My research suggests this particular plan goes back longer than 100 years. The removal of the Monarchy and the transition to "democracy" was the first step. Democracy is really just another word for Socialism (an economic system) as applied to a system of government AKA the people "vote" on everything.
The French Revolution which was pretty much the beginning of the end for the "Divine Kings" of Europe, was started by them. This statement has substantial support in official history, where the Rothschilds are known to have funded it, as well as both sides of the subsequent Napoleonic wars. It is even stated explicitly in the Protocols of the Meetings of the Esteemed Elder's of Zion.
When the populace has seen that all sorts of concessions and indulgences are yielded it, in the same name of freedom it has imagined itself to be sovereign lord and has stormed its way to power, but, naturally, like every other blind man it has come upon a host of stumbling blocks, it has rushed to find a guide, it has never had the sense to return to the former state and it has laid down its plenipotentiary powers at our feet. Remember the French Revolution, to which it was we who gave the name of "Great" : the secrets of its preparations are well known to us for it was wholly the work of our hands.
Ever since that time we have been leading the peoples from one disenchantment to another, so that in the end they should turn also from us in favour of that King-Despot of the blood of Zion, whom we are preparing for the world.
All such entries into "democracy' or "spreading democracy" were started and perpetuated by the same people. The American Revolution was also started by them. I know that's tough to hear, but all evidence I have seen supports that assertion. They didn't "subvert" our democratic republic, they created it.
Page 19, when speaking of their ultimate victory:
The constitution scales of these days will shortly break down, for we have established them with a certain lack of accurate balance in order that they may oscillate incessantly until they wear through the pivot on which they turn. The goyim are under the impression that they have welded them sufficiently strong and they have all along kept on expecting that the scales would come into equilibrium. But the pivots — the kings on their thrones — are hemmed in by their representatives, who play the fool, distraught with their own uncontrolled and irresponsible power. This power they owe to the terror which has been breathed into the palaces. As they have no means of getting at their people, into their very midst, the kings on their thrones are no longer able to come to terms with them and so strengthen themselves against seekers after power. We have made a gulf between the far-seeing Sovereign Power and the blind force of the people so that both have lost all meaning, for like the blind man and his stick, both are powerless apart.
In the times when the peoples looked upon kings on their thrones as on a pure manifestation of the will of God, they submitted without a murmur to the despotic power of kings: but from the day when we insinuated into their minds the conception of their own rights they began to regard the occupants of thrones as mere ordinary mortals. The holy unction of the Lord's Anointed has fallen from the heads of kings in the eyes of the people, and when we also robbed them of their faith in God the might of power was flung upon the streets into the place of public proprietorship and was seized by us.
There is so much more in there, as well as many other sources that supports the assertion that the entirety of the transition from Monarchy to "democracy" or "democratic republics" or "constitutional republics," or whatever was their work.
For example, the Constitution itself makes no explicit statement of individual Sovereignty, even though the "Spirit" of our government, the DoI makes implicit statements of it. Such a statement in the Constitution would have made almost all of our laws illegal, but it was not included. On the contrary, the Bill of Rights makes an explicit statement (at the end of the 5th amendment) through eminent domain laws, written into the constitution, that the Government has the Right to seize your property. This amendment all by itself makes explicit statements that our Government is Sovereign, our Ultimate Authority, our Ruler.
Such things are necessary, according to the Protocols, because we must be Ruled. We must have a Sovereign. It was The Monarchy which got it's powers through The Church, which proclaimed the Kings had the Divine Right to Rule. While the Zionists (or their predecessors) were the ultimate rulers in this system, through their control of all money, it was, according to implications in the protocols, not a direct enough rule for them. Thus they created and disseminated among the populace the ideas of "freedom", and "Rights," etc.
As Karl Marx said, the transition from capitalism to communism must go through socialism first. Democracy IS Socialism. Thus we go from Monarchy to Monarchic Capitalism, to Democratic Capitalism, and ultimately to Communism, with or without Capitalism. They are not mutually exclusive, see China. In some ways a "Capitalistic Communism" is the same thing as Fascism. China is really Fascist, not Communist, but whatever, they are all really the same "ism."
The ultimate goal of course, according to the Protocols (and every other source) is a world-wide communism of some sort, with all property being in the hands of The State (a One World State), and The State being in the hands of the Zionist directly.
My research suggests this particular plan goes back longer than 100 years. The removal of the Monarchy and the transition to "democracy" was the first step. Democracy is really just another word for Socialism (an economic system) as applied to a system of government AKA the people "vote" on everything.
The French Revolution which was pretty much the beginning of the end for the "Divine Kings" of Europe, was started by them. This statement has substantial support in official history, where the Rothschilds are known to have funded it, as well as both sides of the subsequent Napoleonic wars. It is even stated explicitly in the Protocols of the Meetings of the Esteemed Elder's of Zion.
When the populace has seen that all sorts of concessions and indulgences are yielded it, in the same name of freedom it has imagined itself to be sovereign lord and has stormed its way to power, but, naturally, like every other blind man it has come upon a host of stumbling blocks, it has rushed to find a guide, it has never had the sense to return to the former state and it has laid down its plenipotentiary powers at our feet. Remember the French Revolution, to which it was we who gave the name of "Great" : the secrets of its preparations are well known to us for it was wholly the work of our hands.
Ever since that time we have been leading the peoples from one disenchantment to another, so that in the end they should turn also from us in favour of that King-Despot of the blood of Zion, whom we are preparing for the world.
All such entries into "democracy' or "spreading democracy" were started and perpetuated by the same people. The American Revolution was also started by them. I know that's tough to hear, but all evidence I have seen supports that assertion. They didn't "subvert" our democratic republic, they created it.
Page 19, when speaking of their ultimate victory:
The constitution scales of these days will shortly break down, for we have established them with a certain lack of accurate balance in order that they may oscillate incessantly until they wear through the pivot on which they turn. The goyim are under the impression that they have welded them sufficiently strong and they have all along kept on expecting that the scales would come into equilibrium. But the pivots — the kings on their thrones — are hemmed in by their representatives, who play the fool, distraught with their own uncontrolled and irresponsible power. This power they owe to the terror which has been breathed into the palaces. As they have no means of getting at their people, into their very midst, the kings on their thrones are no longer able to come to terms with them and so strengthen themselves against seekers after power. We have made a gulf between the far-seeing Sovereign Power and the blind force of the people so that both have lost all meaning, for like the blind man and his stick, both are powerless apart.
In the times when the peoples looked upon kings on their thrones as on a pure manifestation of the will of God, they submitted without a murmur to the despotic power of kings: but from the day when we insinuated into their minds the conception of their own rights they began to regard the occupants of thrones as mere ordinary mortals. The holy unction of the Lord's Anointed has fallen from the heads of kings in the eyes of the people, and when we also robbed them of their faith in God the might of power was flung upon the streets into the place of public proprietorship and was seized by us.
There is so much more in there, as well as many other sources that supports the assertion that the entirety of the transition from Monarchy to "democracy" or "democratic republics" or whatever was their work.
For example, the Constitution itself makes no explicit statement of individual Sovereignty, even though the "Spirit" of our government, the DoI makes implicit statements of it. Such a statement in the Constitution would have made almost all of our laws illegal, but it was not included. On the contrary, the Bill of Rights makes an explicit statement (at the end of the 5th amendment) through eminent domain laws, written into the constitution, that the Government has the Right to seize your property. This amendment all by itself makes explicit statements that our Government is Sovereign, our Ultimate Authority, our Ruler.
Such things are necessary, according to the Protocols, because we must be Ruled. We must have a Sovereign. It was The Monarchy which got it's powers through The Church, which proclaimed the Kings had the Divine Right to Rule. While the Zionists (or their predecessors) were the ultimate rulers in this system, through their control of all money, it was, according to implications in the protocols, not a direct enough rule for them. Thus they created and disseminated among the populace the ideas of "freedom", and "Rights," etc.
As Karl Marx said, the transition from capitalism to communism must go through socialism first. Democracy IS Socialism. Thus we go from Monarchy to Monarchic Capitalism, to Democratic Capitalism, and ultimately to Communism, with or without Capitalism. They are not mutually exclusive, see China. In some ways a "Capitalistic Communism" is the same thing as Fascism. China is really Fascist, not Communist, but whatever, they are all really the same "ism."
The ultimate goal of course, according to the Protocols (and every other source) is a world-wide communism of some sort, with all property being in the hands of The State (a One World State), and The State being in the hands of the Zionist directly.
My research suggests this particular plan goes back longer than 100 years. The removal of the Monarchy and the transition to "democracy" was the first step. Democracy is really just another word for Socialism (an economic systems) as applied to a system of government AKA the people "vote" on everything.
The French Revolution which was pretty much the beginning of the end for the "Divine Kings" of Europe, was started by them. This statement has substantial support in official history, where the Rothschilds are known to have funded it, as well as both sides of the subsequent Napoleonic wars. It is even stated explicitly in the Protocols of the Meetings of the Esteemed Elder's of Zion.
When the populace has seen that all sorts of concessions and indulgences are yielded it, in the same name of freedom it has imagined itself to be sovereign lord and has stormed its way to power, but, naturally, like every other blind man it has come upon a host of stumbling blocks, it has rushed to find a guide, it has never had the sense to return to the former state and it has laid down its plenipotentiary powers at our feet. Remember the French Revolution, to which it was we who gave the name of "Great" : the secrets of its preparations are well known to us for it was wholly the work of our hands.
Ever since that time we have been leading the peoples from one disenchantment to another, so that in the end they should turn also from us in favour of that King-Despot of the blood of Zion, whom we are preparing for the world.
All such entries into "democracy' or "spreading democracy" were started and perpetuated by the same people. The American Revolution was also started by them. I know that's tough to hear, but all evidence I have seen supports that assertion. They didn't "subvert" our democratic republic, they created it.
Page 19, when speaking of their ultimate victory:
The constitution scales of these days will shortly break down, for we have established them with a certain lack of accurate balance in order that they may oscillate incessantly until they wear through the pivot on which they turn. The goyim are under the impression that they have welded them sufficiently strong and they have all along kept on expecting that the scales would come into equilibrium. But the pivots — the kings on their thrones — are hemmed in by their representatives, who play the fool, distraught with their own uncontrolled and irresponsible power. This power they owe to the terror which has been breathed into the palaces. As they have no means of getting at their people, into their very midst, the kings on their thrones are no longer able to come to terms with them and so strengthen themselves against seekers after power. We have made a gulf between the far-seeing Sovereign Power and the blind force of the people so that both have lost all meaning, for like the blind man and his stick, both are powerless apart.
In the times when the peoples looked upon kings on their thrones as on a pure manifestation of the will of God, they submitted without a murmur to the despotic power of kings: but from the day when we insinuated into their minds the conception of their own rights they began to regard the occupants of thrones as mere ordinary mortals. The holy unction of the Lord's Anointed has fallen from the heads of kings in the eyes of the people, and when we also robbed them of their faith in God the might of power was flung upon the streets into the place of public proprietorship and was seized by us.
There is so much more in there, as well as many other sources that supports the assertion that the entirety of the transition from Monarchy to "democracy" or "democratic republics" or whatever was their work.
For example, the Constitution itself makes no explicit statement of individual Sovereignty, even though the "Spirit" of our government, the DoI makes implicit statements of it. Such a statement in the Constitution would have made almost all of our laws illegal, but it was not included. On the contrary, the Bill of Rights makes an explicit statement (at the end of the 5th amendment) through eminent domain laws, written into the constitution, that the Government has the Right to seize your property. This amendment all by itself makes explicit statements that our Government is Sovereign, our Ultimate Authority, our Ruler.
Such things are necessary, according to the Protocols, because we must be Ruled. We must have a Sovereign. It was The Monarchy which got it's powers through The Church, which proclaimed the Kings had the Divine Right to Rule. While the Zionists (or their predecessors) were the ultimate rulers in this system, through their control of all money, it was, according to implications in the protocols, not a direct enough rule for them. Thus they created and disseminated among the populace the ideas of "freedom", and "Rights," etc.
As Karl Marx said, the transition from capitalism to communism must go through socialism first. Democracy IS Socialism. Thus we go from Monarchy to Monarchic Capitalism, to Democratic Capitalism, and ultimately to Communism, with or without Capitalism. They are not mutually exclusive, see China. In some ways a "Capitalistic Communism" is the same thing as Fascism. China is really Fascist, not Communist, but whatever, they are all really the same "ism."
The ultimate goal of course, according to the Protocols (and every other source) is a world-wide communism of some sort, with all property being in the hands of The State (a One World State), and The State being in the hands of the Zionist directly.
My research suggests this particular plan goes back longer than 100 years. The removal of the Monarchy and the transition to "democracy" was the first step. Democracy is really just another word for "socialism applied to a system of government" AKA the people "vote" on everything.
The French Revolution which was pretty much the beginning of the end for the "Divine Kings" of Europe, was started by them. This statement has substantial support in official history, where the Rothschilds are known to have funded it, as well as both sides of the subsequent Napoleonic wars. It is even stated explicitly in the Protocols of the Meetings of the Esteemed Elder's of Zion.
When the populace has seen that all sorts of concessions and indulgences are yielded it, in the same name of freedom it has imagined itself to be sovereign lord and has stormed its way to power, but, naturally, like every other blind man it has come upon a host of stumbling blocks, it has rushed to find a guide, it has never had the sense to return to the former state and it has laid down its plenipotentiary powers at our feet. Remember the French Revolution, to which it was we who gave the name of "Great" : the secrets of its preparations are well known to us for it was wholly the work of our hands.
Ever since that time we have been leading the peoples from one disenchantment to another, so that in the end they should turn also from us in favour of that King-Despot of the blood of Zion, whom we are preparing for the world.
All such entries into "democracy' or "spreading democracy" were started and perpetuated by the same people. The American Revolution was also started by them. I know that's tough to hear, but all evidence I have seen supports that assertion. They didn't "subvert" our democratic republic, they created it.
Page 19, when speaking of their ultimate victory:
The constitution scales of these days will shortly break down, for we have established them with a certain lack of accurate balance in order that they may oscillate incessantly until they wear through the pivot on which they turn. The goyim are under the impression that they have welded them sufficiently strong and they have all along kept on expecting that the scales would come into equilibrium. But the pivots — the kings on their thrones — are hemmed in by their representatives, who play the fool, distraught with their own uncontrolled and irresponsible power. This power they owe to the terror which has been breathed into the palaces. As they have no means of getting at their people, into their very midst, the kings on their thrones are no longer able to come to terms with them and so strengthen themselves against seekers after power. We have made a gulf between the far-seeing Sovereign Power and the blind force of the people so that both have lost all meaning, for like the blind man and his stick, both are powerless apart.
In the times when the peoples looked upon kings on their thrones as on a pure manifestation of the will of God, they submitted without a murmur to the despotic power of kings: but from the day when we insinuated into their minds the conception of their own rights they began to regard the occupants of thrones as mere ordinary mortals. The holy unction of the Lord's Anointed has fallen from the heads of kings in the eyes of the people, and when we also robbed them of their faith in God the might of power was flung upon the streets into the place of public proprietorship and was seized by us.
There is so much more in there, as well as many other sources that supports the assertion that the entirety of the transition from Monarchy to "democracy" or "democratic republics" or whatever was their work.
For example, the Constitution itself makes no explicit statement of individual Sovereignty, even though the "Spirit" of our government, the DoI makes implicit statements of it. Such a statement in the Constitution would have made almost all of our laws illegal, but it was not included. On the contrary, the Bill of Rights makes an explicit statement (at the end of the 5th amendment) through eminent domain laws, written into the constitution, that the Government has the Right to seize your property. This amendment all by itself makes explicit statements that our Government is Sovereign, our Ultimate Authority, our Ruler.
Such things are necessary, according to the Protocols, because we must be Ruled. We must have a Sovereign. It was The Monarchy which got it's powers through The Church, which proclaimed the Kings had the Divine Right to Rule. While the Zionists (or their predecessors) were the ultimate rulers in this system, through their control of all money, it was, according to implications in the protocols, not a direct enough rule for them. Thus they created and disseminated among the populace the ideas of "freedom", and "Rights," etc.
As Karl Marx said, the transition from capitalism to communism must go through socialism first. Democracy IS Socialism. Thus we go from Monarchy to Monarchic Capitalism, to Democratic Capitalism, and ultimately to Communism, with or without Capitalism. They are not mutually exclusive, see China. In some ways a "Capitalistic Communism" is the same thing as Fascism. China is really Fascist, not Communist, but whatever, they are all really the same "ism."
The ultimate goal of course, according to the Protocols (and every other source) is a world-wide communism of some sort, with all property being in the hands of The State (a One World State), and The State being in the hands of the Zionist directly.
My research suggests this particular plan goes back longer than 100 years. The removal of the Monarchy and the transition to "democracy" was the first step. Democracy is really just another word for "socialism applied to a system of government" AKA the people "vote" on everything.
The French Revolution which was pretty much the beginning of the end for the "Divine Kings" of Europe, was started by them. This statement has substantial support in official history, where the Rothschilds are known to have funded it, as well as both sides of the subsequent Napoleonic wars. It is even stated explicitly in the Protocols of the Meetings of the Esteemed Elder's of Zion.
When the populace has seen that all sorts of concessions and indulgences are yielded it, in the same name of freedom it has imagined itself to be sovereign lord and has stormed its way to power, but, naturally, like every other blind man it has come upon a host of stumbling blocks, it has rushed to find a guide, it has never had the sense to return to the former state and it has laid down its plenipotentiary powers at our feet. Remember the French Revolution, to which it was we who gave the name of "Great" : the secrets of its preparations are well known to us for it was wholly the work of our hands.
Ever since that time we have been leading the peoples from one disenchantment to another, so that in the end they should turn also from us in favour of that King-Despot of the blood of Zion, whom we are preparing for the world.
All such entries into "democracy' or "spreading democracy" were started and perpetuated by the same people. The American Revolution was also started by them. I know that's tough to hear, but all evidence I have seen supports that assertion. They didn't "subvert" our democratic republic, they created it.
Page 19, when speaking of their ultimate victory:
The constitution scales of these days will shortly break down, for we have established them with a certain lack of accurate balance in order that they may oscillate incessantly until they wear through the pivot on which they turn. The goyim are under the impression that they have welded them sufficiently strong and they have all along kept on expecting that the scales would come into equilibrium. But the pivots — the kings on their thrones — are hemmed in by their representatives, who play the fool, distraught with their own uncontrolled and irresponsible power. This power they owe to the terror which has been breathed into the palaces. As they have no means of getting at their people, into their very midst, the kings on their thrones are no longer able to come to terms with them and so strengthen themselves against seekers after power. We have made a gulf between the far-seeing Sovereign Power and the blind force of the people so that both have lost all meaning, for like the blind man and his stick, both are powerless apart.
In the times when the peoples looked upon kings on their thrones as on a pure manifestation of the will of God, they submitted without a murmur to the despotic power of kings: but from the day when we insinuated into their minds the conception of their own rights they began to regard the occupants of thrones as mere ordinary mortals. The holy unction of the Lord's Anointed has fallen from the heads of kings in the eyes of the people, and when we also robbed them of their faith in God the might of power was flung upon the streets into the place of public proprietorship and was seized by us.
There is so much more in there, as well as many other sources that supports the assertion that the entirety of the transition from Monarchy to "democracy" or "democratic republics" or whatever was their work.
For example, the Constitution itself makes no explicit statement of individual Sovereignty, even though the "Spirit" of our government, the DoI makes implicit statements of it. On the contrary, the Bill of Rights makes an explicit statement (at the end of the 5th amendment) through eminent domain laws, written into the constitution, that the Government has the Right to seize your property. This amendment all by itself makes explicit statements that our Government is Sovereign, our Ultimate Authority, our Ruler.
Such things are necessary, according to the Protocols, because we must be Ruled. We must have a Sovereign. It was The Monarchy which got it's powers through The Church, which proclaimed the Kings had the Divine Right to Rule. While the Zionists (or their predecessors) were the ultimate rulers in this system, through their control of all money, it was, according to implications in the protocols, not a direct enough rule for them. Thus they created and disseminated among the populace the ideas of "freedom", and "Rights," etc.
As Karl Marx said, the transition from capitalism to communism must go through socialism first. Democracy IS Socialism. Thus we go from Monarchy to Monarchic Capitalism, to Democratic Capitalism, and ultimately to Communism, with or without Capitalism. They are not mutually exclusive, see China. In some ways a "Capitalistic Communism" is the same thing as Fascism. China is really Fascist, not Communist, but whatever, they are all really the same "ism."
The ultimate goal of course, according to the Protocols (and every other source) is a world-wide communism of some sort, with all property being in the hands of The State (a One World State), and The State being in the hands of the Zionist directly.
My research suggests this particular plan goes back longer than 100 years. The removal of the Monarchy and the transition to "democracy" was the first step. Democracy is really just another word for "socialism applied to a system of government" AKA the people "vote" on everything.
The French Revolution which was pretty much the beginning of the end for the "Divine Kings" of Europe, was started by them. This statement has substantial support in official history, where the Rothschilds are known to have funded it, as well as both sides of the subsequent Napoleonic wars. It is even stated explicitly in the Protocols of the Meetings of the Esteemed Elder's of Zion.
When the populace has seen that all sorts of concessions and indulgences are yielded it, in the same name of freedom it has imagined itself to be sovereign lord and has stormed its way to power, but, naturally, like every other blind man it has come upon a host of stumbling blocks, it has rushed to find a guide, it has never had the sense to return to the former state and it has laid down its plenipotentiary powers at our feet. Remember the French Revolution, to which it was we who gave the name of "Great" : the secrets of its preparations are well known to us for it was wholly the work of our hands.
Ever since that time we have been leading the peoples from one disenchantment to another, so that in the end they should turn also from us in favour of that King-Despot of the blood of Zion, whom we are preparing for the world.
All such entries into "democracy' or "spreading democracy" were started and perpetuated by the same people. The American Revolution was also started by them. I know that's tough to hear, but all evidence I have seen supports that assertion. They didn't "subvert" our democratic republic, they created it.
The constitution scales of these days will shortly break down, for we have established them with a certain lack of accurate balance in order that they may oscillate incessantly until they wear through the pivot on which they turn. The goyim are under the impression that they have welded them sufficiently strong and they have all along kept on expecting that the scales would come into equilibrium. But the pivots — the kings on their thrones — are hemmed in by their representatives, who play the fool, distraught with their own uncontrolled and irresponsible power. This power they owe to the terror which has been breathed into the palaces. As they have no means of getting at their people, into their very midst, the kings on their thrones are no longer able to come to terms with them and so strengthen themselves against seekers after power. We have made a gulf between the far-seeing Sovereign Power and the blind force of the people so that both have lost all meaning, for like the blind man and his stick, both are powerless apart.
In the times when the peoples looked upon kings on their thrones as on a pure manifestation of the will of God, they submitted without a murmur to the despotic power of kings: but from the day when we insinuated into their minds the conception of their own rights they began to regard the occupants of thrones as mere ordinary mortals. The holy unction of the Lord's Anointed has fallen from the heads of kings in the eyes of the people, and when we also robbed them of their faith in God the might of power was flung upon the streets into the place of public proprietorship and was seized by us.
There is so much more in there, as well as many other sources that supports the assertion that the entirety of the transition from Monarchy to "democracy" or "democratic republics" or whatever was their work.
For example, the Constitution itself makes no explicit statement of individual Sovereignty, even though the "Spirit" of our government, the DoI makes implicit statements of it. On the contrary, the Bill of Rights makes an explicit statement (at the end of the 5th amendment) through eminent domain laws, written into the constitution, that the Government has the Right to seize your property. This amendment all by itself makes explicit statements that our Government is Sovereign, our Ultimate Authority, our Ruler.
Such things are necessary, according to the Protocols, because we must be Ruled. We must have a Sovereign. It was The Monarchy which got it's powers through The Church, which proclaimed the Kings had the Divine Right to Rule. While the Zionists (or their predecessors) were the ultimate rulers in this system, through their control of all money, it was, according to implications in the protocols, not a direct enough rule for them. Thus they created and disseminated among the populace the ideas of "freedom", and "Rights," etc.
As Karl Marx said, the transition from capitalism to communism must go through socialism first. Democracy IS Socialism. Thus we go from Monarchy to Monarchic Capitalism, to Democratic Capitalism, and ultimately to Communism, with or without Capitalism. They are not mutually exclusive, see China. In some ways a "Capitalistic Communism" is the same thing as Fascism. China is really Fascist, not Communist, but whatever, they are all really the same "ism."
The ultimate goal of course, according to the Protocols (and every other source) is a world-wide communism of some sort, with all property being in the hands of The State (a One World State), and The State being in the hands of the Zionist directly.
My research suggests this particular plan goes back longer than 100 years. The removal of the Monarchy and the transition to "democracy" was the first step. Democracy is really just another word for "socialism applied to a system of government" AKA the people "vote" on everything.
The French Revolution which was pretty much the beginning of the end for the "Divine Kings" of Europe, was started by them. This statement has substantial support in official history, where the Rothschilds are known to have funded it, as well as both sides of the subsequent Napoleonic wars. It is even stated explicitly in the Protocols of the Meetings of the Esteemed Elder's of Zion.
When the populace has seen that all sorts of concessions and indulgences are yielded it, in the same name of freedom it has imagined itself to be sovereign lord and has stormed its way to power, but, naturally, like every other blind man it has come upon a host of stumbling blocks, it has rushed to find a guide, it has never had the sense to return to the former state and it has laid down its plenipotentiary powers at our feet. Remember the French Revolution, to which it was we who gave the name of "Great" : the secrets of its preparations are well known to us for it was wholly the work of our hands.
Ever since that time we have been leading the peoples from one disenchantment to another, so that in the end they should turn also from us in favour of that King-Despot of the blood of Zion, whom we are preparing for the world.
All such entries into "democracy' or "spreading democracy" were started and perpetuated by the same people. The American Revolution was also started by them. I know that's tough to hear, but all evidence I have seen supports that assertion. They didn't "subvert" our democratic republic, they created it.
The constitution scales of these days will shortly break down, for we have established them with a certain lack of accurate balance in order that they may oscillate incessantly until they wear through the pivot on which they turn. The goyim are under the impression that they have welded them sufficiently strong and they have all along kept on expecting that the scales would come into equilibrium. But the pivots — the kings on their thrones — are hemmed in by their representatives, who play the fool, distraught with their own uncontrolled and irresponsible power. This power they owe to the terror which has been breathed into the palaces. As they have no means of getting at their people, into their very midst, the kings on their thrones are no longer able to come to terms with them and so strengthen themselves against seekers after power. We have made a gulf between the far-seeing Sovereign Power and the blind force of the people so that both have lost all meaning, for like the blind man and his stick, both are powerless apart.
In the times when the peoples looked upon kings on their thrones as on a pure manifestation of the will of God, they submitted without a murmur to the despotic power of kings: but from the day when we insinuated into their minds the conception of their own rights they began to regard the occupants of thrones as mere ordinary mortals. The holy unction of the Lord's Anointed has fallen from the heads of kings in the eyes of the people, and when we also robbed them of their faith in God the might of power was flung upon the streets into the place of public proprietorship and was seized by us.
There is so much more in there, as well as many other sources that supports the assertion that the entirety of the transition from Monarchy to "democracy" or "democratic republics" or whatever was their work.
For example, the Constitution itself makes no explicit statement of individual Sovereignty, even though the "Spirit" of our government, the DoI makes implicit statements of it. On the contrary, the Bill of Rights makes an explicit statement (at the end of the 5th amendment) through eminent domain laws, written into the constitution, that the Government has the Right to seize your property. This amendment all by itself makes explicit statements that our Government is Sovereign, our Ultimate Authority, our Ruler.
Such things are necessary, according to the Protocols, because we must be Ruled. We must have a Sovereign. It was The Monarchy which got it's powers through The Church, which proclaimed the Kings had the Divine Right to Rule. While the Zionists (or their predecessors) were the ultimate rulers in this system, through their control of all money, it was, according to implications in the protocols, not a direct enough rule for them. Thus they created and disseminated among the populace the ideas of "freedom", and "Rights," etc.
As Karl Marx said, the transition from capitalism to communism must go through socialism first. Democracy IS Socialism. Thus we go from Monarchy to Monarchic Capitalism, to Democratic Capitalism, and ultimately to Communism, with or without Capitalism. They are not mutually exclusive, see China. In some ways a "Capitalistic Communism" is the same thing as Fascism. China is really Fascist, not Communist, but whatever, they are all really the same "ism."
The ultimate goal of course, according to the Protocols (and every other source) is a world-wide communism of some sort, with all property being in the hands of The State (a One World State), and The State being in the hands of the Zionist directly.