Our time window would seem to be generally between the mid-19th to the mid-20th centuries perhaps, the era where there were densely populated democracies but before the alleged Jewish Oligarchy had been established world-wide. What is your estimate of when the Oligarchy would have achieved its nation-dominating strength?


According to Disraeli’s remarks, we may take the “democracies” of your “window” to have been merely cosmetically so - just as is the case today. Fundamental policy was not subject to popular review.

Only the Weimar Republic, naively imposed by the Allied Powers in a fit of idealism, was an authentic vehicle for the expression of the will of the masses, allowing thus the extraordinary regime of “Adolf Legalite’ ” and the National Socialists. “Fascism” *elsewhere* had to be established by irregular means (the “March on Rome” that Hitler himself tried to imitate).

As to reckoning *when* the boast of the Protocols had been realized is, again, to wish to examine the contents of the black box.


Do you believe there have been other secret Oligarchies in the past as well? For example, do you think that Masons worked behind the scenes in early America or after the Civil War (before the Jews arrived)? (The recent film, “Sherlock Holmes”, which shows a secret organization similar to the Masons managing late 19th Century England from behind the scenes). My intuition tells me you would say that the hated National Bank was part of such an organization.


Cults and Secret Societies have long existed and some may have been influential. I do not believe, however, that any of these have constituted a nation- or cultural-wide oligarchy. The problem is that cults and secret societies are artificial “conspiracies” of otherwise unattached individuals. Oligarchies are *natural* phenomena derived from tribal and national affiliations. The latter are thus much stronger in their cohesiveness - the essential quality of the ruling stratum of a society - a stratum that, as I strongly emphasize, *cannot* be guided altogether by legal formalities and artifices, and so must rely upon a natural, *implicit* agreement as to the policies and agendas to be pursued. Hence there can be no other identity to the present regime than that of Jewry, following the passing of the WASP.

And the principle, mentioned above, is illustrated by this and other examples.

The WASP oligarchy was weak and easily displaced because it was, in part, the coming together, artificially, of otherwise unattached plutocrats who happened to be largely of common ethnic origin but not of long-established natural community nor of a transcendent agenda for governance of a rapidly evolving society seriously strained by class antagonisms. In further illustration, the modern regimes of the USSR and NS Germany had to make do with oligarchies merely aborning in the KGB (Andropov) and the SS (Himmler), thus having to be firmly disciplined by the active pursuit of ideological goals as the “glue” holding a regime together. Hannah Arendt, in one of her few valid appreciations of Totalitarianism, recognized this element in ideologically-based “movements” - in that they must constantly *move* in order to maintain themselves.

And this is why the Russian and Chinese regimes have not retained the rigid police-states of the past. They must evolve toward a globally catastrophic attempt at the immantization of the eschaton, as we have seen them doing, or they will devolve into civil war, as has *not* happened and as would confirm a *genuine* “collapse” of Communism in either of these regimes.


I think the explanatory value of a “hidden hand” theory makes it attractive, because it allows an individual to conceptualize and comprehend what is otherwise an incredibly complex system that otherwise defies one’s ability to really grasp or predict it.


The essence of the administrative challenge - to which oligarchy, hidden or otherwise, is the answer - is not one of complexity, however.

It is one of the exclusivity - as with “Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem,” - of coherence and completeness ("all coherent formulations of number theory are incomplete").

Likewise, and pretenses to the contrary, there has not been, and there cannot be, a complete and coherent formulation of law such as will be adhered to under the constraint of *universal* attendance to “Rightly Understood Interest”. Thus the necessity for authoritative oligarchy to deal with societal conflicts that cannot be satisfactorily addressed by formalities - and as it is in the rightly-understood *particularist* interest of an organized minority to exploit an unorganzed majority.

Also, it must be mentioned that an essential part of the governance of settled populations is the service provided by theologues (priests) and ideologues (”intellectuals”) in the mis-guidance of dominated populations as to their “Rightly Understood Interests” - since, as said, there is no formula for its achievement, in law or in adherence thereto.

One should note that the Marxist concepts of “false consciousness” and "opiate of the masses" are instructive in this regard.


  1. The right must be a movement of the workers and the middle class. The very rich and the very poor are both dangerous for a self-governing Republican people and need to be kept from having excessive political power. (”Roach”)

    Ironically, this prophylactic measure was achieved with the ascent of elite Jewry to supreme power in what is now Greater Judea.

    Greater Judea is now a theocracy of sorts more than it is a plutocracy, united (as it must be by transcendent objectives) at its summit, alternately, by Judeo-Communist and Judeo-Fascist agendas - rather than by mere individual material self-seeking by oligarchs who would soon disrupt and dissolve their own collective enterprise for lack of this transcendent element (as was overtaken the WASP establishment).

    Unfortunately, this development has not been to the ultimate advantage of “the workers and the middle class”. For the Iron Law of Oligarchy and the passage of time in the High Cultural evolution of the West assure that “a self-governing Republican people” has become nostalgic nonsense. These are, rather, the times of Septimius Severus.

  2. Jacques Rancière observes that the term ‘democracy’ does not strictly designate either a form of society or a form of government. Every state is oligarchic; every democracy contains an oligarchic nucleus — a “creative minority,” whose “creative power,” in Arnold J. Toynbee’s interpretation, has been crucial to the rise and demise of civilizations throughout history.

    Since government is “always exercised by the minority over the majority,” Rancière points out, there is strictly speaking “no such thing as democratic government”:

    We do not live in democracies. … We live in States of oligarchic law … where … [oligarchic elites] hold free elections. These elections essentially ensure that the same dominant personnel is reproduced, albeit under interchangeable labels, but the ballot boxes are generally not rigged and one can verify it without risking one’s life. ... Peaceful oligarchic government redirects democratic passions toward private pleasures and renders people insensitive to the public sphere. … [T]he multitude, freed of the worry of governing, is left to its private and egotistical passions.

    In a post-democratized world run by inevitable oligarchies, Colin Crouch points out, “political elites have learned to manage and manipulate popular demands,” persuading people to vote by “top-down publicity campaigns.” Governing today, says Baudrillard, “is like advertising and it is the same effect that is achieved — commitment to a scenario.” The political world, thus, intensively imitates and recycles the methods of other more self-confident spheres like show business and the marketing of goods. From this, emerge the familiar paradoxes of contemporary politics:

    [B]oth the techniques for manipulating public opinion and the mechanisms for opening politics to scrutiny become ever more sophisticated, while the content of party programmes and the character of party rivalry become ever more bland and vapid.