Another reason for the war in Ukraine: to justify the rearmament of Europe

 

At the beginning of the war in Ukraine, I thought the reason was to create a zone of tension that would later serve to justify a European war against Russia, during World War III. And I still think so.

However, since this war was only supposed to be a milestone in the elite's plan, there was no reason for it to last more than one or two years. But it has been three and a half years since it began. This is not normal. And since the elite doesn't do things by chance, there is a reason for this long duration. And this leads us to another important reason for the war in Ukraine: to justify the rearmament of Europe.

Without the war in Ukraine, there was no reason for Europe to rearm. Not only are European states pacifist, but the finances of many important European countries are also in a disastrous state.

But it also had to last a long time. If the war had ended after a few months, or even a year, it wouldn't have justified a remilitarization of Europe. But with a war that drags on, yes.

And Europe must rearm because of the coming world war. If Europe remained as disarmed as it is now, it would be difficult to explain why it could subsequently wage a multi-year war against Russia, or invade several Central and Eastern European countries.

But, with a strong army, thanks to rearmament, it will be logical. So, in addition to at least partially justifying war between Russia and Europe within 20 years, the conflict in Ukraine will have helped justify the rearmament of Europe.

 

The problem is that the stalemate in the conflict reduces the credibility of the official narrative. Initially, it seemed obvious that Russia should have won within weeks or months, given the power differential between the two countries.

The media, both pro-Russian and pro-Western, offer explanations for this state of affairs, each less credible than the last. According to the former, Putin conceived the invasion as something between a police operation and a war (hence the term "special military operation"). In other words, he was tiptoeing a bit. He didn't want to mobilize more. The pro-Western media, on the other hand, believed he couldn't mobilize more. Furthermore, the Russian army was ultimately weaker than expected. It wasn't suited to modern warfare with drones. The Ukrainian people fought valiantly. Etc. All of this is completely ridiculous.

 

Incidentally, Russia's difficulties in Ukraine make the case for Europe's rearmament unconvincing. If Russia, which has 140 million inhabitants and a very powerful military sector, cannot defeat Ukraine, which has about 40 million inhabitants (3.5 times less), and which, according to Wikipedia, was one of the poorest countries in Europe in 2016, then it is difficult to see how it could represent the slightest danger to Europe, even in its current state. But hey, that's true now. We can assume that the elite will ensure that Russia's power increases over the next 20 years, to make the threat in question real. And then we will say that Europe did well to rearm, that it was a visionary project.

 

We can assume that there will be one, two, or even three more wars of this kind to maintain pressure on the European Union. Since World War III is 20 years away, that will be enough to justify the EU continuing its military effort after the end of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.

So, it's possible that once the Russo-Ukrainian conflict is resolved, the Russian government will launch a conflict against Estonia or Latvia. Less likely, against Belarus; but you never know, a color revolution could always happen.

The number of additional conflicts will probably depend on the duration of the war in Ukraine. If it lasts much longer, there will probably only be one or two more conflicts. If it ends in one or two years, two or three more will be needed.

One might think that the upcoming civil war in the US will be another reason to continue European rearmament. No longer protected by the US, it will be logical for Europe to increase its military effort. The fact that Trump has reduced US spending on European military protection is entirely consistent with this.

 

And we understand why the war officially began in 2014 and only in Crimea. A small-scale conflict lasting several years was needed to justify Ukraine's military preparations for the war's expansion in 2022. Without this limited conflict, it would have been more difficult to justify Ukrainian resistance in 2022. Ukraine would have had to be completely taken by surprise by the Russian attack and would have had to fall quickly. With this first step, it was possible to justify that Ukraine was sufficiently prepared to resist Russia. In reality, even with this preparation, Ukraine would have had to fall immediately. But, for the general public, this explanation is easily accepted.

 

PS:

This reflection made me think of the Soviet-Afghan War of the 1980s, which lasted 10 years (1979-1989). One might think that it was planned by the elite to precipitate the fall of the USSR, by making the Soviet government even more unpopular. Of course, this was far from the only cause of this fall. But it did help justify it.

And indeed, Wikipedia states that this war did contribute to the collapse of the USSR:

"Similarly, the colossal war expenditures that the USSR had to undertake, as well as the tensions the war generated in its civil society and throughout the world, greatly contributed to its discredit, the exhaustion of its economy, and, ultimately, its collapse; thus, the end of the Cold War."

And here again, the conflict's stalemate was highly implausible, given the military power of the USSR at the time. But the conflict had to drag on to justify the unpopularity of the Soviet government at the time.

And we discover on the same Wikipedia page that the conflict with Afghanistan partly explains the rise of Muslim fundamentalism and Islamist terrorism:

"Finally, the considerable resources received by the mujahideen, particularly from the United States and Saudi Arabia, contributed to the rise of fundamentalism and Islamist terrorism, with many jihadists who came to fight in Afghanistan subsequently returning to their countries to structure the movement."

As is often the case, the actions of the elite serve several purposes. They like to kill two birds with one stone, or three birds with one stone, or even more.

Southeast Asian countries becoming less and less welcoming to Western expatriates

 

I follow a few YouTube channels that talk about expatriation to Asia. And for a little less than a year now, it has become clear that the governments of Southeast Asian countries are starting to be less and less welcoming to Westerners.

First, the cost of living is skyrocketing. It's still very favorable. But it's already significantly worse than it was a few years ago. Second, very recently, problems with bank accounts have arisen. It started in Thailand, with a hunt for accounts opened with visas that are now considered incorrect, whereas just a few months ago, total tolerance was the norm. In Vietnam, for the past few days or weeks, banks have been engaged in a hunt for inactive accounts under the pretext of combating money laundering and the lack of updated contracts. Indeed, these now require biometric data. The goal is to close 86 million accounts considered suspicious out of the 200 million that exist in Vietnam. As a result, a huge number of Western expat accounts have been closed. And it's apparently been the same in Japan for the past few months. Furthermore, Thailand's tax system, which was very favorable for expats, has become significantly less so over the past year. Finally, controls on financial and legal arrangements for purchasing land in Thailand have tightened.

There was also a small outbreak of armed conflict between Thailand and Cambodia in May, then in July. There have been riots in Indonesia and the Philippines since the beginning of the year. In short, in Southeast Asia, the situation is suddenly much less peaceful.

The situation still remains favorable for Westerners. But the important thing is the trend. If the situation has worsened so much in a few months, what will it be like in 3, 4, or 5 years?

Of course, people wonder why. Regarding bank accounts, one explanation would be that these countries are aligning themselves with Western countries because they are seeking respectability or something like that.

Except that makes no sense. Why would Asian countries care about Western banking and tax rules? Remaining very liberal when it comes to opening bank accounts allows them to siphon off phenomenal amounts of money. Money that the bank makes grow, of course. It earns interest. So, it's in their best interest to remain very tolerant. Especially since the West apparently doesn't criticize them for it. We haven't had an extremely hostile campaign against them, like there was against Switzerland 10 or 15 years ago. They decide on their own to do without this gigantic mass of money, without external constraint. Incredible.

Similarly, making life increasingly difficult for foreigners will cut them off from a huge source of income. Yet, we're being sold on Southeast Asia as having become totally capitalist and only caring about money. So, they should continue to encourage the arrival of wealthy foreigners in Southeast Asia. On the surface, none of this makes any sense.

 

But, it actually makes sense. I've talked about it before. Since the elite that rules us wants a war in Europe and the USA, it's absolutely essential that Europeans and Americans are not able to escape. Otherwise, there would only be white people over 80 left to wage war. And since it's the white people who are going to win this war, there would be a credibility problem. Which means that, from the start, the elite had planned to close off all areas that were more or less livable (cheap, relatively safe, welcoming, etc.) to Westerners.

So, as expected, the elite is starting to restrict access to Asian countries so that white people can't escape to that area. Since the entire world is under the control of the elite, they have no problem doing this. Southeast Asian governments obey the elite like all other governments. So, access to Southeast Asia will become increasingly difficult, and living there will become less and less financially attractive for Westerners. The region will most likely become increasingly unstable (riots, wars), and even increasingly hostile to white people (nationalist or even racial policies). This will deter Westerners from coming, and it will drive away those who are already there.

And we can be sure that South America will follow. It's the last possible refuge. Because Americans and Europeans obviously won't go to Africa or the Middle East. So, South America will quickly become unwelcoming to Westerners. And they will have to stay in Europe and the USA and participate in World War III.

For the USA, the mind-boggling measure of continuing to make expatriates pay American taxes is in line with the same idea. It serves to dissuade a significant proportion of potential emigrants from doing so. Logically, some European countries seem to want to implement the same type of measure.

How the Jews were created

 

Within the framework of the recentist version of history, combined with my conclusion that the Jews are ultimately not the true masters of the world, we can rethink their history.

According to Anthelme Arvière's recentism, to which I subscribe for the most part, world history begins around the 14th century. Perhaps a little earlier. But, overall, we are in that period. All of antiquity and the Middle Ages are bogus. So, we are arriving around that time for the beginnings of humanity.

The history of the Jews therefore does not date from 3,000 years ago, but from only a few centuries ago. And since they are not the masters of the world, and are only one of the many projects of the true elite, it is clear that they were in fact created by the latter. The elite invented the Jews. This is because she needed this religion to colonize Palestine in the 20th century. Colonization which, as we have seen elsewhere, would ultimately serve the white race and not the Jews.

When were they invented? At a rough guess, I think it dates back to around the beginning of the 18th century.

This raises the question of how the Jews were created.

With what we have seen of the Aborigines in Australia, and by thinking about other possible techniques, we can imagine how this happened.

 

Creation of the Jews of Northern Europe

 

There are three possibilities, which could have been used simultaneously.

 

Orphans in sects or other isolated organizations

 

There was already the possibility of taking orphans (non-Jewish, of course), or abandoned children, or even infants bought from their parents, if the family was too large, too poor, etc. There were many children in this kind of situation at the time. So, it was easy to obtain thousands of them.

From there, the elite could create small sects, communities, where they would take in the children, make them believe they were Jewish, and train them in the Jewish religion. One or two generations later, they would release them into the wild, recommending that they have lots of children with other Jews.

In terms of "wildlife," they usually led them to a new prison, namely, the Jewish ghettos. Indeed, if they had been truly free to go where they wanted, they would have tended to scatter and unite with goys. All efforts to create a Jewish people would then have quickly been reduced to nothing. The elite had to prevent this. To prevent their dilution in the goy mass, and to control that they did indeed have many children, it drove them into ghettos.

These were therefore not the result of a desire on the part of European leaders to keep Jews separate from Christians out of hostility or fear of the Jews, but rather a desire on the part of the elite to prevent Jews from being diluted into the mass of goyim and the project from being nipped in the bud.

With 10,000 children in 1700, with eight children per couple, and with one generation every 25 years, the Jews in question could have numbered 640,000 by 1800, and around 10 million by 1850. It was then possible to reduce the Jewish birth rate so that they numbered only around 20 million by the 20th century.

 

As with the rest of humanity, it is obviously out of the question for the elite to reveal that the Jewish birth rate was very high between 1700 and 1900. Otherwise, given their small numbers, people would only have to do the math to realize that there couldn't have been any Jews before the 18th century.

And it's the same for humanity. People are led to believe that the birth rate wasn't that high, and that, moreover, people were dying en masse from microbial diseases. And that's when we realize that the latter are absolutely essential to the official narrative. Without them, and considering that families in the past had many children, again, a simple calculation would lead us to understand that there couldn't have been any humans before the 14th or 13th centuries.

 

Recolonization of Africa: The Role of North and South America

 

Reading this article, I thought of the following.

In my opinion, the project of colonizing Africa is a three-stage project:

• An initial temporary colonization was intended to lay the foundations for political control of Africa. Human resources were then too scarce to allow for settlement colonization. Once that was done, the colonizers had to leave. But, of course, Africa remained under control through its leaders (albeit covertly).
• The second stage will be to bring in whites and mixed-race people following World War III and possibly following other conflicts, to effect an initial whitening of Africa.
• Once the rot has set in, the third stage will be the total or near-total whitening of Africa.

 

The Contribution of Anglo-Saxon Countries in the Recolonization of Africa

 

So, if the English colonized part of Africa, it wasn't just to use the economic resources of these countries at that time. It's also for the project of recolonizing Africa (this is also the case for France). The Anglo-Saxon world will provide Black people, especially mixed-race people, and a certain number of white people for the second stage of colonization.

It's true that there aren't many Black people and mixed-race people in England. But there are many in the USA.

So, after the Third World War, Black people and mixed-race people from the USA will be deported or banished to Africa (and a small portion of white people who will have been in the same camp). And the countries that will receive them will probably be the countries formerly colonized by England. This will allow Anglo-Saxon countries to participate in the recolonization of Africa alongside France.

So, one might think that since English colonization is now old, the countries in question abandoned the use of the English language a long time ago. And therefore, there's no reason for banished Black people to go to those countries. But in fact, many of the countries in question still speak English.

"List of African countries that speak English: Includes official, co-official, and bilingual English-speaking countries such as Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, South Africa, Malawi, Rwanda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Cameroon."

So yes, Black people in the US will have reasons to go to these countries.

There are about 10% of blacks in the USA, that's 30 million. In fact, they are practically all mixed race. So, that's more like 30 million mixed race people. We can easily add 40 or 50 million more diluted mixed race people. So, that's 70 or 80 million mixed race black people to send to the former African colonies.

 

The Contribution of South America

 

Moreover, we can assume that some South American countries will subsequently be called upon to contribute. If there are so many Black people in Brazil, it wasn't done for nothing, but for this very purpose. And that's a huge population. There are 211 million inhabitants in Brazil. 10% are Black, 45% are mixed race, and 45% are white. So, officially, we have 55% Black and mixed race, or 110 million. But apparently, most white people are more or less mixed race. So, the population of true whites must be very low, more like 10 %, which means we actually have about 180 million Black and mixed race people. And Brazil's population will continue to grow. So, that will be a huge number of people to colonize Africa. Since many will speak English, many will go to the former English colonies. And some will go to the former French colonies.

And since they are quite white, that will mean a lot of mixed race people.

To justify the policies of expelling Black and mixed-race people, one might assume that there will be conflicts between Brazil and neighboring countries, especially those in the south, such as Argentina, Bolivia, and Paraguay. But perhaps also Venezuela in the north. Indeed, the elite will create conflicts between Black and mixed-race people to gain the latter's support. And one might assume that the United States will intervene against Brazil. Brazil's enemy countries will then have racist leaders, and when they win the war, Black and mixed-race people from Brazil will be expelled to Africa. Or at least, the elite will create the conditions so that they are almost forced to go to Africa.

A priori, Brazil should be the main country concerned. There are Black and mixed-race people also in Venezuela and Colombia, a few at the equator. But significantly fewer than in Brazil. And there are very few elsewhere. This is what we can see on Wikipedia. "There are almost 27 million Black people in South America, and here too, Brazil leads the way with 20 million. Then come Venezuela (3 million), Colombia (2 million), and Ecuador (1 million). Finally, there are 100,000 in Guyana and 44,000 in Suriname; they are rare in other countries."

 

Timing and other reflections

 

All this will happen after World War III. First, there will be the expulsion of Black and mixed-race people from the USA (and Canada). Then, there will be the expulsion of Black and mixed-race people from South America. It's reasonable to assume that since the Middle East project will take time to be realized, this stage involving South America will only happen in 200 or 300 years.

And so we will have the same situation of crossbreeding as Brazil, but this time in Africa. Except it won't stop there. It will end with the total whitening of Africa. But that might take 500 or a thousand years.

Massive immigration, accompanied by the change in the racial composition of Africa, will make it possible to justify wars between African countries (simple ethnic differences already allow this, for example: the Hutu and the Tutsi). And also civil wars, political movements, etc. This will increase the confusion, which will mean that no one will think to accuse the elite. Especially since the elite will probably also use Asians in some places, Arabs in others, which will make it harder to accuse whites.

One might think that the elite will raise the standard of living in certain African countries, to give mixed-race and Black foreigners a reason to live there. Of course, these countries will let Black and mixed-race people come without any problem. And mixed-race people will be respected in these countries because they will boost the economy.

The elite will probably ensure that Africa's birth rate is low at that time and that there will be a baby boom. So, the newcomers will replace the native populations all the more quickly.

It may not be all African countries that will be welcoming. It will probably be three or four. But it will provide a gateway. If all African countries opened their doors wide, things would get suspicious. But with only a few countries, it will be significantly less so.

And there will thus be a significant concentration of mixed-race people in certain countries, instead of them being dispersed throughout Africa. This will allow them to then spill over into neighboring countries.
 

The possible arrival of the Jewish messiah (the mashiah)

Reading this article on the revival of the Catholic religion in France, and listening to Alain Soral speak about the necessity of the coming of the Messiah for the Jews, I thought the following:

It's possible that the elite will make the Jewish messiah arrive after World War III. I think the elite's goal through this is to ensure that white goyim and Jews are united in the future, even on a religious level, and not just politically.

Indeed, during and after World War III, white goyim and Jews will be politically united against Muslims. But there will always be the problem of religion. This could limit the possibilities of white goyim emigration to Israel. But, with a Jewish messiah who would reconcile the religious positions of the two communities, Christians and Jews would now speak with one voice. Especially since one might think that the Jewish messiah will not be represented as a purely Jewish messiah, but also as the messiah of the world. With Christians and Jews now united religiously, not only could Christian goyim come en masse to Israel, but Jews would also easily mix with them. And ultimately, the Middle East would be colonized by whites.

Thus, the arrival of the Messiah would not mean the domination of the Jews over the world, but the opposite: the loss of their political importance, their dissolution into the rest of the white world. But, for a time, it would seem to the Jews that they dominate the world. So that will help to make this change happen.

One possibility is that all Christians would be united with the Jews. In this case, the emigration of Christians to Israel would be justified by an economic boom in Israel that would push a significant number of Christians to settle there. And they would obviously be welcomed with open arms by the Israeli government. There could be other reasons for the arrival of Christians in Israel that I have not yet seen; they remain to be studied.

A second possibility is that the elite will create a schism among Christians in the future. There would be those who are close to the Jews and those who remain distant from them. This would justify a mass expulsion from Europe and the USA of those closest to the "reformed" Jews (those post-mashiah) as heretics. As we've already seen, expelling heretics is always a good way to get settlers on lands to colonize.

Then, of course, there's the problem that people are much less religious now. If there were only atheist goyim, this plan wouldn't work. But, as we saw in the last article, the elite clearly seems to be pushing for a revival of the Christian religion. Therefore, there will be many more practicing Christians in the future.

One might wonder how the elite will manage to impose the idea that such and such an individual is indeed the Jewish messiah (and even the messiah of the world). But the general intellectual level is very low. And the elite is making sure it's even lower among Jews by fanaticizing them as much as possible. And that will also be the case for Christians at that point. So, all it will take is to throw out some slightly mystical nonsense, condition people with the media, create enthusiasm-in short, the usual propaganda-and it will pass very easily with the general public. Perhaps the elite will grace us with a few high-budget productions to make people believe in miracles from the messiah in question. We'll see.

It will pass all the more easily since the elite will have previously pushed the idea of the antichrist. In fact, they're already doing so. So, after all the destruction of World War III, the economic and social chaos, the completely disordered morals, the open display of Satanism, and the arrival of a person who will be presented by his detractors as the Antichrist (and by everyone afterward), the presence of the so-called messiah will not only appear as a gift from heaven, but will also seem credible. It will appear as a gift from heaven because he will obviously put everything back in place and make the economy prosper. So, even skeptics will accept him as a great man.

Of course, this is only a possibility. Perhaps the elite will not use this solution. But, if it happens, and I'm not mistaken, and this document still exists at that time, thinking people will know what to make of this event. They won't be fooled by all the surrounding hysteria.

Why is Saudi Arabia building and developing numerous villages and small towns in the desert? For the Greater Israel project

 

version française en pdf (ici)

 

When we look at maps of Saudi Arabia, we see that there are many villages and small towns in desert or semi-desert areas. This can be seen on this map showing the western part of the country:

 

 

And if we continue eastward, we have this:

 

Moreover, for many years now, Saudi Arabia has been heavily developing its major cities.

You might wonder why Saudi Arabia is multiplying its residential areas. Given that the population is down to 2.39 children per woman by 2022, a figure that is constantly falling, and that Saudi Arabia has no recourse to immigration, it doesn't make much sense.

The answer is that it's all part of the Greater Israel project. Israel is going to invade Saudi Arabia and colonize it. It will settle settlers all over the country (initially Jewish settlers; but in the long term, the real aim is to settle non-Jewish whites). As a result, the elite is having the necessary infrastructure built by Saudi Arabia.

In other words, Saudi Arabia builds the infrastructure that will serve its future invaders. And the Saudi government does this knowingly, of course, since it is controlled by the elite.

Here is the Greater Israel project:

 

Here, only the north of Saudi Arabia is concerned. But we can be sure that, in time, the whole country will be invaded.

And if Saudi Arabia is building numerous tourist infrastructures, it's for the same reason. The settlers have to be able to enjoy themselves. They have to have a good life. And so, the elite are building leisure zones all over the place.

And the official explanation for this is that the Saudi government realizes it can't rely on oil forever. So it's looking to diversify into tourism.

By the way, the Western media don't talk about the construction of towns and villages. They prefer to keep a low profile on the subject. On the other hand, they do talk about tourist infrastructures and major projects for big cities (skyscrapers, for example), because that's quite visible. And tourists go there. So they can't avoid the subject. And in any case, there's nothing strange or suspicious about it. So it's not a problem to talk about it.

 

That being said, it's possible that before being used by Jewish settlers, then white settlers, these settlements will initially be used to accommodate war refugees from other countries: Palestinians, Iraqis, Lebanese, etc... Or even Saudis. Since the north will be invaded one day, refugees will have to be accommodated in the south.

 

These considerations lead us to think of another reason for the discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East in general. The first is that it helps explain the wars and Western intervention in the region. Oil is a strategic resource. So it's only natural that countries should fight over it. Secondly, it explains the development of urban planning and tourist infrastructures. The Saudis have the money to do this, thanks to oil. And because of the fear of the end of oil, they have the motivation to develop tourism.

And all this thinking is also partly valid for Egypt, and probably Iraq, and other countries in the region, although the analysis must of course be adapted to these different countries.

 

Towards a revival of the Christian religion in the Western world after World War 3?

(Version française)

 

It's possible that the elite will impose a return to a religious society after the third world war. There are pros and cons at this stage. Here's what we can think of as things stand.

The need for a high birth rate after World War 3

 

Firstly, the elite will need a huge number of people to colonize the Middle East and Central America (indeed, on the American side, this is the next objective). What's more, with all the non-whites expelled from Europe and the USA, it will be necessary to repopulate. And for both these objectives, a high birth rate will be needed.

So, it's possible that the elite will impose a semi-Christian theocracy in the West, since the Christian religion encourages people to have children. I say semi-theocracy, because the church may not be in power. But it will have a very strong influence on political and social life.

But the return of religion is not a prerequisite for achieving this goal. In fact, a high birth rate could be achieved by nationalist governments, without the help of religion, via pro-natalist policies.

 

Whether the increase in the birth rate is achieved by a nationalist government or by the rise of religion, it is certain that most Western governments will abolish the right to abortion, as well as the pill. And in the case of France, enshrining this right in the constitution won't change a thing. It'll be abolished anyway.

Similarly, feminism will be totally wiped out. Women will lose most of their rights, including perhaps the right to vote (or at least the latter will be severely restricted).

The rise of masculinist movements is a sign of this. There's nothing spontaneous about them. They are clearly under the control of the elite. Otherwise, all the masculinist videos like MGTOW on Youtube would be deleted immediately. Of course, a number of such videos and channels were suppressed at first, to give the impression of a completely underground movement being hunted down by the official kommandantur. But it's over now. The fact that right from the start, the videos in question received a lot of comments, and practically all of them positive, shows that this is a movement launched by the elite. Otherwise, there would have been only a few comments, of which a third would have been negative, a third neutral/in-between and a third positive. Besides, Jordan Peterson wouldn't be on American television.

 

It also means that all the current ridiculous propaganda about ecology and Gaia dying because there are too many bad human beings will be swept away. Promoting a very high birth rate will run counter to current ecological Malthusianism. So, current ecology won't survive World War III. We'll be rid of this stupid propaganda (e.g. CO2 responsible for global warming). But we'll gain others, just as dumb.

 

The rise of Satanism

 

Another thing in favor of a return of the Christian religion is the fact that the elite are currently actively promoting Satanism.

One reason for this is that the elite want to have two very opposed blocs in the Third World War. By setting up, on the one hand, a bloc made up of nationalists, democrats and partly Satanists (whether officially or unofficially); and on the other hand, a bloc made up of Muslims and conspirationists, the elite will get these two enemy camps. Having Satanists will be enough in itself to motivate Muslims to go to war. And their delusional social project will be enough to make the conspirationists join them.

In this context, fostering Satanism may serve a second purpose for the elite: to help impose the return of the Christian religion in the future. This is the dynamic strategy of the elite. One movement serves to create another through an action-reaction mechanism. By imposing a completely crazy movement like Satanism, it will be easier to impose the return of Christianity.

You could say it's the thesis-antithesis-synthesis of the Freemasons. But it's not. Because synthesis implies a state that lasts a long time and doesn't lead to a new state (or at least not before a long time). Here, it's just a succession of different thesis-antitheses, with the antithesis of the previous phase becoming the thesis of the next. It's permanent action-reaction. A constantly evolving series of scams, each building on the previous one(s).