Why the Illuminati Hated Monarchies

June 23, 2013

tsar-nicholas-ii-russia.jpg

(left. Nicholas II Czar of Russia, 1868-1918)



James Perloff says the great monarchies of Europe

were the last redoubt of Christendom against the tyranny

of the Masonic Jewish bankers (i.e. NWO.)


He maintains "God's model for government was monarchy."








Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgement on themselves. Romans 13:1-2


by James Perloff

          (henrymakow.com)


When the Bible was written, "government" usually meant kings and emperors. It's true that the ancient Greeks experimented with democracy, and the Romans with a republic. But from the time of Christ until about 200 years ago, most nations were monarchies. Emperors reigned in China for over 2,000 years until 1911. The czars governed Russia until 1917; the Kaisers Germany until 1918. All the European countries - Spain, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, etc. - were once overseen by kings.


But where are all the monarchs now? Mostly gone or reduced to figureheads. The government forms of the two last centuries - republics, democracies, communism, socialism, fascism - were relatively new.


What type of government exists in heaven? Socialism? A democracy where we elect a new God every four years? Of course, it's a monarchy, under "God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords." (1 Tim 6:15)


Earthly monarchs could be very bad; some were notoriously cruel. Nevertheless, monarchy was the form of government most clearly structured on heaven's model.


Also: In Eden, how did Satan persuade Adam and Eve to disobey God and eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? The Bible says:


He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will surely die.'"

 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."   



The core of the temptation was "you will be like God." The entire "power to the people" movement - from communism to democracy - involved a similar temptation. It's as though Satan said, "Did God say to obey kings? He didn't mean that. Just get rid of those kings, and you'll have the political power, you'll all be kings! So, send King Louis to the guillotine! Murder the Czar and his family! Throw off King George! Power to the people, baby!"


Of course, I don't equate the American Revolution with the Russian Revolution. But God's model for government was monarchy. Had we not eliminated kings, Christians wouldn't face the problems they do today - abortion, banning of school prayer, etc. Christian monarchs would not have allowed these developments. However imperfect he may have been, the personal motto of Czar Nicholas II was: "Christ Above All." On older European coins, you'll see crosses and other Christian emblems. Many British coins, for example, were marked with the Latin "Fid def" - short for fidei defensor, "defender of the faith." Yes, kings could be tyrants, but could also uphold God's commandments.


Suppose that under Austrian emperor Franz Joseph, someone had proposed gay marriage. He would have said: "No! God shall not be mocked! By my royal decree, there shall be no homosexual marriage!" End of story. God wanted rulers with the power to enforce his laws....


While European monarchs inscribed crosses and "defender of the faith" on their coins, we Americans put Lady Liberty on ours. We have the Liberty Bell and the Statue of Liberty. Don't get me wrong - I'm for liberty, but when you make it a kind of idol, is it surprising that people eventually demand the liberty to have abortions or redefine marriage?


Satan knew that once "democracy" replaced kings, he would only need 51% of the vote to dismantle Christian culture. And when you control the media, getting 51% is a cinch.


Another reason the Illuminati sought to destroy monarchies: national sovereignty was strongly tied to kings - the heart and symbol of nationhood. While prime ministers and presidents are loyal to their party (if not donors and lobbyists), a king was loyal to the whole country. He was a unifying force behind whom the people would rally.


VIETNAM


Earlier we described the U.S. policies that caused the Vietnam disaster. Few people recall that, until 1954, Vietnam had an emperor, even during French colonization. The last was Bao Dai, whom the United States insisted step down in favor of "democracy." The emperor himself stated: "If your country had given me one-thousandth of the sum they spent to depose me, I could have won that war."


Bao Dai was a friend of Hilaire du Berrier, who wrote: "When the throne was destroyed, fragmentation resulted because only the man on the throne was above the regional, racial, and religious hatreds dividing the national family." I believe this comment embodies a universal principle concerning monarchies.


The Illuminati's policy on monarchs: remove them.  Protocols of Zion 1:26 declared:

In all corners of the earth the words "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," brought to our ranks, thanks to our blind agents, whole legions who bore our banners with enthusiasm. And all the time these words were canker-worms at work boring into the well-being of the goyim, putting an end everywhere to peace, quiet, solidarity and destroying all the foundations of the goya states. As you will see later, this helped us to our triumph: it gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands the master card - the destruction of the privileges, or in other words of the very existence of the aristocracy of the goyim, that class which was the only defense peoples and countries had against us.

And Protocol 5:3:

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 . . . .
   ---


James Perloff, author of the pioneering conspiracy book, The Shadows of Power, has just released a new Kindle book, Truth Is a Lonely Warrior, which comprehensively examines the methods the Illuminati have used to create a satanic New World Order. The preceding article is a modified excerpt from this book.

 

---


First Comment from Marcos:


Even though it is true that Marxists hated the monarchies, it was not because they were all good and honorable. They were just an obstacle for the advancement of their agenda.

The author shows little knowledge of the Bible. God was against monarchy from the start. He openly warned Israel that a king would steal from them and use their daughters and sons as semi-slaves. He equaled desire for a king with rejection of God Himself. It is basically the OPPOSITE of the author's thesis.

1 Samuell 8 -4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, "You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead[b] us, such as all the other nationshave."

6 But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights."

10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves.18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day."

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."


Perloff replies:



I thank you, Marcos, as I thank all the posters, for adding balance and perspective to this issue.  I have read the Bible several times, am very aware of the passage in Samuel, and expected to hear about it.  It was not so much a matter of ignorance, as it was limitations on both space and my specific objectives.  My main objective was to help offset the antipathy toward monarchies that the Illuminati successfully bred in order to overthrow the powers that stood in their way.  Rebellion against authority is VERY unbiblical and emulated Satan's own rebellion against God. 
 
After the Tower of Babel, God dispersed the world's peoples into different languages and nations. Lucifer (the Illuminati) has attempted to reverse the process.and set up a satanic world government, which necessitated destroying nationhood.  This in turn required destroying nations' rulers and nobility, and replacing them with socialism and "democracy," which are designed to make the people think they hold power--but  in fact made them like an army consisting only of privates, or a chess contestant holding nothing but pawns.  How well the Illuminati understood these principles, as expressed in the Protocols! In 1798, scholar John Robison published a book entitled Proofs a Conspiracy against All the Religions and Governments of Europe, Carried on in the Secret Meetings of Free Masons, Illuminati, and Reading Societies. Unfortunately, his prophetic warnings went unheeded.
 
In Samuel's day, monarchy was certainly a step down from Israel's original theocracy.  But I believe it was a step up from today's delusional democracy, controlled from behind the scenes by the Illuminati. Of course, I do not deny the sins of monarchs (who sometimes deeply compromised with the Illuminati), or the exquisite value of the Bill of Rights, which is now also being targeted for destruction.           .  


Comments for "Why the Illuminati Hated Monarchies "

Tracy said (June 26, 2013):

Not to belabor the point, but I will just reiterate what respondent Marcos said. And reference those same scriptures!
The Bible indicates that monarchy is NOT God's preferred form of government. What he indicates
he wants is tough for most of us to understand, because we almost never see it. God wanted to have a prophet who was faithful to him, and upheld his ideas and precepts and passed them on
to the population. When and if there was a problem, a group of 12 judges were there to help
administer justice. No King. No premier, prelate, president, etc. The cultures of the day worshiped their monarchs as semi-divine beings.( see Nebuchadnezzar, the pharaohs, etc) The God of the Bible did NOT go for this. Also remember, Israel's kings, with just a few exceptions ( David being one) were mostly a bunch of losers. Sorry, they were. All this was to show us something about life, and how it was to be lived on Earth. The lesson was basically ' leave government to God. Respect and love each other, and handle your affairs, public and private with maturity, love and respect for others.' Looking forward to the day we actually finally achieve this. I respect Perloff's statements, I just disagree with them.


Conroy said (June 24, 2013):

How does the concept of a republic, the original plan of the US republic, fits into this?No monarchy has accomplished what the US republic has .The US was established by people of European descent, protestant, who revolted against monarchy and it's forces, for a freer and better society.


Christopher said (June 24, 2013):

I agree with James that Kings were the last the last refuge of the masses against the Committee of 300 ardent Jewish Satanists, but I disagree that kings are the will of the Almighty.

It's Almighty's will that we all have a will of our own. So ardent is the Almighty's will that we all have a will of our own, that His once prized Angel Lucifer has turned against Him and all of mankind due to envy.

KINGS ARE THE WILL AND DESIRE OF THE STUPID MASSES OF PEOPLE THAT ENJOY BEING TREATED LIKE ANIMALS, as what happened in the time of the prophet Samuel.


Dan said (June 24, 2013):

I concur with Marcos that in the Old Testament the Hebrews did fine without kings, but they were envious of their neighbors. You have to be careful what you for, the first kings of the Biblical Jews were a disaster.

I've noticed a minor trend of nostalgia for 'Altar and Throne'. Such a trend is understandable now that we've entered a world wide phase where nobody trusts their governments or political leaders anymore. When a culture loses it's bearings, people look back to find the last golden age that they ever had.

Most of us grew up being taught in school that the revolutions of the last 300 years were great noble deeds that liberated men from serfdom under aristocratic despotism. Then we learned that all these wonderful revolutions weren't groundswells of public self-liberation at all - they were all schemes of Freemasonry backed by a cabal of international bankers and corporate pirates.

Still, before we go throwing democracy overboard, consider that the crowned heads of Europe amounted to three families, or 'houses'. House Bourbon, House Hohenzollern of Germany, House Hapsburg of Austria, and House Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. All of these people were close cousins of each other. You can look at photos of George V of England with Nicholas II of Russia, and they look like twins.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/8/84/20100923000611!Tsar_Nicholas_II_%26_King_George_V.JPG

I wouldn't want to take a chance on having the spawn of the Windsors having dominion over me.


Slavko said (June 23, 2013):

In response to the article by Dr. James Perloff

I was always of the opinion that there was 4 distinct governments that of God first and foremost, then a theocratic kingdom ie: Christ Jesus, then that of a Father and lastly Mother. It is these that when working together provides for order and government. Beyond that anything manmade will never ever be perfect because of the sin nature which is why God in 1 Samuel 8 ultimately laid down the rules and ultimately even allowed a king to be installed because a king Christ Jesus was the promised Messiah to come into the world!! Beyond that it is worth noting that in the book of Revelation 17 we have the story of Kings going to war against the Christ of God.

Leads me to think that what has our military industrial complex become so sophisticated that there will be some who will think that they can take on even God or what purports to be god by way of aliens which is all the rage today. Even MacArthur apparently believed that the next war was going to fought against evil beings from outer space? Yeah their going to attack beings clothed in white who are responsible for those crop circles? The ignorance is just astounding isn't it?


Kirk said (June 23, 2013):

The original nations were based on familial authority per the book of Genesis. Authority was God-given to families from the beginning. The original collective was the tower of Babel and Babylon, instituted in explicit rebellion against God's will.

One essential difference is that, in a monarchy or a family, there is one head who is responsible. In a collective everyone is responsible, which always means nobody is.


Bob said (June 23, 2013):

The best comparison of Monarchy Vs Democracy is Hans Herman Hoppe's book, Democracy: The God that Failed.

See this interview with ABC Australia, Radio National. http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2012/01/cpt_20120123_1605.mp3

(Transcript, Professor Hoppe)


Under monarchy it is relatively clear who the ruler is and what the rules are, under democracy you can hope that you will end up on the other side, that you will be on the receiving end, and that reduces the resistance against increases of taxes, against unjust verdicts in conflicts of a situation. But the most important difference between monarchy on the one hand and democracy on the other hand is that you replace somebody who considers himself to be the owner of the country with somebody who is a temporary caretaker of the country, and that does not improve matters, it makes matters much worse.

To give you an example, if I give you a house, in one situation I make you the owner of the house so you can determine who will be the heir, you can sell the house off and keep the receipts from the sale, while in the other case I make you the temporary user of the house. You can use to your own advantage the income that you can get off the house but you have no right to sell the house, you have no right to determine who will be the heir of the house.

Will you treat the house in a different way? And the answer seems to be quite clear; yes, you will treat it in a very different way. In the one case as the owner you will be interested in preserving the value, the capital value embodied in the house. In the other case, as a democratic politician where you can only use the house but don't own it, you will try to increase your income that you can get from the house without any regard to the capital value embodied in the house, and you will engage in capital consumption, you will want to rob the country as fast as possible because, after four years or eight years you have no chance anymore to do it.


V said (June 23, 2013):

Great piece by James Perloff. Finally someone has written a piece about monarchy and the satanic NWO.

A good book that is probably available in most bigger libraries is "Crowns in Conflict: The Triumph and the Tragedy of European Monarchy, 1910-1918". Most people don't know that most of the European monarch's were related to each other. World war I was an important moment in world history when most of the crowned heads of Europe were "knocked off their perches so to speak.

From Amazon's website:

"The years immediately before the First World War saw the last great flowering of European monarchy. Although sovereigns no longer ruled by divine right, their prestige and positions remained almost intact. The glittering centerpieces of national life, those crowned and anointed monarchs were still widely regarded as mystical, unassailable, divinely guided. And, with the majority of them being so closely related, they constituted a royal clan, an international freemasonry through which it was assumed the peace of Europe was being maintained.

World War I shattered all this. King took up arms against king; cousin was pitted against cousin. Twelve leading monarchs, ranging from the vainglorious Kaiser Wilhelm II to such lesser-know figures as the brigandly Nicholas of Montenegro, the 'outre' Foxy Ferdiannd of Bulgaria and the tragic Emperor Karl of Austria-Hungary, were involved in the conflict. For, in the end, that celebrated kinship of the family of kings proved irrelevant. Against the upheavals of these years, monarchs were revealed as both powerless and impotent.

Here, Theo Arnonson has assembled the entire cast of embattled monarchs. His is the story of eight momentous years viewed, as it were, from the monarchial standpoint; an account of the passing, not only of their particular world, but of the entire monarchic and dynastic order of the Continent. It describes the brilliant sunset and the dramatic break-up of the Europe of the Kings."


JG said (June 23, 2013):

Good work here James. The Marxist "Reign of Terror" on the Christian Monarchs in the late 1800's in Russia and Europe resulted in the murder of kings and the establishment of "shadow governments" ruled by International Jewry. America/Lady Liberty was a misguided culprit and mule for their plan as they still are today, not having a clue as to who and what they are really fighting for.


Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at