice among other valid choices, no matter how repulsive they are to Christians. For example, choosing to participate in a life of sodomy rather than having a normal and reproductive marriage becomes a choice no different than preferring either Coke or Pepsi, Ford or Chevy, or even more horribly, abortion or child-birth. Romantics are portrayed in literature and theater as being dreamy or utopian and out of touch with reality, while Progressives are portrayed as modern and sensible and logical and just. The ruse continues to this very day, except that now Romantics are often characterized as extremist reactionaries, not because they have changed, but because the society is that far along on the road to Sodom.
This is only a brief philosophical assessment of the downfall of tradition and the rise of Liberalism and Capitalism. Here the Protocols forebode something much more sinister, which is the enslavement of man to heavy labor which was beckoned by the rise of capitalism. We began to discuss this already, where the same subject had come up earlier in the Protocols, and we cited Nesta Webster in her book World Revolution: The Plot Against Civilisation, where she was discussing the conditions for the peasants in Europe after the fall of feudalism, under the subtitle The Industrial Revolution, beginning at the bottom of page 90:
It is of the utmost importance to realize that the people at this period were suffering from very real grievances. These grievances weighed less, however, on the agricultural than on the industrial workers, whose conditions of life were often terrible. This fact no one has ever attempted to deny, and we need not have recourse to the writings of Socialists to gain an idea of the slavery endured by men, women, and children in the mines and factories of Europe during the years following on the Napoleonic wars, for we shall ﬁnd the whole case stated with more accuracy and far greater eloquence in the letters of Lord Shaftesbury, whose whole life was devoted to the cause of the poor and oppressed.
Here, unfortunately, Webster is astoundingly silent concerning the Rothschild sweatshops in London. Being the consummate Anglophile, she seems to have completely ignored conditions in England while at the same time she rather adeptly described the conditions of the common people on the Continent. She continues:
What was the reason for this aggravation of the workers’ lot? Partly the speeding up of industry brought about by the introduction of machinery; partly, in England, the rapidly increasing population, but in France to a large extent the situation must be directly attributed to the Revolution. We have already seen how the destruction of trade unions and increase in the days of labour by the abolition of national [or Roman Catholic] holidays had added to the workers' burden, but a further effect of the great upheaval had been the transference of power from the aristocracy to the bourgeoisie with disastrous consequences to the people. In a word the destruction of feudalism had inaugurated the reign of Commercialism. This is admitted by no less an authority than Marx himself.
We have already noted presenting this same text in part 22 of this series, that one of our biggest disappointments in Nesta Webster is that she upholds Marx as an authority for socialism in general, as if Marx was actually advancing Socialism. We too have made this mistake in the past, and most other writers have done the same at one time or another, but true organic socialism, which is reflected in National Socialism, is nothing like the Communist Socialism of Karl Marx. Webster continues by citing the Communist Manifesto:
The bourgeoisie has played in history a most revolutionary part. The bourgeoisie, whenever it has conquered power, has destroyed all feudal, patriarchal, and idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder all the many-coloured feudal bonds which united men to their “natural superiors,” and has left no tie twixt man and man but naked self-interest and callous cash payment. It has drowned religious ecstasy, chivalrous enthusiasm, and middle-class sentimentality in the ice-cold water of calculation. It has transformed personal worth into mere exchange value, and substituted for countless dearly-bought chartered freedoms the one and only unconscionable freedom of Free Trade. It has, in one word, replaced an exploitation veiled by religious and political illusions by exploitation open, unashamed, direct, and brutal. [Manifesto of the Communist Party, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, p. 9.]
In our own assessment of Marx’s words here, by bourgeoisie he is referring to the Jewish usurers and all those in Europe who mimicked them, who became the new rich at the beginning of the Capitalist age. Then continuing with Nesta Webster she says:
Thus in the opinion of the leading prophet of modern Socialist thought, it was the destruction of feudalism that led to the endowment of the proletariat. Exaggerated as this indictment of the bourgeoisie may be, there is a certain degree of truth in Marx’s theory. The class that lives on inherited wealth is always the barrier to the exploitation of the workers. To the noble who paid 500 louis for his carrosse [coach, or carriage], or the duchess who never asked the price of her brocaded gown, where was the advantage of underpaying the workman or the dressmaker? “Sweating” results largely from the attempt to bring commodities within the reach of a class that cannot or will not pay a price allowing a fair rate of remuneration to the worker. After the revolution, when aristocracy with its careless expenditure and its traditional instincts of benevolence had taken refuge in garrets, these were the classes that supported industry, and it is thus against “the newly rich” [the bourgeoisie] that we ﬁnd the bitterest complaints of the people directed.
The last time we read this passage, we concluded that the effort to sell luxuries to everyone makes slaves of everyone when everyone comes to desire such luxuries. Jewish advertising and global Jewish trade were exalted in the promise of an ability to deliver luxuries to the entire world, thereby enslaving the entire world. In this sense, commodities are even luxuries, because only those living in luxury may enjoy an endless supply of their common needs with little of their own labor used to procure them.
Throughout this series on the Protocols of Satan, and with the help of sources such as Nesta Webster, we have discussed many aspects of the rise of Capitalism with the fall of Feudalism in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. A couple of years ago (in this case, mostly Sven Longshanks and I,) we had done a series of presentations under other titles which discussed the corresponding history that assured the triumph of Capitalism in Medieval England from the time of Cromwell in the 17th century. Even the Puritans were basically Calvinists who accepted the evil of usury.
But doing this, we do not want to be mistakenly interpreted as though we have promoted Feudalism itself as an ideal economic system. And before we continue with the Protocols, we want to at least somewhat better describe how European life was before Capitalism. Serfdom was, basically, slavery, but not all Europeans were serfs. Moreover, it has been a fact of history that some men and women are simply most fit for a life of servility in one form or another, or have made bad decisions which have compelled them into such a life, of which the parable of the Prodigal Son is a signal example. On the other hand, men and women who are more industrious and productive and who have developed certain talents become craftsmen and rise above menial work, while those with even greater talents and intellectual gifts can excel to a higher level. Economic class is a fact of life, and the Christian Scriptures do not despise it.
For instance, in Luke chapter 19 we read of a wealthy man named Zacchaeus, who was described as “chief among the publicans”, and who rather desperately wanted to see Christ as He passed through Jericho. When he was fortunate enough for his efforts to be recognized by Christ, as the streets were crowded with His followers, Zacchaeus was overjoyed and announced that he would give half of his fortune to the poor, and if he had taken any thing from any man unfairly, that he would restore it four times over. For this Zacchaeus was justified, although it is evident that he would remain both a wealthy man and a chief publican, or tax collector, even after giving away half of his wealth.
Another example is in the admonition of the apostle James to the wealthy, where he said in chapter 5 of his epistle: “1 Come on, those who are wealthy now, weep, crying out upon your coming hardships! 2 Your wealth is putrefied and your garments have become moth-eaten! 3 Your gold and silver are corroded and their corrosion shall be for a testimony to you and it shall eat your flesh as fire. You have saved up for the last days. 4 Behold, the wages of the laborers reaping your fields which have been withheld by you cry out, and the cries of the harvesters have entered into the ears of the Prince of Armies! 5 You have lived luxuriously and lewdly upon the earth: you have nourished your hearts in a day of slaughter! 6 You have condemned, you have murdered the righteous, who did not oppose you!” The apostle is basically describing the conditions which existed in medieval feudalism. Without changing one word, his description fits perfectly the Europe of Martin Luther’s time, where the clergy and the nobles lived lasciviously and the common people were oppressed and driven to rebellion. But examining the admonition, James did not despise the wealthy for being wealthy, rather he despised the wealthy who oppressed and took advantage of the poor. He despised the wealthy who did not pay a fair wage to those who did their labor, while they themselves profitted excessively. As Christ had said in the Gospel, “ye have the poor always with you”, but how the wealthy treat the poor, and how they act as stewards over their own wealth, that is how they shall be judged (i.e. Deut. 8:13-18).
Paul of Tarsus informs us in Romans chapter 13 that “1 Every soul must be subject to more powerful authorities. Since there is no authority except from Yahweh, then those who are, by Yahweh are they appointed. 2 Consequently, one opposing the authority has opposed the ordinance of Yahweh, and they who are in opposition will themselves receive judgment.” Men have no choice but to be subject to one authority or another, or be punished by God. In the Parable of the Prodigal Son, a man took his share of his father’s estate and leaving home he abused it profligately, thereby reducing himself to slavery. He eventually returned home begging to be a slave for his own father, rather than be in bondage to swineherds. Since every man must be subject to a higher authority, the lesson is that if we do not serve our Father in Heaven, we shall indeed be the slaves of men.
For this Paul had said in his epistle to the Colossians “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God” and then “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.” Of course, it is evident that Paul was not talking about Jews. So the concept of Feudalism in itself is not necessarily evil, and the masters of the estates could only be encouraged to treat their serfs justly. Today’s educational systems teach men to despise the concept of servitude, and as individuals we no longer serve our communities, so we are all enslaved to the banking system of the International Jew and we do not even know it. The real ruin of the Feudal system, as well as the even better social and economic construct of the smallholder, the small farmers who are independent lords of their own land, was Jewish usury. Jewish usury helped elevate Feudalism over the smallholder until Feudalism itself was broken and the Jews themselves became the masters of Europe. Liberalism and Democracy were the vehicles by which they knew that they could make themselves the lords of the manor.
To better understand this process we are going to present a lengthy excerpt from a book review by another Matthew Johnson. This is from a review of Stephen Goodson's A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind (Black House Publishing, 2014) which was written by the historian Matthew Rafael Johnson and originally published by the now-defunct website Eurasia Review on May 1st, 2014. We were fortunate to have located a copy of it at the Sign of the Times website.
The author of the original book, Stephen Goodson, is a South African banker-turned populist politician, and one-time leader of South Africa’s Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party. He is disparaged in Jewish media sources as being an admirer of Adolf Hitler and for rejecting the Jewish lies concerning the so-called Holocaust. He was ultimately forced to resign his position at the South African Reserve Bank, the nation’s Jewish-controlled central bank, for his truthful but politically incorrect historical views. What follows is excerpted from Matthew Johnson’s review of A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind [we will add a few notes in brackets]:
One of the most difficult things to explain to American university students is how capitalism and communism share far more in common than they do in conflict. In fact, regardless of how it is explained, the old saw that the two approaches are "opposites" can never quite penetrate. Even worse, explaining to students and their bewildered parents that the US banking and industrial conglomerates financed the Soviet Red revolution and built Soviet industry is also maddeningly impossible.
One simple way to explain it is to say that, for bankers in the modern era, the state's control of the entire economy from one place is what bankers believe paradise to look like. There is one plan, one banking system and one social system in place; this means that banks merely forward the cash, both expecting the state, not the economy as such, to reimburse them with the requisite interest. In other words, the command economy is the most congenial to banks. There is no necessary connection between private banking and a state-owned economy. It is just as simple for a banker to work for the Party as it is for Goldman-Sachs.
Capitalism and socialism [where we see once again that there is a failure to distinguish between Marxist socialism and National Socialism] are based on materialism. Production and utility alone are considered goods, and efficiency in methods is considered the sine qua non of ethical contemplation. Both systems are oriented to technology, hold to a linear view of history, and seek the mechanization of all aspects of humanity. As they both develop, the economic system and the state merge into a single machine. The error of the libertarians has always been their insistence that the state and private capital are opposed. Quite the opposite is true. Large concentrations of capital are deeply embedded in the state, using it as both a personal bodyguard and as a regulator that keeps market entry impossibly high. The defeat of the Justice Department by Microsoft in 2010-2012 shows the imbalance of power between private capital and the state.
This might seem tangential to a work on banking. For the typical isolated and tenured professor of political economy, it would be. For those, such as Mr. Goodson, who served on the Board of the Central Bank of South Africa for many years, isolated academia seems absurd. Mr. Goodson was anything but isolated, and he witnessed the tight control of economic life by banking conglomerates the world over. He saw it in vivid colors.
This book is not a study in technical economics. It is, thankfully, a study in history. Goodson realizes what most economists do not: that to grasp any economic phenomenon, it must be seen as a product of many decades of historical development. Each aspect of the whole continually reinforces the other, and the whole itself is constantly changing, like an organism, as history continues to present new challenges, new projects and new victims.
With what follows we may see that Identity Christians can appreciate Stephen Goodson’s work even if it is written from a secular historical perspective:
In other words, the secret life of banks did not merely occur because a group of men off the coast of Georgia wanted it to. [Referring to Jekyll Island.] They themselves were actors within a historical stream that goes back to the first Mesopotamian civilizations and reached its ancient zenith in Rome. The fact that the whole has continuously been based on the same set of assumptions regardless of the civilization within which it was embedded is impressive, and it calls out for detailed analysis. Given the political fallout from such honesty, however, Mr. Goodson needed to resign himself to the fact that few in the mainstream will even mention his work, let alone accept it.
This is the workings of the Biblical dragon which gives its power to every beast government, but Stephen Goodson seems to have discovered it through mere historical examination and a first-hand knowledge of banking. Johnson continues:
There is one constant in history that is manifestly clear in this work: that the essential distinction between monarchy and republicanism (broadly speaking) is economic. Republics are normally oligarchies, or at least contain its seeds. Monarchies, since they are perpetually at war with their own nobility, often reject the assumptions of oligarchy. Whether it be the national socialist party of China or Belarus, the royal bank of St. Petersburg or the centralized dictatorship of the Augustan era, all forms of strong statism has made war on the banking monopoly. No authoritarian leader will accept competition from an all powerful economic mediator. Of course, there are a few exceptions on both sides, but history has been fairly clear that strong states, those based on traditional authority, reject the alchemy of money and interest.
Next our reviewer summarizes the author’s explanation of the struggle for banking supremacy in Rome.
The enemies of an 'autocratic' ruler are to be found among a handful within the nobility/oligarchy, not from among the masses of ordinary people.
Rome rapidly, at the time of Cicero, was already moving away from its Senatorial oligarchy and towards the military empire of Sulla and his successors. The immediate impact, once the dust of the civil wars cleared, was that minting was centralized and usury controlled. Julius Caesar sought to limit interest to 1% monthly and, in a populist move rarely seen, banned its compound increase. Furthermore, any accumulated interest could never exceed the original principle.
In Byzantium, the Roman empire of the East, interest had been officially limited to 5%, give or take, but this could only be enforced under emperors who were strong. Basil II for example, rejected interest altogether and forced wealthy landowners to financially assist poorer peasants. [A Christian concept embedded into the principles of National Socialism.] His strength, while common, was usually followed by an aristocratic reaction who placed puppet emperors in Constantinople. However, under such a system, eastern Rome was blessed with a vibrant, populist economy. Her currency was the global standard as far east as China. Peasants were free landholders and feudalism existed nowhere. Inflation did not exist, and trade flows always favored the capital. For this reason, oligarchic states such as Venice, Dubrovnik and the Norman interlopers in Sicily, continually financed Rome's enemies. [The author is still speaking of Constantinople as “Rome”.]
After 1204, when the western Norman Crusaders sacked Constantinople, the dominance of Venetian oligarchs became the order of the day. Byzantium was marked for death once the emperors of the 14th and 15th century gave away their financial autonomy for regular infusions of Venetian money. Having lost all economic independence and seeing the immense wealth of the east flow in interest payments to Italy, Byzantium finally collapsed under an Italian-financed Turkish invasion in 1453. Venice became Turkey's most significant ally.
Later the Venetians would be at war with the Turks. The Jews of Spain were also clearly allies of the Turks, and Jews were behind all of the Turkic invasions, as well as the Arab conquests. This is a description of a much older war for the Jewish dominance of Christendom, and Islam as a weapon in the hands of the Jews in the execution of that war, even if the author does not express it in those terms. He continues:
There is no economic mystery here. Whenever interest is tightly controlled, the continued compound leakage of cash to banking centers does not exist. This financial hemorrhaging means that value remains where it belongs: with the small businessman and small landholder. Without the geometrically increasing mass of interest, a fraction of today's total labor was sufficient to maintain monetary stability, necessary supplies and a nobility forced to serve the state rather than rule it. Within the modern system of usury, centralization is unavoidable as compound interest continually increases the flow of real value out of the economy and into the coffers of the cabal.
Now our reviewer turns his attention to the author’s explanation of the rise to supremacy of banking in England.
England was no different. Prior to the Norman invasion, Anglo-Saxon England, even after the Viking attacks, existed in a financial golden age. Again, smallholders were the norm, urban trade maintained low prices, and the lack of liquid capital forestalled any noble centralization. [The buying out of smallholders and replacing them with the use of serf labor.] Feudalism could not exist under such a system. Usury was banned in Mercia under Offa the Great, and in Alfred's frantic attempt to centralize power in Wessex against the Danes, he too, refused the "services" of the banking cabal. The Italian banks, however, were quite interested in William's planned assault on Anglo-Saxondom and to remove Scandinavian influence from England. Usury was permitted, for a time, under the new Norman hegemony [beginning in the 11th century]. The old Anglo aristocracy was slaughtered, and William imported a new nobility with close ties to Italy [or Jewish bankers in Italy]. Feudalism made its very first appearance on English soil. Ireland, several centuries later, was also to see the benefits of Norman progress.
Such progress, by the time of Stephen [grandson of William, king of England from 1135 to 1154 AD], led to the creation of a banking system charging an average of 33% on collateral lands and 300% on capital (that is, tools in the cities). Within two generations, a full 66% of England's lands wound up in the hands of Italian and Jewish bankers. This might explain the constant drive to take more and more French land for the Angevin Empire.
This was to be the lot of Norman Britain until the reign of Edward I (d. 1307), who imitated the Byzantines (where many Anglo-Saxons had been serving after 1066) by tightly limiting interest and its accumulation. Kicking the bankers out of the country, he ushered in an age of prosperity unfortunately cut short by the plague. It is no accident that just at the time when Byzantium had given away its economic sovereignty to Venice for the use of their navy, Britain moved in the opposite direction against Italy and Rome.
From the reign of Edward I to the plague, England was prosperous. The working year amounted to 14 weeks, within which all essentials were obtained. The church calendar, in both eastern and western Europe, required between 100 and 140 days off a year, excluding Sunday and the period after Easter. Of course, capitalism was to make war on the church and seek Protestant sanction for eliminating saints days from the calendar altogether. The rule of the small holder had returned for the first time since Edward the Confessor. Unfortunately, this was not to last. The reformation, once Luther's influence had waned, had different ideas on money.
The Capitalists and humanists had used the Reformation to their own advantage in many ways, but they had also helped fund and spread it in the background. So Calvin, for instance, had accepted the practice of usury, while Luther did not. Our reviewer continues:
William of Orange fronts the 'mother of all color revolutions': England's 'glorious revolution' saw the transfer of the oligarchy's base of operations from Amsterdam to London.
Once Henry VII had stabilized Britain after the War of the Roses, the time was ripe for the rise of the banks yet again. The reformation and the immorality of Henry VIII gave it the excuse it needed. The reformation was an attempt by the Stuarts to begin centralizing power once the old nobility had slaughtered itself into oblivion. Monastic lands were secularized, land markets developed, and financing long distance trade became a priority. Henry VII became the last gasp of a powerful, traditional state. From Henry VIII to Edward VI to Elizabeth [I], a new oligarchy had gained power that required the pomp of monarchy to hide behind. Very soon, once it became confident in its role, it required William of Orange to justify itself.
Spain, once Islam was finally ejected, sought to cleanse itself of the Sephardi, normally allies of the Muslim Caliphate. Spain's nationalism was substantial as both church and state were radically reformed and purged. Moving to Amsterdam, the Sephardi rebuilt its banking base, creating a "square" of influence that contained four corners: the grain trade in the Baltic, the Amsterdam banks, Constantinople and the Turkish market, and most importantly, Poland. These represented the overland routes of modernity as grain prices skyrocketed in the west, forcing the east to export more and more.
Forcing the East only because the impulsion was a drive for profits. Continuing with Matt Johnson:
Under Elizabeth and certainly during and after the English Revolution, Spain was the enemy. Catholic Ireland sought Spanish assistance against Elizabeth's dispossession of the native Gaels, something that Cromwell was to punish with genocidal harshness. Spain's importation of silver from the new world threatened the rule of the banks in a graphic way. The banking regime financed the Dutch rebellion against the Spanish as the world's press spared no rhetorical excess denouncing the Spanish army in northern Europe. British enemies of the banking elite looked to Spain for assistance as well.
Once Charles I was defeated in 1645 and Cromwell instituted a military dictatorship over Britain and Ireland in 1653, the banking regime now had its enemies destroyed and its place assured. William's gentle occupation of Winchester 30 years later meant that the bankers now had England to use against both France and Spain. It surprised no one that the Jacobites spent much time attacking the banking elite that had taken power with such vehemence. Neither James I or II believed in "divine right" nor did either want to impose a dictatorship. Cromwell alone sought that honor. Yet the James's were accused of every imaginable crime. James sought religious tolerance, not a "Spanish theocracy", as the Whigs were later to claim. Whiggery was the party of usury and, as such, the party most vehement in seeking war with France, Spain and, eventually, Russia.
Parliament, now the instrument of capitalism and empire, was seeking any excuse to take revenge on Spain. "Democracy" and "the will of the people" were considered identical to the interest of urban merchants and traders. Britain was now an oligarchy. Roman Catholic rulers were long forbidden to rule in London, regardless of James' desire for religious neutrality. William's war with France was financed by the Amsterdam banking establishment, something made quite clear to William himself when he tried to arrange a Stuart marriage, one which remained childless.
Under William III of Orange the Bank of England was founded, the Jacobite Freemasons who supported James II followed him into exile in France, and the world has never been the same. But one day we hope to better understand the details in the transformation from Jacobites to Jacobins that took place over the century which followed. Both James II and his father had resisted the Internationalist Jews, and in a hundred years Freemasonry became the principal tool of the Jews in their subversion of all Europe.
In the Medieval system, even under Feudalism, a man was connected to the land and his ties were to his community. In the Capitalist system, man has forgotten his community, become an isolated individual, and is tied to the Jew. As the Protocols boast here, “The people are shackled by poverty to heavy labor more surely than they were by slavery and serfdom. They could liberate themselves from those in one way or another, whereas they cannot free themselves from misery.”
In medieval times, the men of England had over half the year off under the Roman Catholic ecumenical calendar, which with all of its faults was a much better system than that now imposed by the Capitalists. We saw a similar change in the state of the workers’ fortunes in France after the Revolution, where Nesta Webster explained the abolition of the Catholic holidays in France. Today, most people in the Liberal Democracies work half the year merely to pay their taxes, and the other half of the year they are fortunate to be able to feed and house themselves. But before the early 20th century and the legislative initiatives which introduced such things as the 40-hour work week and the drastic reduction of hours for which children could work, things were far worse. And those legislative initiatives only seem to have come as an escape-valve, concessions made so that the Capitalists could avoid the inevitable backlash of the people in response to their tyranny. Just a few decades later, however, industry was being transferred by the Capitalists to places where there were no such labor laws, or other restrictions on their business, such as China, Korea and Japan. As soon as they could no longer sweat America and Europe, the Capitalists began sweating Asia.
But the economic plan which Adolf Hitler had for Germany insisted that the nation could recover from the post-War dilemmas and the banker-imposed depression without a usury-based currency, by manufacturing for itself everything it could, and only paying for anything it couldn’t manufacture but had to import with barter. Hitler did not do anything that Edward I didn’t do in England, and he was hated for it. Additionally, the relationship between the State, labor and capital need not be as polarized as they were under capitalism, and especially as Marx had described them. In an economy free of the shackles of usury it is not beneficial to any class to have divisions between the classes. In the early years of the 20th century, Adolf Hitler had perceived that the common workers in Germany were being alienated by the false claims of class divisions, and led away by the empty promises of Marxism, and here is part of his reaction and solution, where we will present two small parts of Hitler’s plans for Germany’s national revival, from Volume 1 chapter 12 of Mein Kampf:
(5) All the great problems of our time are problems of the moment and are only the results of certain definite causes. And among all those there is only one that has a profoundly causal significance. This is the problem of preserving the pure racial stock among the people. Human vigour or decline depends on the blood. Nations that are not aware of the importance of their racial stock, or which neglect to preserve it, are like men who would try to educate the pug-dog to do the work of the greyhound, not understanding that neither the speed of the greyhound nor the imitative faculties of the poodle are inborn qualities which cannot be drilled into the one or the other by any form of training. A people that fails to preserve the purity of its racial blood thereby destroys the unity of the soul of the nation in all its manifestations. A disintegrated national character is the inevitable consequence of a process of disintegration in the blood. And the change which takes place in the spiritual and creative faculties of a people is only an effect of the change that has modified its racial substance.
If we are to free the German people from all those failings and ways of acting which do not spring from their original character, we must first get rid of those foreign germs in the national body which are the cause of its failings and false ways.
The German nation will never revive unless the racial problem is taken into account and dealt with. The racial problem furnishes the key not only to the understanding of human history but also to the understanding of every kind of human culture.
(6) By incorporating in the national community the masses of our people who are now in the international camp we do not thereby mean to renounce the principle that the interests of the various trades and professions must be safeguarded. Divergent interests in the various branches of labour and in the trades and professions are not the same as a division between the various classes, but rather a feature inherent in the economic situation. Vocational grouping does not clash in the least with the idea of a national community, for this means national unity in regard to all those problems that affect the life of the nation as such.
To incorporate in the national community, or simply the State, a stratum of the people which has now formed a social class the standing of the higher classes must not be lowered but that of the lower classes must be raised. The class which carries through this process is never the higher class but rather the lower one which is fighting for equality of rights. The bourgeoisie of to-day was not incorporated in the State through measures enacted by the feudal nobility but only through its own energy and a leadership that had sprung from its own ranks.
Hitler’s belief that “the standing of the higher classes must not be lowered but that of the lower classes must be raised” is precisely the antithesis to Marx. Note the words of Stephen Goodson cited earlier, that “In Byzantium, the Roman empire of the East, interest had been officially limited to 5%, give or take, but this could only be enforced under emperors who were strong. Basil II for example, rejected interest altogether and forced wealthy landowners to financially assist poorer peasants.” Adolf Hitler eliminated a currency based upon usury from the German economy, which effected that same thing.
Continuing with Hitler:
The German worker cannot be raised from his present standing and incorporated in the German folk-community by means of goody-goody meetings where people talk about the brotherhood of the people, but rather by a systematic improvement in the social and cultural life of the worker until the yawning abyss between him and the other classes can be filled in. A movement which has this for its aim must try to recruit its followers mainly from the ranks of the working class. It must include members of the intellectual classes only in so far as such members have rightly understood and accepted without reserve the ideal towards which the movement is striving. This process of transformation and reunion cannot be completed within ten or twenty years. It will take several generations, as the history of such movements has shown.
The most difficult obstacle to the reunion of our contemporary worker in the national folk-community does not consist so much in the fact that he fights for the interests of his fellow-workers, but rather in the international ideas with which he is imbued and which are of their nature at variance with the ideas of nationhood and fatherland. This hostile attitude to nation and fatherland has been inculcated by the leaders of the working class. If they were inspired by the principle of devotion to the nation in all that concerns its political and social welfare, the trades unions would make those millions of workers most valuable members of the national community, without thereby affecting their own constant struggle for their economic demands.
It seems, even if Hitler did not note it, that the since so-called “leaders of the working class” were Marxists, it is very likely that many of them were Jews. Perhaps that is why he had first spoken of the necessity of purging the alien elements out of the blood of the nation. He continues:
A movement which sincerely endeavours to bring the German worker back into his folk-community, and rescue him from the folly of internationalism, must wage a vigorous campaign against certain notions that are prevalent among the industrialists. One of these notions is that according to the concept of the folk-community, the employee is obliged to surrender all his economic rights to the employer and, further, that the workers would come into conflict with the folk-community if they should attempt to defend their own just and vital interests. Those who try to propagate such a notion are deliberate liars. The idea of a folk-community does not impose any obligations on the one side that are not imposed on the other.
Here we see that Hitler believed in the same concept of equality as the American founders, in their original intent, that all people are equal in the eyes of the law, but not in the absurd notions that they should be equal in class or ability, or even in opportunity. He continues:
A worker certainly does something which is contrary to the spirit of folk-community if he acts entirely on his own initiative and puts forward exaggerated demands without taking the common good into consideration or the maintenance of the national economic structure. But an industrialist also acts against the spirit of the folk-community if he adopts inhuman methods of exploitation and misuses the working forces of the nation to make millions unjustly for himself from the sweat of the workers. [Remember our citation from James chapter 5.] He has no right to call himself 'national' and no right to talk of a folk-community, for he is only an unscrupulous egoist who sows the seeds of social discontent and provokes a spirit of conflict which sooner or later must be injurious to the interests of the country.
The reservoir from which the young movement has to draw its members will first of all be the working masses. Those masses must be delivered from the clutches of the international mania. Their social distress must be eliminated. They must be raised above their present cultural level, which is deplorable, and transformed into a resolute and valuable factor in the folk-community, inspired by national ideas and national sentiment.
If among those intellectual circles that are nationalist in their outlook men can be found who genuinely love the people and look forward eagerly to the future of Germany, and at the same time have a sound grasp of the importance of a struggle whose aim is to win over the soul of the masses, such men are cordially welcomed in the ranks of our movement, because they can serve as a valuable intellectual force in the work that has to be done. But this movement can never aim at recruiting its membership from the unthinking herd of bourgeois voters. If it did so the movement would be burdened with a mass of people whose whole mentality would only help to paralyse the effort of our campaign to win the mass of the people. In theory it may be very fine to say that the broad masses ought to be influenced by a combined leadership of the upper and lower social strata within the framework of the one movement; but, notwithstanding all this, the fact remains that though it may be possible to exercise a psychological influence on the bourgeois classes and to arouse some enthusiasm or even awaken some understanding among them by our public demonstrations, their traditional characteristics cannot be changed. In other words, we could not eliminate from the bourgeois classes the inefficiency and supineness which are part of a tradition that has developed through centuries. The difference between the cultural levels of the two groups and between their respective attitudes towards social-economic questions is still so great that it would turn out a hindrance to the movement the moment the first enthusiasm aroused by our demonstrations calmed down.
Finally, it is not part of our programme to transform the nationalist camp itself, but rather to win over those who are anti-national in their outlook. It is from this viewpoint that the strategy of the whole movement must finally be decided.
We have seen in our recent presentations that Julius Caesar was actually anti-Democratic and by the common modern perception of good and evil, he should have gone down in history as a villain, yet to the common people of his time he was a hero, and one of his objectives was to put the usurers under control, so as to relieve the oppression of the people. Sadly that did not last long and in less than a hundred years the usurers were at it again.
Adolf Hitler was democratically elected, but his political philosophy was that a chosen leader should have full power and authority, which is certainly autocratic and in opposition to traditional democracy. But as we see here, property remained in private hands for private use for private profit, in opposition to Marxism. One difference, however, is that the state had a right to see that property was used for the benefit of the people as well as the owners, and not against the welfare of the people. In America and England until some time in the 19th century, the legislative bodies which issued corporate charters served that same function on behalf of their own respective peoples.
Some contend that Hitler was Marxist because of the nationalization of heavy industry. But what they do not realize is that the natural resources of the land itself belongs to the people who spilled their blood to hold it, and not to capitalist speculators. National Socialism is blood and soil, and was based on Christian principles. Those who do not understand that are lacking in the understanding of one or the other, if not both. However we would not go so far as to say that it is the ideal structure of the Kingdom of Heaven. It was certainly not perfect, and no government of man can be perfect.
As we read in Matthew Johnson’s review of Stephen Goodson’s book, “The enemies of an 'autocratic' ruler are to be found among a handful within the nobility/oligarchy, not from among the masses of ordinary people.” This was indeed the case with both Adolf Hitler and Julius Caesdar. Ultimately that nobility/oligarchy is the section of nobility indebted to or bribed by the International Jews, the world’s bankers. Like Andrew Jackson before him, Adolf Hitler also sought to put them out of business, or at least keep them under control, and for that he had to be destroyed.
At the end of the Medieval period, the Jews were already the new Lords of the Manor, and every war and political struggle since then has only been so that they can retain power.
The next section of the Protocols continues this same theme, where it says:
Protocol No. 3:
We have included in constitutions rights which for the people are fictitious and are not actual rights. All the so-called "rights of the people" can exist only in the abstract and can never be realized in practice. What difference does it make to the toiling proletarian, bent double by heavy toil, oppressed by his fate, that the babblers receive the right to talk, journalists the right to mix nonsense with reason in their writings, if the proletariat has no other gain from the constitution than the miserable crumbs which we throw from our table in return for his vote to elect our agents. Republican rights are bitter irony to the poor man, for the necessity of almost daily labor prevents him from using them, and at the same time deprives him of his guarantee of a permanent and certain livelihood by making him dependent upon strikes, organized either by his masters or by his comrades.
Under our guidance the people have exterminated aristocracy, which was their natural protector and guardian, for its own interests are inseparably connected with the well-being of the people. Now, however, with the destruction of this aristocracy the masses have fallen under the power of the profiteers and cunning upstarts, who have settled on the workers as a merciless burden.
The assertion here is that every Western constitution has in it the loopholes by which the Jews through their international banks and corporations could overcome or subvert government for their own purposes. So Stephen Goodson mentioned “The defeat of the Justice Department by Microsoft in 2010-2012”, which is one of the more obvious modern examples.
We will continue our discussion of this part of the Protocols here from a somewhat different perspective in the next segment of our presentation.