mardi 6 juin 2017

Why did we get these three false flags in England in 2017?

So, we have got two more false flags in the UK in less than 15 days (Manchester on May 22 and the London Bridge on June 3) after the one of March 22. Why there and why then? If you have read my paper about what countries will fall on the Islamic side before World War III, and the one about the Brexit, the answer is quite simple. My opinion is that England will stay on the European side during the war. And the goal of the Brexit was precisely to allow that. With the Brexit and more hard laws against immigration, England will be able to stay preserved from a massive immigration and thus, won't have a Muslim government.
But, as the Brexit was quite strange (since, not long before it, anti-European forces were supposed to represent just a little part of the population), this decision from English people had to be confirmed during the next elections in order to appear as a trend and not an oddity. And the next important elections are the one of the 8th of June 2017.

And Jewish/Illuminati leaders needed also to have this hostile politics against migrant to keep going on. Thus, they needed to still have right wing parties elected at the head of the country.

So, if those false terrorist attacks were made in GB at this very moment, this was on purpose. Jewish/Illuminati leaders didn't choose the location and the moment randomly. They did it for the two reasons I have given, that is : 1) to still have the conservative government at the head of England ; and 2) to "confirm" the Brexit trend.

And we can think that the attacks in France in 2015 (in January against "Charlie Hebdo" and in November against the "Bataclan") were made in relation with this plan. The nearest continental country of England had to be perceived as a repair of terrorists. This meant that the terrorist danger was at the doors of England, justifying the exit from the European Union. This was of course not the only reason for people to vote for the Brexit. But it added another reason.

Same thing for the Calais Jungle. This refugee and migrant encampment near Calais, and thus, near the Channel tunnel leading to the UK was created on purpose by Jewish/Illuminati leaders to justify even more the Brexit. Here is the resume from Wikipedia:

"The Calais Jungle was an informal term for a refugee and migrant encampment in the vicinity of Calais, France. Many who lived in this camp attempted to illegally enter the United Kingdom via the Port of Calais or the Eurotunnel by stowing away on lorries, ferries, cars, or trains travelling to the UK.[2] The camp gained global attention during the peak of the European migrant crisis in 2015 when the population of the camp rapidly grew and French authorities began carrying out evictions." 

So, during 2015 and the beginning of 2016, because of the European migrant crisis, the situation began to appear as out of control. The French government seemed unable to manage this encampment. And, as the media said that migrants and refugees wanted to go specifically to the United Kingdom and were able to do it almost freely because of the Channel Tunnel, it was easy for Jewish/Illuminati leaders to say that English people felt it as a threat and have voted for the Brexit partly because of that.

And of course, the terrorist attacks in France perpetrated at the same time pushed even more people toward the Brexit vote (in their mind, many of those illegal migrants in the Calais Jungle were potential terrorists). Or at least, it allowed Jewish/illuminati leaders to explain more easily the Brexit vote (since it's quite sure that the elections were fraudulent).

We can also think that, in order to justify a harsher politics against migrants, Jewish/Illuminati leaders will produce at least 2 or 3 others false flags on the English soil. I think it will be more convincing. The first three were good to justify the election of a conservative government, but they are probably not enough to justify new laws against immigration. With 2 or 3 more terrorist attacks, the conservative government will be able to promulgate new laws without anybody questioning them.

lundi 18 juillet 2016

The Brexit

Some weeks ago, I predicted that England would stay White during World War III (that is, they won't fall on the Islamic side to the contrary of France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands). I think the Brexit is consistent with this idea. It was a necessary step to justify this situation.

 Europe just before World War III. As you see on this map I made, England will be on the White side (in white), not the Islamic one (in red).

With England leaving the European Union, it will be easier for Jewish leaders to justify English laws preventing more massive immigration and thus, to justify ultimately that this country won't fall on the Muslim side

So, of course, the result of the Brexit wasn't a result of the free will of English people. It was falsified so Jewish leaders get what they want.

If Jewish leader hadn't wanted the Brexit, it would have never been discussed in the first place. And of course, there would never have been a referendum. Also, you wouldn't have seen those Illuminati artists, actors, singers, etc.., defending the Brexit (people like Michael Caine, John Cleese, Roger Daltrey, Elizabeth Hurley). The secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, John Whittingdale, a member of the English government (which is anti-Brexit), would never have dared to make pro-Brexit declarations. Those guys did that because they were ordered to do so.

The false death of Jo Cox (a complete hoax of course) was ordered by Jewish leaders in order to introduce confusion in the mind of conspirationists (that is, people who think). It is very important for Jewish leaders to avoid at all cost that those people understand the real goal of all this. They made those people wrongly think it was a false flag made to convince English people to vote against the Brexit; this because the Illuminati or the Jewish leaders want a one world government. The emphasis in the conspirationist sphere was put on the similarity with the death of Anna Lindh in order to reinforce this idea of a false flag conceived to make the anti-Brexit side wins (see here for example).

Finally, with the victory of the Brexit, those people will think that the Illuminati/Jewish leaders don't control everything and that people can rebel against them with success. They don't understand that Jewish leaders in fact wanted the Brexit to happen. It's a part of their plan for World War 3. And, above all, they still don't understand that everything is staged from the beginning to the end, and that there is nothing like free political movements and famous guys (actors, singers, politicians…) being on the side of the population, or Jewish leaders leaving elections results to chance. They keep their naïve idea that with a little bit of good will from people, and with the help of the few honest politicians, things will be able to change.

I haven't been able to predict the Brexit with certainty before it happens because my reflection about England staying White was too recent. This week, I scented that it would be possible. But, as I think we are still far away from the war, and as the possible result wasn't sure, I thought it was possible that the referendum was a first step toward the real Brexit. So, I wasn't completely sure about what would happen, even if in my opinion the Brexit was very possible. With that in mind, the result doesn't surprise me at all. It's completely logical.

lundi 20 juin 2016

When will World War III begin?

Another very important thing is to know when World War III will begin.

There are four things Jewish leaders need to get before being able to launch ww3:

  • A rate of 30/35 % of Arab and Black Muslims in European countries that will fall under the Islamic side (France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands)
  • The rise of Muslim parties in those countries (and some other ones)
  • A high rate of Hispanic people in the USA so that they become a threat to the White US population
  • The widespread sexual perversion of Western countries, in order to have two very opposite sides during the European war (the virtuous but rigorist, tyrannical and bellicose Muslims against the perverted but democratic White people).

- The rate of Arab and black Muslims in Europe

Having a rate of 30/35 % of Arab and black Muslims in certain European countries will demand quite a long time. You can't have this in just 10 years. It will need probably at least 25 or 30 years.

Recently, Jewish leaders have used a new trick. By starting phony conflicts in the Middle-East (Syria) and Africa (Libya), they have been able to justify the coming of more than 1 million additional illegal Arab immigrants in Europe in 2015. It could accelerate the increase of the rate of Muslims in European countries.

However, they can't justify the coming of 1 million additional illegal immigrants each year. And one million immigrants represent only a little percentage of the European countries which are supposed to fall on the Muslim side. We are talking about something like 200 million people (Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and some other ones). 1 million represent only 0.5 % of the total.  So, this trick won't accelerate the agenda very much.

Let's see the case of France. It will serve us as reference point for the estimation of the time required to fulfill the Jewish leaders' agenda. We will then be able to adapt the conclusions to the other countries that will fall on the Muslim side.

About France, official statistics say Muslims represent only 7.5 % of the population (that is 5 million people). This is most probably false. I think we can at least double this number. So the real number would be 15 % (10 million).

Presently, there are officially only 200.000 people immigrating to France each year. And only 40 % are Arabs or Blacks, that is 80.000 per year. Even if the figures are underestimated, and if there are a lot of illegal immigrants, you can count at best on 250.000 Muslims per year. So, it would then take 40-46 years to attain 30-35 % (that is 20 or 23.3 millions).

However, the figure of 250.000 Muslim immigrants is probably quite high. 200.000 would be more realistic. It would extend the time required to do this of 20 %; that is to 36-42 years.

But we can count on the fact that Whites make less babies than Muslims. Some say that at least 20 % of French children are now Muslims. So, probably that at the next generation, it will be 35 %.

But it will take 15 years before those children are able to have their own babies. And it will take 20 years before they become war material. So, it will take at least 35 years. So, before 2051, they are out of the equation.

And even there, we just talk about the last generation. But there will still be the old ones which include less Muslims. So in 2031, we won't have 20 % of Muslims. If we say that the young generations represent a third of the total, instead of having a general rate of 20 % we will have only 16,6 % (1,6 % added instead of 5 %). With the same principle, in  2051, Muslims won't represent 35 % of the whole population, but maybe 23,2 % (I consider here just the Muslims obtained from the present Muslim population. I exclude the ones who will have immigrated to France between 2016 and 2051). To avoid underestimating the figure, let's say it will be 25 %.

jeudi 9 juin 2016

How the European war events will take place

So world war 3 in Europe will be mainly a fight between the West and the East side of Europe, at least at the beginning. After that, UK will probably intervene, with the help of the USA.

In fact, it will be quite like World War II, but this time, with France on the same side than Germany and Italy. And it will be as phony and staged as WWII, with Jewish leaders controlling each side and each event from the beginning to the end.

The map of Europe just before world war III

What countries will be invaded first by Islamic forces? We can think some countries of the Balkans will be the first ones to fall. It will allow Jewish leaders to present this as just a Balkan war, so not something involving a more global one. It will be presented as local problems between Bulgaria and Serbia; Bosnia and Croatia; Montenegro and Albania; and Italy and Slovenia, something like that. It will allow Jewish leader to justify the fact that Germany, Ukraine, Russia or Poland don't intervene yet.

We can think that Jewish leaders will organize another Balkan war before that (maybe two). Thus, people will be used to see wars in this area. It then won't surprise them to see a new one.

In pink, countries invaded by Islamic countries

After that, serious things will begin. For whatever reason, some Muslim countries will declare war to Austria and Hungary, or vice versa. It will probably be because of the war in the Balkans. Then, because of alliances, everything will degenerate. Germany and Ukraine will intervene with Italy, and will invade Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland. Russia will be out of the conflict at this moment (otherwise it would be more difficult for the Muslim side to win against those little countries). For what reason? I don't know. Maybe it will be busy on the south against Islamic countries. So, Jewish leaders will justify the inaction of Russia with this reason.

lundi 6 juin 2016

Which European countries will fall under the control of Muslim governments

As seen in the previous paper, European war will probably be a war between countries having fallen on the Islamic side and countries still under non-religious states governed by white people.

It's a little bit difficult to know which European countries will have Muslim governments. The problem is Jewish leaders need to have a subtle balance of forces in Europe in order to have a credible third world war. They also have to resolve specific problems regarding the war. So you can't just take into account the rate of Muslims in each European country and say "this one will become a Muslim state and this one won't". It's an important element, but other ones take part in this problem.

For example, England could be a candidate. But, in the plan of Jewish leaders, the USA will probably come to help Europe to fight Muslim forces. So, Jewish leaders will need a base for this, as for WWII. And if UK is an Islamic state, it will be very difficult for US forces to conquer this land; because, it's difficult to free an island (or, if Jewish leaders decided to do it, it would be difficult to explain it). For the same reason, if Europe is freed from Muslims, it would be difficult to free the UK. So we can think Jewish leaders won't bother with making England fall.

The other thing which makes the prevision uneasy is that we can be sure only about three or four big countries. For the others, it's more difficult.

We can be quite sure that France will fall. It's probably the most obvious one. There are already tons of Muslims there. More and more come every day. And it seems everything is done to make it become one day an Islamic state.

We can think Russia won't fall. There are some Muslims there (around 14 %); but they are located mostly on the southern border. And quite few ones immigrate in Russia. The Russian government is also presented as strong regarding immigrations, to the contrary of Western government. Russia is also presented in nationalist media as the champion of Whites. It's not a coincidence.

We can also suppose that Poland won't become an Islamic state, since there are very few Muslims there and that this kind of immigration is quite low.

We can think that some countries of the Balkan will fall, because there are already a high percentage of Muslims there.

For the other countries, it's quite difficult to be sure if they will turn into Islamic states or not just by looking at the rate of Muslims and the one of Muslim immigration.

But, by studying carefully the situation, I think we can have an idea of which countries will fall and which won't.

Actually, what we must consider is the fact that in European wars there are mainly 4 countries that are important: England, France, Germany and Russia. All the other ones are mainly satellites in this kind of affair. So, if we know what will be the situation of these for countries, we know approximately which country will be on the Muslim side and which will be on the White side.

We are already quite sure about England, France and Russia. The only country that still raises questions is Germany.

Germany is a serious candidate. But England is too; and however, I think it won't fall. So what we must consider here is the general pattern of the war and the need for Jewish leaders to have a balance of forces in order to have an apocalyptic war.

If Germany doesn't fall, then, only have France and other satellite countries will do it. In the group of Islamic countries you then need to have at least France, Italy and Spain in order to have a force with a bit of credibility. The problem is this group is still not powerful enough against countries like England, Germany, Russia and the USA (and very probably Poland). And it's true even without the USA. It would be too easy for the White countries to win the war.

Thus, for Jewish leaders, Germany has to fall. Then, there will be a much more powerful force composed of France and Germany. Thus, it will become much more difficult for the white side to win.

We can think either Italy or Spain will join this group of Islamic states, maybe both. But as a part of Balkans will also fall, the group could be a little bit too powerful. So, probably that either Spain or Italy won't become an Islamic state. I would bet that it's Spain that will remain White and it's Italy that will become an Islamic state.

The problem, if Italy stays on the white side is that the group of European Islamic states is less powerful and less oriented toward the east. Spain is too far away from the eastern countries to be credible as an enemy of Russia or Poland. Of course, the game of alliances could justify that Spain engages military forces against Russia, Poland, etc... But it would be bizarre to have it fighting to death against those countries. Being so far from this area, you should expect it to send only a little amount of troops. So you would really have only France and Germany and some Balkan countries against Russia, Poland, Italy, plus some other countries of the Balkans. And after some times, they would also fight against the UK and the USA.

Italy is more oriented toward the east. So it will be easy to justify having it fighting in the Balkans with Bosnia, Albania, Macedonia and Bulgaria against for example Austria, Romania, Hungary, etc...
So, with Italy, you have a more convincing group of countries for the war against eastern countries.
If Spain stayed on the white side, maybe France would invade it. But I think that as during WWII, Spain will stay neutral, at least at the beginning. However, it's just a guess.

Regarding countries like Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark, either they will fall under the Islamic influence (probably Belgium and the Netherlands), or they will be invaded at the beginning of the war (maybe Denmark).

For the north of Europe, it's difficult to know. Maybe Sweden will become an Islamic state (since it already have quite a lot of Muslims), with Norway and Finland staying white. But, for them, nothing is clear for the moment.

We can think that Ukraine won't become a Muslim state. There aren't enough Muslims there. But because it will be an enemy of Russia (it already is), it will be allied to the group of Muslim countries.

What will happen at the north (Norway, Sweden and Finland)? As they aren't crucial countries regarding the war, it's difficult to say. Maybe Sweden will fall. The fact that it already has a lot of Muslims is an indication it's a probable candidate regarding a Muslim takeover.

So, here is the map we could have just before the war.

Europe just before world war III. In red, countries having already fallen to the Islamic side. In orange, Ukraine, ally of Islamic countries against Russia. In white, non-Islamic European countries.

lundi 30 mai 2016

Before the takeover, the rise of Muslims in politics

As seen in my previous paper, my opinion is that there will be a takeover of some European countries by Muslim parties, or alliances of Muslim parties with other ones, after democratic elections. Then, those Muslims governments will become more and more radical. And finally, you will have a war between UK, Germany, France, Italy, etc….

Logically, before that, there will be a rise of Muslim politicians in the political life of European countries. You will have more and more Muslims in the current political parties and you will see Islamic political parties created in the future in European countries.

And indeed, you now have more and more politicians in European countries from ethnic minorities. An article in the Guardian talks about 6,6 % of minority-ethnic MPs in House of Commons in 2015 (so in UK), a 7-fold increase in 23 years. In 2013, in Germany, you had 5,6 % of members of the Bundestag who came from ethnic minorities. In 2012, in France, it was 2 % of the parliament (Assemblée Nationale). In the Netherlands, it's 8 %.

It has nothing to do with European politicians opening freely to diversity or the fact that they think they need to give away a part of their power in order to give an illusion of diversity. It's just a part of the Jewish leaders plan.

Jewish leaders don't like to share their power. So, if all this didn't have an important purpose, you would never have those Blacks, Asians or Arabs in important functions.

It's true that we are talking about ethnic minorities here, not just Muslims. In the shown percentages, Muslims probably don't represent the majority of them. But it's just the beginning. If you already had plenty of Muslims among this ethnic minority group, people would protest. But with few of them, media can argue all this is for the sake of diversity. And of course, those Muslims are very moderate. They are example of tolerance, openness, moderation, assimilation, and so on. They are above suspicion regarding radical Islamism. So people can't criticize their presence in the parliament.

But in the future, the percentage will certainly increase.

It probably won't be enough to have a legal takeover. But you can have the following situation. Imagine that you have a rise of Muslim political parties; then, maybe you will have a situation with the Muslim party representing 25-30 % of the entire parliament and with 25 % of Muslims in the other parties. Then, one day, you will have a scenario where the Muslim party will take the power with the help of Muslims of more "mainstream" parties (and probably other political tendencies). Media will accuse Muslims from those parties of betrayal. It will help presenting Muslims as traitors (useful for the confrontation with White people after that). But it will be too late. And then the goal of Jewish leader will be achieve.

We can think that Jewish leaders will organize the rise of Muslim politicians also by local elections. In fact, it will be probably their main strategy to get this rise, or at least an important one.

At local elections, you can have many Muslims elected. Why? Because local elections are quite devoid of political signification. You just vote for some kind of administrator. So voting for Muslims has not much political importance. And it's especially true if there are just representatives of traditional political parties. As they represent just a fraction of those parties, people think they can't be a threat. Thus, media and politicians can justify more easily that traditional political parties get more Muslims elected there. And ordinary people think that having Arabs on the lists of traditional political parties at local elections isn't dangerous.

The fact that Arabs are inside the vaster group of "ethnic minorities" also helps people to have that feeling.  And as the percentage of Muslims in this group of "ethnic minorities" isn't too important, it also helps people feel that this trend of electing people from this group isn't dangerous regarding the problem of Muslim extremism. And, once again, the fact that the Muslim politicians present themselves as moderate, modern, assimilated, etc.., reinforces this idea.

Another thing, the emphasis is put by media on the idea that it's only justice to have people of ethnic minorities elected there. It's normal that they have representatives at local elections since they are normal citizens. Being for a better representation of ethnic minorities is being open, tolerant, not racist, etc… So people repeat this mantra they ear routinely and they end up accepting it as true.

Media also repeat that it's being racist to choose someone on his color or his religion and not on his political program.

Finally, people not only think that electing politicians from ethnic minorities (and thus also Muslims) isn't dangerous, but they also think they do the right thing morally speaking. They must do it to be the good cool modern guys.

And of course, a part of citizens from ethnic minorities will vote more for parties that have more candidates from ethnic minorities on their lists.  

Because of all this, it's much easier to have many non-white people elected at local elections.

For example, in France, regarding municipalities, you had 10 % of municipal councilors who were non-white in Toulouse in 2008, 11,5 % at Montpellier, 13,8 % a Strasbourg, and 11,5 % at Lille. In towns of more than 9.000 people, ethnic minorities represented 6,7 % of municipal councilors whereas they represented only 2 % of the parliament. In Paris, 16,7 % of the assistants mayor were non-white.

In London the new mayor is now a Muslim with roots from Pakistan (Sadiq Khan, since May 2016). Of course, he has been chosen for the purpose of Jewish leaders plan about wwIII, not because of his political ideas. And if he won, again it's because Jewish leaders have allowed him to win (with rigged elections).

You have the same thing in Rotterdam, Netherlands, where the mayor is a Muslim called Ahmed Aboutaleb. And it is said that his name his name has topped all the polls for the post of Prime Minister.

You have a confirmation of that here (article dating from 2009 or 2010): "As a general rule, the available information seems to indicate: the lower the political level, the higher the share of Muslims in politics. There are only few in the European parliament, but some bigger proportion on the national level, at least in those countries that have a significant Muslim population: France, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Bulgaria. The strongest participation is found on the local level, with several city and regional parliaments having Muslim delegates."

In the future, you will have more and more non-whites mayors of big and smaller cities. And many of them will be Muslims. And you will also have more and more non-white and Muslim municipal councilors.

The rise of Muslims at the local level will be the premise of the rise at the national level. With more and more Muslims elected at important local functions, it will seem normal to see them assuming important offices at the national level. If a Muslim is elected mayor of Berlin, for example, it will seem normal if he becomes a minister of the government, and maybe even prime minister (I thought I was a little bit exaggerating here, at least for now, but then I have seen the example of the mayor of Rotterdam). And you can count on journalists to make you think that.

It runs also both ways, as we can see with the example of London. Politicians from ethnic minorities already known at the national level can become mayors of important cities. At the beginning of the process, it's easier to get known faces elected in big towns.

So the increase of the percentage of colored people in the national elections will follow the one at local elections. For example, when you have 15 % at local elections, you will have 8 % at national ones. And when you have 20 % at local elections, you will have 12 % at national ones. Then, you will have something like 30/20, 35/30, 40/35 and 45/40. Of course, it's just a vague estimation. Maybe the gap will be less large, or the reverse.

You can also think that one goal of the election of Obama was to have people get used to see politicians from ethnic minorities assume very important offices.

Jewish leaders will probably try to get people accustomed to this situation before making it degenerate. So you will have a black prime minister of UK, an Arab prime minister of France. And all this without problem. So, people will get accustomed to it. And then, Jewish leaders will make the situation deteriorate. 

Of course, some people think and say that if you have a lot of Muslims elected at local elections, maybe one day, all this will have an impact at the national level. There will then be a risk of having more and more Islamic laws voted by the parliament. But, of course, media never point out this problem. For the sake of the Jewish leaders plan, they concentrate only on the fact that it's right to do that, that morally, it has to be done, and that what is important here is only our democratic values.

You will also have Muslim parties. You already have few ones. But there will be more. And they will progressively gain more and more power.

But they probably won't gain a lot of power soon, because Jewish leaders use the argument of betrayal from socialist parties (in order for the latter to stay in power). They are supposed to make more and more immigrants come each year in order to have people voting for them. So, having quickly powerful Muslim parties would make this reason invalid, since then socialist parties would fear to lose power in favor of those Muslim parties. But maybe that, at the beginning, there would be an alliance between socialist and Muslim parties in order to keep this reason valid.

Regarding media, you already have a lot of Arab or black or Asian people at the television in several European countries. Once again, it's in order to make people use to see colored people in jobs of power.


Another great thing with local elections is that you can justify the vote of foreigners. The idea is once again that as those elections haven't much political implications, it's not dangerous for the national sovereignty. So, why not let foreigners vote. Media push also the idea that as foreigners pay taxes, it's only justice to let them vote. And with the vote of foreigners, of whom many are Arabs or Pakistanis (and so, Muslims), you can explain the election of many Muslims.

This is why Jewish leaders have promoted the right to vote for non-European foreigners in European countries. Now, you have it in thirteen European countries. Non-European foreigners need to have lived in the country since several years in Belgium (2004 law), Denmark (1981), Luxembourg (2003), the Netherlands (1985), Sweden (1975), Finland (2000), Slovenia (2002), Slovakia (2002), Estonia (1996), Lithuania (2002), and Hungary (1990). For the UK, foreigners need to come from a country of the Commonwealth. And in Ireland (1963), there is no condition to this right.

You can see that, except UK, the most influential countries of Europe (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc..) don't allow extra-European foreigners to vote at local elections (for Spain, there is a law, but only for South Americans and it's not much used). Jewish leaders will probably make those countries allow this at the right moment for their agenda.

We can imagine that when there are 20-25 % of representatives from ethnic minorities at local elections, they will introduce those laws. Then, it will quickly be 30-35 %. You can't be sure, but I think that it will be done in ten or fifteen years.

Not long before that, media will point out that as many other European countries have made these laws legal, politicians from Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc.., should be more open and modern and allow extra-European foreigners to vote at local elections. It will suddenly be a big thing.

Those laws will probably be voted by the Left parties. And as leftists have been pro-diversity since a long time, it won't surprise people. But, it's possible that in some countries, Right parties vote this kind of law, in order to make things not too obvious.

vendredi 20 mai 2016

The form of the future European war

As we have seen, Jewish leaders want a European war in order to extend the frontiers of Israel and create "the Greater Israel". But what form will this war take?

I see four possibilities:

- First possibility: a takeover of some European countries by Muslims, mostly with democratic elections. Then there will be a war between White European countries and Muslims European countries.

So here, countries keep their integrity. They are not shattered.

- Second possibility: semi-chaos with internal civil wars in all Europe. Muslims become the majority in several parts of a country. They also get the power in local elections. They secede. Then the white side fights the Arab side. And the same thing happens everywhere in Europe.

- Third possibility:  complete chaos. All European countries fall into chaos with no central power. And communities at the level of cities, counties, regions, fall into the Muslim side.

- Fourth possibility: a combination of the three other ones.

I may be wrong, but I think Jewish leaders will use the first possibility. In my opinion, the second one poses too many problems.

First problem: in this scenario, secessions must happen at the very same time, not only in one country, but in all European countries.

In one specific country, if secessions don't happen at the same time, the central power will have the possibility to prevent it to happen in more areas. Imagine that only 10 or 20 % of the country secedes. Then le central state will harden its politics and will prevent the other ones to break away. And if the 10 or 20 % having seceded want to make war to the central state, they will be wiped away in less than six months.

Of course, you can have the case where the central power is very weak with no support or authority. It's possible. But as the atmosphere will probably be already very tense, we can think that the central power wouldn't let things deteriorate. And you will probably have very strong nationalist parties in almost all European countries. So having the central power being so weak that it would let all this happens bit by bit without doing anything is quit improbable. And you have to take into account that the secession would most probably be illegal. So, the central power would normally not accept it.

And it must happen in all the countries at the same time. Otherwise, if one or two countries keep their integrity and are still dominated by Whites, they will be much more powerful than the other ones. Then, it would be easy for them to tip the scale in favor of the white side in less than one year. It would be too easy. Imagine that France gets into this kind of situation, but with Germany still standing, the latter would destroy Muslim opposition in France easily.

And the fact that almost all European countries fall into that kind of chaos at the same time would be very fishy. Jewish leaders could do that if they wanted it. But, if you observe what they did for WWI and WWII, it seems they want things to appear the most logical possible in order to prevent people from understanding the plan.

And you need to have a good balance between forces in the entire country, and also in all the European countries; otherwise, the white forces would win very easily (since they are the one supposed to win at the end). Once again, it would be very fishy.

But I think the main argument against this possibility is that it would take too much time. If all European countries were shattered into pieces, it would take at least 20 years to get away of this political semi-chaos and have once again blocks big enough to win the war at the European level. And I don't think Jewish leaders want it to last more than 4 or 5 years, as for the previous world wars.

In fact, it would add an unnecessary stage of events to the main one. Because, ultimately, you would have blocks of the size of countries. So, finally, you would have the same thing than with the first hypothesis, but with at least 20 years lost for nothing. So why not begin the war with the present countries? It's much simpler.

Regarding the third possibility, it adds a third stage of events to the two other ones. You would have complete chaos, then a more organized one, then a war between countries (or blocks of this size). It would take 30 or 40 years to get away from the initial chaos, to once again finally arrive to the same situation than with the first hypothesis. Useless.

And the degradation of the situation would take much longer than with the first hypothesis. You would have a central power weaker and weaker each year; whereas with the first hypothesis, you just need a Muslim party being elected.

You would also probably need the US to fall into chaos (and Russia too). Otherwise, it would be child play for them to take over Europe and make the white side win.

You just have to see what happened for the two other world wars. Jewish leaders decided to make them last only 4 or 5 years. They could have made them last 10 or 20 years. But no, they have decided to use the short way. So we can think that it will be the same for world war III. Of course, they can act differently this time. You never know. But, for the moment, I don't see why they would do that.

Maybe you can have the fourth situation, with a part of national states and a part of seceded zones or zones of chaos.

I don't think you would have a part or some parts of a country falling into complete chaos, because, I don't see very well how you can have a part of a country keeping its consistency, and a part of it being in a state of anarchy. You have either complete chaos everywhere or a normal state, but not just some parts of chaos there and parts of order elsewhere.

But, maybe you can have some states falling into chaos, while most of the other ones stand still. Then, it would be mainly with the first situation with a little bit of the second or the third ones. You would principally have current countries (UK, France, Germany, etc..) fighting, but with some chaos in some parts of Europe. The problem, once again, is that intact countries would invade them easily. So, having chaos or semi-chaos in some parts of Europe isn't very interesting for Jewish leaders. But maybe Jewish leaders could do that in parts of Europe which aren't too important for the plan, like in some countries of the Balkans.

So, for the moment, my opinion is that there will be mostly a takeover of some European countries by Muslim parties, or alliances of Muslim parties with other ones, after democratic elections. Then, you will mainly have a war between current countries (UK, Germany, France, Italy, etc…).