The Myth Of Democracy And Why They Chose It To Unite Us



In my poem EYE OF THE STORM I wrote the following:

Democracy, we now see, only resembles being free
It’s just the passing stage on our way to tyranny

In this article we will see what I exactly meant with this quite daunting statement and we will go deeper into the emergence of democracy as the social system for the World Order to come. Especially how the phrase ‘democracy’ has been transformed into a fashion-word, a slogan, a battle cry, and how it’s all based on a clever myth that few of the world leaders who propagated it in history really believed in. It was a nice idea but never meant to work.

If we for instance go back to the cradle of democracy, Ancient Greece, we find that even the inventor of the system had not that much faith in mob rule. Will Durant described it perfectly in his great book The Story Of Philosophy:

Every form of government tends to perish by excess of its basic principle. Aristocracy ruins itself by limiting too narrowly the circle within which power is confined; oligarchy ruins itself by the incautious scramble for immediate wealth. In either case the end is revolution.

But even democracy ruins itself by excess—of democracy. Its basic principle is the equal right of all to hold office and determine public policy. This is at first glance a delightful arrangement; it becomes disastrous because the people are not properly equipped by education to select the best rulers and the wisest courses. “As to the people they have no understanding, and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them”;

The more Plato thinks of it, the more astounded he is at the folly of leaving to mob caprice and gullibility the selection of political officials—not to speak of leaving it to those shady and wealth-serving strategists who pull the oligarchic wires behind the democratic stage. Plato complains that whereas in simpler matters—like shoe-making—we think only a specially-trained person will serve our purpose, in politics we presume that everyone who knows how to get votes knows how to administer a city or a state.

Mob-rule is a rough sea for the ship of state to ride; every wind of oratory stirs up the waters and deflects the course. The upshot of such a democracy is tyranny or autocracy; the crowd so loves flattery, it is so “hungry for honey,” that at last the wiliest and most unscrupulous flatterer, calling himself the “protector of the people” rises to supreme power. [1]

So here we find that even our good friend Plato already hinted that a state democracy always ends up in a tyranny. Durant also wrote that Plato placed democracy really at the bottom of all political systems, even below tyranny. That’s because the elites of all times have really hated the profane, and there isn’t any reason to believe that this has changed in our time. They laugh at us and shake our hands, if necessary, but only in times when the PR-machine rolls. The concept of democracy has always been quite fluid and has changed a lot since the times of Plato of course, but this underlying principle of democracy ‘evolving’ into something more malign really seems to be perpetual. I really think that this is even the reason why the Dominant Minority has chosen democracy for the world system to come, because it’s known to them as being the “passing stage” to tyranny. Compare this also with the first quote by James Burnham in PEACE OF MIND.

In the book Social Science And Freemasonry [1896] by the high initiate Edouard Blitz we read some interesting things: [2]


We learn that the Masonic system consists out of three separate bodies, which resemble the trinity of the ‘Philosopher King’ as established in my articles on the Apocalypse. It also resembles the ‘three-legged stool’ we’ve encountered in THE BOREDOM OF SKEPTICISM, which is the system where the United Nations is based on. Blitz also emphasized the importance of the letter G, which we all know as one of the central emblems of Freemasonry. It’s often placed between the square and the compass. But we also have G-meetings—G6, G7—which are often called ‘Summits’. We of course wouldn’t expect any less from people at the top of the pyramid, which is basically a manmade mountain. We, the profane, are base-people and not even part of the pyramid/mountain at all. No, not even the lowest layer of bricks, because we are symbolized by the wasteland [jungle, with mesmerized little monkeys] which surrounds the pyramid. And Plato’s teachings constitute the plateau on which everything rests.

In the Mystery Schools there doesn’t exist something as democracy of course, because blind obedience is the only rule. I looked into Mackey’s Lexicon Of Freemasonry [1850s] to see if there is an entry on Democracy, but I sought in vain. I stumbled on the entry named Demit though, which is also relevant and interesting:

Demit—A Mason is said to demit from the order when he withdraws from all connection with it. It relieves the individual from all pecuniary contributions, and debars him from pecuniary relief, but it does not cancel his masonic obligations, nor exempt him from that wholesome control which the order exercises over the moral conduct of its members. In this respect the maxim is “Once a Mason and always a Mason”. [3]

So the next time you see an ex-Mason spewing secrets of the Craft: don’t be fooled, OK? It’s this highly respected veil of secrecy that has been the biggest weapon of the Mystery Schools through the ages, and the only way they’ve been able to execute their Great Work. And with many secret service agents probably being a Mason or similar, be always very vigilant with ex-agents spilling the beans too. And I’m pretty sure it works similar in the fields of diplomacy and the higher echelons of geopolitics and intergovernmental statesmanship.

In the article HAUNTED HOUSE we’ve already ventured into the importance of non-elected special advisors in the American presidencies and we will now see if we can uncover some less well-known details of how this system came into being. In his classic work The Prince [1530s] the mysterious Italian intellectual Niccolò Machiavelli already lifted a veil on the system of special advisors and councils that we now know as the ‘parallel government’, NGO’s, TNC’s and intergovernmental organizations. He tells us that

a wise prince ought to hold a third course by choosing the wise men in his state, and giving to them only the liberty of speaking the truth to him, and then only of those things of which he inquires, and of none others; but he ought to question them upon everything, and listen to their opinions, and afterwards form his own conclusions. With these councillors, separately and collectively, he ought to carry himself in such a way that each of them should know that, the more freely he shall speak, the more he shall be preferred; outside of these, he should listen to no one, pursue the thing resolved on, and be steadfast in his resolutions. [4]

I also have the Dutch translation of the original Italian version this book and there it says “persoonlijke adviseurs”, which translates to “personal advisors”, instead of “councillors”. But in the end it all indicates the parallel government. In the Venetian State Papers from the year 1607 we can read some comments about King James I and the power of his Council:

I have remarked that his Majesty is devoted to the chase and to his pleasures, and hates all the trouble and anxiety of Government. He readily leaves all to the Council. It seems to me, therefore, desirable to say something about the Council, which numbers twenty-five persons at present, though its number is not fixed and depends on the pleasure of the King, who has the right to introduce even foreigners, though that has never taken place.

The Council usually follows the King unless he goes privately on a party of pleasure, and then it stays with the Court, ordinarily in London. Their power is great, nay excessively great; not that they have it of right, but because they have slowly usurped it. It was never greater than now, thanks to the indulgence and carelessness of the King. Though divided among themselves upon many points they are united on this, to preserve their authority, which they use not merely to aggrandize but to enrich themselves as well. The Council deals not only with affairs of State, but of finance and of justice also; there is no one who sooner or later is not forced to apply to Council, and everyone, therefore, seeks the protection of some member, and that can only be gained in England by presents and gifts. [5]

Yes, with the advent of the system of advisory councils the costs of the government skyrocketed for the people, because now they had to finance whole armies of bureaucrats, instead of one or two families endowed with eccentric expensive hobbies and a morbid pleasure in giving exorbitantly large parties and banquets. From this time-period on this phenomenon became more common, because the new societal middle-management wanted their piece of the pie too. And since we-the-people never received much more than the few leftover crumbs anyway—trickling down from above—the pie had to be exponentially increased. And so the hidden hands behind Capitalism have been baking larger pies ever since. And those pies kept rising and rising, only now and then slowed down temporarily by a bubble bursting. But they never seem to run out of dough! And once in a while they butter up the mixture with some new layers of sugarcoating, with on top of the pie in chocolate letters the word ‘Democracy’, completing the delicacy. And we-the-sheeple, of course, keep cheering and voting for them because we want to believe. All because they’re rich, they’re successful, they’re admireable. The personality cult: the religion of a dying society.


Nobody less than Mahatma Annie Besant tells us something about the function of the concept of democracy in the ‘Great Work’ in her book India: Bond Or Free  [1926]. And so we learn that

the awakening of India is not only a part of the movement in Asia, stimulated by the aggressiveness of western peoples, but it is also part of that World Movement towards Democracy, which began for the West in the revolt of the American Colonies against the rule of Britain, ending in 1776 in the Independence of the Great Republic of the West, and in the French Revolution of 1789. The invasion of India by the European merchants in the seventeenth century and its fatal results in reducing India to ignorance and to poverty; the self-abnegation of the Samurai of Japan; the fall of the Manchu dynasty in China, followed by a Chinese Republic; the struggle of Persia to free herself from the ‘spheres of influence’ of alien Powers; all these had their share in the awakening of India; and she has seen later the fall of the Russian, German and Austrian Empires, and the growth of Democratic institutions all over Europe. [6]

In TOGETHER ALONE I already introduced Gustave le Bon and his book Philosophy Of Socialism  [1899] and I quoted already liberally from it. But there’s more interesting stuff in it for us to know and consider. Le Bon tells us that

when the men of the Revolution, guided by the dreams of their philosophers, saw the triumph of their humanitarian ideals, and inscribed the words Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity, which were the synthesis of those dreams, on the pediments of the public buildings, the modern sciences were not born. So that then they could invoke the state of nature, the original goodness of man, and his perversion by societies, and no one could formulate a contradiction; and then they could act as though societies were artificial things which they could re-fashion at their will. But the new sciences have sprung up to make evident the vanity of such conceptions.

The doctrine of evolution above all has utterly refuted them, by showing all through nature an incessant struggle, resulting always in the extinction of the weakest; a cruel law, no doubt, but the origin of all progress, without which humanity would never have emerged from its primitive savagery, and would never have given birth to a civilization. That these scientific principles should ever have seemed democratic, and that democracy should have assimilated them without seeing how utterly they were opposed to it, is one of those phenomena which can only be understood by those who have studied the history of religions, and who know how readily the believer will draw from a sacred text, the most improbable deductions, and the most completely opposed to the text itself.

As a matter of fact, nothing could be more aristocratic than the laws of nature. “Aristocracy,” as someone has justly said, “is the law of human societies, as it is, under the name of selection, the law of species”. We have as much trouble to-day in reconciling the new data of science with our democratic illusions as had the theologians a short time back in reconciling the Bible with the discoveries of geology. [7]

But on the Capitalist side the concept of democracy has also always been used as an easy myth. A nice example of this happened in the late 1920s. In this period the powers that bee played with the idea of giving the voting cattle maybe another day or a half day off in order to spend more in the exploding consumer society. For a nice anecdote on this we turn to the excellent book DuPont: Behind The Nylon Curtain [1974] by Gerard Colby Zilg. The DuPonts aren’t mentioned that often in NWO-studies as far as I know, but they certainly have been among the major illuminated families in the US in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Dubbed the “merchants of death” because of their major market share in gunpowder and other explosive war materials, they had of course their fling with Fascism and their share of controversial trials. They were monopoly men, just like their peers the Rockefellers and the Vanderbilts. One of the most influential secretaries and advisors of the DuPont family was John J. Raskob [1879-1950]. He was one of the key people involved in the erection of the Empire State Building, which was the tallest building at that time. Raskob was chairman of the National Democratic Commission, General Electric and co-founder and treasurer of the American branch of the Knights Of Malta [SMOM].[8] In a real streak of pure democracy he co-conspired against Roosevelt in the infamous plot which was exposed by general Smedley Butler. Another one of Raskob’s democratic highlights was his influence in the amendment of the standard workweek in the US. He philosophized about possibly giving the proles extra time off in the weekend—back then only the Sundays were officially holidays. Dollar-signs appeared in Raskob’s eyes, because he learned that the mileage travelled in automobiles on Sundays was astronomical, maybe as much as the rest of the week combined. The possibilities for extra explosions of profit in the transportation and fossil fuel branches were immanent. Raskob oracled thus, in order to lit the fuse:

With two full play days ahead of them people will start out Friday evening or Saturday morning on longer trips than they can take under present conditions. More good roads will have to be built. More hotels and tourist camps will be called for, to the benefit of the construction industries

The proponents of the five-day week are satisfied that psychologically and practically the extra half day will be equal to an extra full day of leisure. They believe, in fact, that the plan will purchase extra consumption for a full day at the price of only half a day of production.

Retail trade profits by the Saturday half-holiday, but it would profit immensely more if all of Saturday were at the disposal of the mass of industrial workers to spend, buy and consume. Of course the retail trades and public services which would be called on to extra serve on Saturdays would have to provide their workers with compensatory leisure, giving them a five-day week also, which in turn would make them better customers and consumers.

The knowledge that he had two days out of seven in which to enjoy life and family companionship would make every ambitious worker in the land more efficient. [9]

So it might just be good old Mr. Raskob who we have to thank for the fact that we all over the Western world nowadays have two “play days” in the weekend! Yeah baby, children of the Earth indeed. That’s one thing you don’t see that often anymore, fascists being thanked. We normally don’t think about how mundane things like the weekend holidays have been established, but if you look into such things it quickly becomes clear that the feudal system never really has vanished, only shrouded with myths and updated and refined from behind the smokescreen. And Raskob’s superiors, the members of the DuPont family, were also some real quasi-democratizers and even a major financial backer of the Manhattan Project. Leading backers of the Democratic Party on the one side, but on the other side also among the leading families who enriched themselves through war and through selling their materials to tyrants all over the world. This all led Zilg to write that in 1930

the former US ambassador to Germany, James W. Gerard, named fifty-nine people who ruled America. Significantly, the ambassador omitted President Hoover and all federal and state officials. The real nature of the state, he explained, was “the power behind the throne”, the men of industry and finance who had little time to spare to hold a political office, but, because of their economic positions, held permanent influence, not the temporary influence of an officeholder. Among these fifty-nine, Gerard named six Du Ponts.

…the Du Ponts, in the tradition of most wealthy families, abhor with Malthusian passion any potentially revolutionary increase in the number of human mouths to feed. Irénée de Pont, Jr.’s Crystal Trust, when it was not giving grants to Radio Free Europe, has been filling the coffers of the Delaware League of Planned Parenthood to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. A. Felix de Pont, Jr.’s Chichester-du Pont Foundation has likewise given over $35.000 to the World Population Fund of Planned Parenthood, and Lammot du Pont Copeland’s Andelot Foundation gave $75.000 to International Planned Parenthood in 1967 alone. [10]

As I already noted in THE BOREDOM OF SKEPTICISM, Arnold J. Toynbee wrote in the tenth edition of International Affairs magazine in the year 1933 some very interesting remarks on the international agenda of him and his peers. It was a time when the Royal Institute of International Affairs was less under scrutiny as nowadays, so they also wrote a lot clearer about their plans then. This time I give you a bigger quote, which gives us a few new interesting details. Speaking about the wretched and demonic force of nationalism in the minds of the common heard, Toynbee oracles:

It is just because we are really attacking the principle of local sovereignty that we keep on protesting our loyalty to it so loudly. The harder we press our attack upon the idol, the more pains we take to keep its priests and devotees in a fool’s paradise—lapped in a false sense of security which will inhibit them from taking up arms in their idol’s defence. Perhaps, too, when we make these protestations, we are partly concerned to deceive ourselves. For let us be honest. Even the most internationally-minded among us are votaries of this false god of local national sovereignty to some extent. It is such an old-established object of worship that it retains some hold even over the most enlightened souls. And what is the magic which gives local sovereignty its power? It is powerful, I think, because it has inherited the prestige and the prerogatives of the mediaeval Western Church, which were transferred, at the close of the Middle Ages, from the whole to the parts, from the great society of Western Christendom to each of that society’s “successor states,” represented now by the fifty or sixty sovereign independent States of the “post-War” world.

The local national state, invested with the attributes of sovereignty—invested, that is, with the prestige and the prerogatives of the mediaeval Church—is an abomination of desolation standing in the place where it ought not. It has stood in that place now—demanding and receiving human sacrifices from its poor deluded votaries—for four or five centuries. Our political task in our generation is to cast the abomination out, to cleanse the temple and to restore the worship of the divinity to whom the temple rightfully belongs. In plain terms, we have to re-transfer the prestige and the prerogative of sovereignty from the fifty or sixty fragments of contemporary society to the whole of contemporary society–from the local national states by which sovereignty has been usurped, with disastrous consequences, for half a millennium, to some institution embodying our society as a whole.

In the world as it is to-day, this institution can hardly be a universal Church. It is more likely to be something like a League of Nations. I will not prophesy. I will merely repeat that we are at present working, discreetly but with all our might to wrest this mysterious political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local national states of our world. And all the time are denying with our lips what we doing with our hands, because to impugn the sovereignty of the local national states of the world is still a heresy for which, a statesman or a publicist can be—perhaps not quite burnt at the stake, but certainly ostracised and discredited. The dragon of local sovereignty can still use its teeth and claws when it is brought to bay. Nevertheless, I believe that the monster is doomed to perish by our sword. The fifty or sixty local states of the world will no doubt survive as administrative conveniences. But sooner or later sovereignty will depart from them. Sovereignty will cease, in fact if not in name, to be a local affair. [11]

Yes, for some reason they really hate nationalism and national sovereignty. It goes way beyond political interest or even moneyed interests, and as I’ve had to conclude before in earlier articles, it really is a religion to them. Their god is the World God. Their rites are veiled and their ceremony is secrecy. We are their Satan, Earth is their Hell.

According to the noted historians Charles and Mary Beard it was Elihu Root who already in 1915 spoke about the Invisible Government, which in that time for instance was prevalent in New York:

From the days of Fenton, and Conkling, and Arthur, and Cornell, and Platt, from the days of David B. Hill, down to the present time, the government of the state has presented two different lines of activity, one of the constitutional and statutory officers of the state, and the other of the party leaders, – they call them party bosses. They call the system—I do not coin the phrase, I adopt it because it carries its own meaning—the system they call “invisible government”.

For I do not remember how many years, Mr. Conkling was the supreme ruler in this state; the governor did not count, the legislatures did not count; comptrollers and secretaries of state and what not, did not count. It was what Mr. Conkling said; and in a great outburst of public rage he was pulled down. Then Mr. Platt ruled the state; for nigh upon twenty years he ruled it. It was not the governor; it was not the legislature; it was not any elected officers; it was Mr. Platt. And the capitol was not here (in Albany); it was at 49 Broadway; with Mr. Platt and his lieutenants. It makes no difference what name you give, whether you call it Fenton or Conkling or Cornell or Arthur or Platt, or by the names of men now living. The ruler of the state during the greater part of the forty years of my acquaintance with the state government has not been any man authorized by the constitution or by the law. […] The party leader is elected by no one, accountable to no one, bound by no oath of office, removable by no one. [12]

I’ve already mentioned the influential but not well-known Fabian socialist Herman Finer a few times. On the right you can see the blurb from the inner flap of his book America’s Destiny [1947]. This seems to me as another example of an admission by the Brits that the US was to be the new global hegemon, with manifest destiny to make the world safe for democracy: fMOB_finerirst bomb the bastards out of existence and then take over the scorched lands and build your mega-corporations and military bases on it. That’s quite a safe tactic, I’d say. It has been used to a high degree, led by initiates of an even higher degree. Maybe it wasn’t such a Cold War after all. Finer’s book also gives us a glance into the mindset of the upper Anglo-American elite and how they see the unwashed masses:

Many people in all countries, democratic or dictatorial, are politically deaf, dumb and blind: perhaps they can smell. Their appetites, as Plato might have ventured, are so swinish that the interest of the community is of no concern to them, certainly of no sacrificial concern; their horizon is the pungent rim of the trough. [13]



Another Fabian socialist ideologue, George Bernard Shaw, wrote in his very interesting Revolutionist Handbook [1903] about his and his superiors—like the Astor family—view on democracy:

Now we have yet to see the man who, having any practical experience of Proletarian Democracy, has any belief in its capacity for solving great political problems, or even for doing ordinary parochial work intelligently and economically. Only under despotisms and oligarchies has the Radical faith in “universal suffrage” as a political panacea arisen. It withers the moment it is exposed to practical trial, because Democracy cannot rise above the level of the human material of which its voters are made. [14]

Hence democracy is and will always be a profane societal system, because, well, we’re just too stupid a “material”, aren’t we?

Looking into the ‘Invisible Government’ or ‘parallel government’ we of course quickly stumble upon the usual suspects, like the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group. For debunkers and Skeptics across the board these not-so-secret NGO’s are a godsend, because they can first agree that—yes!—there are organizations in our democratic societies that operate a little bit in secret, but thereafter they can quickly link to for instance the About-page of the CFR to convince their readers that there really isn’t more to it than those few remarks that can be gleaned over there. The same silly technique is also used in documentaries, infomercials or ‘debates’ on the mainstream media about conspiratorial stuff. First give in 10%, so that for many people the defense is lowered. And as soon as they’re entertained and immersed into the story, then they hit back and go for the full knockout by convincing that there really is no evidence at all. Therefore after watching a mainstream documentary about conspiratorial stuff you always are left with a vague and uneasy feeling of what you must think. You certainly can’t ‘believe’, because then you’re a cook, but there has to be ‘something’ behind it all. But you still haven’t got an idea what exactly. So you’re in even more doubt than before, which for many people mean that they loose interest in the subject altogether.

The Bilderberg Meetings might be the most mysterious of them all, probably mostly because they’re not from American origin and so more or less constitute a ‘foreign conspiracy’ for the Americans. And the names of Bernhard zur Lippe-Biesterfeld and Joseph Retinger of course sound as German as can be and so, even till today, the Nazi-card is played against the Bilderbergers. Because, for a reason I don’t yet fully understand, the Nazis still seem to be very much alive in the American mind, while the real German Nazis don’t even ever have set foot in large numbers on North-American soil. There were of course intricate connections with offshoots in the US, both financial and ideological, but the fascination for 21st century Nazi takeovers of the States always seem a bit strange to me. The early initiators of the Bilderberg Meetings even had some connections to the Nazis, but the problem is that people always tend to view the Nazis with post-war eyes. But only since after the war Hitler is seen as an incarnation of Satan himself. In the 1920s and even far into the 1930s he was seen as great statesman who had a strange quirk of being a racist pervert who with his rabid rhetoric sought to make the fringe mainstream. Nowadays there are such politicians all over the world.  So therefore painting people who only were in contact with the German Führer in for instance the early 1920s with the Hitler/Holocaust-brush is not fair, I’d say.  The power and influence of the Nazis has been blown out of all proportions and still using the Nazi-card nowadays  is counterproductive to say the least.

One of the biggest secrets in the MOB_bilderbergalternative media is probably that the Bilderberg Meetings weren’t even really that secret at all in the early days. In his authorized biography Prins Bernhard [1962] the Dutch Prince even dedicated a full chapter to it. This book was widely circulated then and had several reprints. There have also been several translations into foreign languages. I only have the original Dutch version and I therefore will give some short translated quotes from this book. This tells us enough about the nature and meaning of the meetings to understand that the official meetings aren’t the pinnacle of power and that the most secret plans for world domination probably aren’t put out in the open on the agenda. Bernhard and Retinger started the meetings to increase understanding between both sides of the Atlantic and to strengthen ties and cooperation, the same reason most other NGO’s have used to justify their existence. From a business side of view this is perfectly understandable. They didn’t start the meetings completely in secret but they also didn’t shouted it from the rooftops, which certainly in the Cold War era isn’t strange either. In the biography several American and British statesmen were quoted on the Meetings, so they too weren’t particularly secretive about it. In the early years there were many permanent members, but also at least 20% new faces every new meeting. Bernhard’s sidekick was Paul Rijkens, once CEO of Unilever. He tells us probably the most important thing we need to know, only merely as a casual side-note:

During the private conversations at lunch and dinner often more important things happen than during the regular sessions. At these informal talks often a much better understanding for each other’s views is created. During the years we have created some kind of brotherhood which is based on friendship and mutual trust. [15]

Biographer Alden Hatch later concludes, after having interviewed everyone on the Bilderberg Meetings, that “the not directly attributable results are much more important” than the results which are directly connected to Bilderberg. One direct outcome of the conferences is, according to George McGhee, the Treaty of Rome, which led to the formation of the European Economic Community. One of the more infamous quotes by Prince Bernhard which floats around on the internet is “It is difficult to re-educate people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supra-national body”. While almost nowhere the original source is given, it’s certainly from his authorized biography. I don’t know if this is the direct quote from the English translation, but if I’d make a more direct translation from the Dutch version of the biography it would be: “It’s very difficult to convert people who have been brought up in a national context into accepting giving up part of the national authority to a supra-national body”.[16]

The French philosopher and sociologist Jacques Ellul published in 1965 his mind-blowing book Propaganda: The Formation Of Men’s Attitudes. This peculiar book goes very deep into propaganda techniques as they are used and how they are working on the mass psyche. I’ve quoted copiously from this book before in earlier articles. For this article the second half of Ellul’s book is particularly important, because about halfway through the tone of the book completely changes from a generally informative and impersonal tone, into what only can be described as a project plan for the law- and policymaking elites of the democratic West. Ellul lamented that the propaganda system and techniques as used in the West at the time of his writing weren’t as all-embracing as for instance the Communist propaganda. Earlier in the book he admitted that the Communists had adopted it from the Anglo-American, as all other players on the grand chessboard did. But now he proceeds by giving a full-blown battle plan on how the “myth of democracy” was to be improved and implemented in the West, in order to conquer all hostile ones. Because Ellul noted some things which also today are still very relevant and of utmost importance for us to all understand:

But even if the State held all the Instruments of propaganda, what characterizes democracy is that it permits the expression of different propagandas. This is true. But it is impossible to permit the expression of all opinion. Immoral and aberrant opinions are justifiably subject to censorship. Purely personal opinions and, even more, certain political tendencies are necessarily excluded. “No freedom for the enemies of freedom” is the watchword then. Thus the democracies create for themselves a problem of limitation and degree. Who then will exclude certain propaganda instruments?

For the Fascist, the Communists are the enemies of truth. For the Communists, the enemies of freedom are the bourgeois, the Fascists, the cosmopolitans. And for the democracy? Obviously all enemies of democracy. [17]

So seen from this way the meme of democracy can be called the mother of all conspiracies, because from all competing systems it would then be the most fundamental and totalitarian! Because where the usual ‘bad cops’ as Fascism and Communism basically were struggling to win over certain parts of enemy populations, the overarching ‘good cop’ sails under the flag of democracy, subjugating every single soul who even dares to deny or refute the freedom given by the magical method of the vote. Forging swords into voting pencils, you could say. And this might just be the reason why every competing faction who has had a World Order in mind publicly proclaimed being based on a democracy. Heck, even North-Korea proclaims to be the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea! Ellul continues with techniques how the myth of democracy can be turned into a weapon to penetrate and finally win over the minds of the enemy civilian masses:

Propaganda can penetrate the consciousness of the MOB_nazidemokratiemasses of a foreign country only through the myth. It cannot operate with simple arguments pro and con. It does not express itself to already existing feelings but must create an image to act as a motive force. This image must have an emotional character that leads to the allegiance of the entire being, without thought. That is, it must be a myth.

But then democracy takes a path that needs watching. First of all, it begins to play a game that drives man from the conscious and rational unto the arms of irrational and “obscure forces”, but we already know that in this game the believer is not the master and that forces thus unleashed are rarely brought under control again. To put it differently: mythical democratic propaganda in no way prepares its listeners for democracy but strengthens their totalitarian tendencies, providing at best a different direction for those tendencies.

From experience we have seen that the democracies have used the myths of Peace, of Freedom, of Justice, and so on. […] Contrary to what one might think, the myth of democracy is far from exhausted and can still furnish good propaganda material. The fact that Communist authoritarian regimes also have chosen democracy as the springboard of propaganda tends to prove its propagandistic value. And to the extent that democracy is presented, constructed, and organized as a myth, it can be a good subject of propaganda.

If the people do not believe in the myth, it cannot serve to combat totalitarian propaganda; but if the people do believe in it, they are victims of these myths, which, though democratic on the surface, have all the traits of all other myths, particularly the impossibility, in the eyes of believes, of being questioned. But this tends to eliminate all opposing truth, which is Immediately called “error”. Once democracy becomes the object of propaganda, it also becomes as totalitarian, authoritarian, and exclusive as dictatorship. [18]

And such democratic propaganda has for instance been used very often as the reason to embark on another war. I think more of it as a ‘Casus Smelly’. Because they won’t stop before literally everyone in the world is just impatiently awaiting to once again ascend the stairway to the heavenly voting booth and sacrifice to the god of freedom. In April 1947 a US Navy document was cited in the American Congress and therefore ended up in the Congressional Record of that day. This document might just have been written by one of those rare sailors wearing tinfoil headgear, because the quote reads:

Realistically, all wars have been for economic reasons. To make them politically palatable, ideological issues have always been invoked. Any possible future war will undoubtedly conform to historical precedent. [19]

Speaking about Communists: in the book The First Global Revolution [1993] the influential international environmental think-tank the Club of Rome wrote that global governance according to their vocabulary “does not imply global ‘government’, but rather the institutions set up for cooperation, coordination, and common action between durable sovereign states”.[20] This rhymes with the stance of the United Nations, as quoted in PEACE OF MIND. But the real reason that it won’t imply government as we’ve known it until now, is because national governments and normal politics will almost cease to exist in the World Order to come. But for this to happen they need change—change we can believe in. This because they’re building a new belief system for the global population. In 2011 the World Economic Forum tapped into this meme and wrote in a study named The Future Of Government:

What are the drivers of change for governments beyond those identified, including more informed citizens, media attention, competition linked to indicators and benchmarking, incentives and compensation, the exchange of experience on a regional and global level, and financial pressures? How can an appetite for change be created? . . . Government in the 21st century will be marked in many countries by reductions in the size of the civil service. Just like diets, in many cases these ‘crash’ workforce reductions only prove successful in the short run, if at all. Virtually all governments are reducing staffing levels, most often without any real reduction in service levels. Carefully planned workforce reductions coupled with the significant organizational, technological and workforce advances inherent in FAST governments result in slim and streamlined organizations that can thrive in the new world order. [21]

Yes, an appetite for change. Feeling hungry yet? Before we know, we’re back on that pie-thing. But above is a very concise description of how the global governance system will come into fruition. Government will slowly wither away, as was ‘predicted’ long ago of course. Let’s ask H.G. Wells’ hero—Lenin, who wrote in 1918:

The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to Communism, will, for the first time, produce democracy for the people, for the majority, side by side with the necessary suppression of the minority—the exploiters. Communism alone is capable of giving a really complete democracy, and the more complete it is the more quickly will it become unnecessary and wither away of itself. [22]

The Global Brain won’t be called Communism anymore—that name got stained long time ago—but the idea is the same. So under the cloak of global governance the new feudal system is completed. A true redistribution of wealth, but flowing the other way round than most people expect. Some things never change! And one time, probably not too far in the future, the myth of democracy will become untenable and probably completely discarded. This might be done silently, or maybe even publicly. Jacques Ellul also taught that long before democracy would be discarded it would already have transformed into something similar as a religion. Think about how the farce of democracy nowadays is used as a completely hollow phrase to justify about everything. Here in The Netherlands this is very naked and recognizable, at least for me. I already wrote about the more overarching new Green World Religion in ADAPT AND DIE and PEACE OF MIND, and Ellul complements this by telling us that

the creation of the etiological myth leads to an obligation on the part of democracy to become religious. It can no longer be secular but must create its religion. Besides, the creation of a religion is one of the indispensable elements of effective propaganda. The content of this religion is of little importance; what matters is to satisfy the religious feelings of the masses; these feelings are used to integrate the masses into the national collective. [in our time: international collective—FS]

We must not delude ourselves: when one speaks to us of “massive democracy” and “democratic participation”, these are only veiled terms that mean “religion”.

And as preparation for that priceless moment in the stage of civilization when the system meets its demise, Machiavelli had some advice for the ruling oligarchy too:

Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them. It is necessary, therefore, if we desire to discuss this matter thoroughly, to inquire whether these innovators can rely on themselves or have to depend on others: that is to say, whether, to consummate their enterprise, have they to use prayers or can they use force? In the first instance they always succeed badly, and never compass anything; but when they can rely on themselves and use force, then they are rarely endangered. Hence it is that all armed prophets have conquered, and the unarmed ones have been destroyed. Besides the reasons mentioned, the nature of the people is variable, and whilst it is easy to persuade them, it is difficult to fix them in that persuasion. And thus it is necessary to take such measures that, when they believe no longer, it may be possible to make them believe by force. [23]

This is of course where George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four  is all about, as we know by now. What we know too is that this is only a temporary phase, before Huxley’s brave new world order has been completely implemented. We’re now in the midst of this process—somewhere in between Orwell and Huxley—and the coming decade will be pivotal for the future of humanity.


How will the Pax Democratia be sold to us? For a quick look into the polished scholarly contemporary visions on the word order to come, the article Global Democracy [2015] by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy will suffice. They give the five most likely models:

Intergovernmental Democratic States
Proponents of this model contend that world politics is democratic to the extent that each sovereign state is internally democratic with a functioning government and rule of law. Citizens thus have democratic representation beyond the state through their national government. All individuals deserve an equal chance to participate in the rule-making that governs their lives. This is necessary for citizens to have liberty and self-determination. Unlike other cosmopolitans, though, these theorists argue that the nation-state plays a key normative and practical role in global democracy.

Cosmopolitan Democracy
The core idea is to lift statist institutions to the global level in an on-going effort for democratization. Institutionally, cosmopolitan democracy stops short of a fully-fledged world government. A cosmopolitan polity does not call for a diminution per se of state power and capacity across the globe. Rather it seeks to entrench and develop political institutions at regional and global level as necessary complements to those at the level of the state.

World Government
World government proponents seek a highly centralized and federal global system. A central government would sit at the core with autonomous and coercive decision-making potential.

Deliberative Democracy
This model suggests that global politics can be democratized by pursuing deliberation—the give and take of non-coercive and reasoned arguments—in various formal and informal sites.

Radical Democracy
This model is grounded in an ethics of revolution, in which autonomous, self-governing communities can resist and overthrow the global system of sovereignty and its hierarchical capitalist relations. [24]

So we can see that the spirit of a future democracy still glows. Looking back at earlier NWO-schemes we probably play safe when we contend that the World Order to come will consist of some kind of synthesis between all five systems, something with at least a few attributes of all systems incorporated. This way the proponents of every system that has a chance of becoming this One system have their carrot to work towards. They thus will keep focusing on the few traits of their preferred system they still recognize in the global mixture. And most of them will therefore never really see and understand the total picture, just the same as with the older political and societal systems where the fanatics always kept propagating and fighting till the last moment, never really seeing a collapse, revolution or synthesis approaching. Most of these events happen so gradually that it almost seems to come about by itself. But this is not completely true, because from the top of the pyramid the processes are helped, steered, navigated, completed, perfected. And most of the time the Dominant Minority has also built in some unexpected wildcards: events that constitute to population reduction or wealth mysteriously vanishing from public purses. The authorized authors and pundits collectively scratch their heads, blame each other and write it into history as ‘failed experiments’, ‘unwanted wars’ or ‘terrible crises’. And so we have seen many intellectuals all through history complaining about those ongoing wars, or those pesky recurring dictatorships evolving out of well-meant benign socialist revolutions.

From the five options for the World Order mentioned above, the third one—World Government—is for us the most relevant and this pillar will probably become the leading one of the five. So let’s examine the accompanying text in the Stanford article a bit more:

A world government has also been seen as a potential response to the global democratic deficit. World government proponents seek a highly centralized and federal global system. A central government would sit at the core with autonomous and coercive decision-making potential. As with cosmopolitan democracy, a world government would also entail a directly-elected global parliament, empowered courts, and a singular global constitution which explicates basic rights and duties for all. In many cases, proponents stipulate that a world government could come about through a major recalibration of the United Nations General Assembly. Famously, Habermas has also argued for a three-tiered hierarchical global system in which supranational, transnational, and national institutions are implemented to secure rights, peace, and global democracy. Although Habermas might deny advocating a world government, William Scheuerman argues that Habermas’s attempt to pursue stronger supranational governance combined with a global constitution would have that result.

Despite Alexander Wendt’s (2003) teleological claim that a world government is ‘inevitable’, many people deride the concept as infeasible. Without another major crisis (such as a world war) to prompt international action, it is difficult to envisage why states would readily give sovereign power to a global state and who precisely would take the lead in this process.

From the perspective of desirability, moreover, opponents have argued that a world government would actually exacerbate the global democratic deficit. For example, Kant argued that a world government would become a ‘soulless despotism’ as global leaders abused their power without appropriate checks and balances. Other scholars have also suggested a world government—in which citizens have one vote from a constituency of seven billion—would be essentially meaningless and not enable individuals to participate meaningfully in their collective governance.

Seven billion sheeple on their way to the ballot-box, choosing who the Ruler of the World will be. Nice to see that our top minds even are considering this as an option! When reading such things, one almost starts to hope that they pull the plug of democracy as soon as possible. Also Kant’s argument as described above is quite interesting though, and in some of my other articles I already have sketched the basics of what he might have meant with “soulless despotism”. But Kant was one of their boys too, so it was his observation, not a real warning

A non-polished and more realistic view of the Brave World Order is given by the French geo-strategist Jacques Attali in his book A Brief History Of The Future [2009]. He writes that politics will end within a few decades and what “remains of politics will also become a pure stage-managed show put on by politicians, occasional players in a neglected performance”.[25] This is nowadays already largely happened, I’d say, and we see the technocrats rising to their designated place at the top.  Moreover:

In each country, utterly confused political parties will seek (more and more vainly) for areas of competence. Neither left nor right will be able to prevent the progressive privatization of education, health, security, insurance, nor the replacement of these services by mass-produced objects—nor, a little later, the dawning of super-empire.

Nations will be nothing more than oases competing with one another to attract passing caravans. Their way of life will be limited by the rare resources brought by the few nomads who agree to make a halt there long enough to produce, trade, and entertain themselves. Countries will no longer be lived in at any length by anyone but the sedentary—forced to be there because they are too hostile to risk, too fragile, too young, or too old—and by the weakest, some of them immigrants from elsewhere in search of a more decent way of life.

Utterly drained, and pushed as well by the appearance of self-surveillance devices, states will abandon to the market the task of proposing the bulk of services related to education, health, security, and even sovereignty. They will do it first by relocating public services to countries with a low-cost labor force, and next by privatizing them. Then taxes will go down and the minimum wage statutes, as well as statutes for the protection of the weakest, will be swept away. Financial insecurity will become the rule for everyone. [26]



[1]  Will Durant – The Story Of Philosophy [Simon & Schuster; 1926]  / p. 26

[2]  Edouard Blitz – Social Sciences & Freemasonry   [Gould Publishers; 1986]  / p. 3

[3] Albert Mackey – Lexicon of Freemasonry  [Griffin And Company; 1860] / p. 72

[4]  Niccolò Machiavelli – The Prince  / chapter: How Flatterers Should Be Avoided

[5]  Venetian State Papers Vol.10  / p. 509-512

[6]  Annie Besant – India; Bond Or Free  [Putnam & Sons, London; 1926] / p. 179, 180

[7]  Gustave Le Bon – The Psychology Of Socialism  [1899]  / p. 282, 283

[8]   John J. Raskob: NNDB Profile

[9]  Gerard Colby Zilg – DuPont: Behind The Nylon Curtain [Prentiss-Hall,
New Jersey; 1974]   / p. 250, 251

[10]  Zilg – DuPont  / p. 535, 536

[11] Arnold J. Toynbee – The Trend Of International Affairs Since The War 
[International Affairs 1933, vol. X]  / p. 808, 809

[12] Charles & Mary Beard – The Making Of American Civilization
[MacMillan, New York; 1938]  / p. 722, 723

[13] Herman Finer – America’s Destiny [Macmillan, New York; 1947] / p. 5

[14] George Bernard Shaw – The Revolutionist Handbook [1903]

[15]  Alden Hatch – Prins Bernhard [Bechts, Amsterdam; 1962]  / p. 276

[16]  Hatch – Prins Bernhard  / p. 280,281,283

[17]  Jacques Ellul – Propaganda: The Formation Of Men’s Attitudes
[Vintage Books, New York; 1973. Org: 1965]  / p. 238

[18]  Ellul – Propaganda  / p. 243

[19]  Congressional Record; April 5, 1947. [also quoted in Zilg – DuPont  / p. 376]

[20]  The Club Of Rome – The First Global Revolution [Orient Longman; 1993]  / p. 73


[22]  V.I. Lenin – State & Revolution / chapter 5

[23] Niccolò Machiavelli – The Prince / chapter: Concerning New Principalities
Which Are Acquired By One’s Own Arms And Ability

[24] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Global Democracy  [February23, 2015]

[25] Jacques Attali – A Brief History Of The Future
[Arcade Publishing, New York; 2009] / p. 189

[26] Attali – Brief History Of The Future / p. 182, 183