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…).

mardi 17 mai 2016

Massive Latinos immigration in the USA and WWIII

Since Jewish leaders only want a civil war between Arabs and Whites in Europe, you can wonder why there is a huge immigration of Latinos in the USA. At first sight, they don't need that.

In fact, it's for the same reason than for countries break-up. This is because if Europe had been the only Western zone submerged by immigrants, it would have appeared as quite strange and even fishy. Some people would have understood more easily that all this was made to create the Greater Israel.

This is why there have been tons of South-American people flooding toward the USA. Because of this, people think massive immigration is a global economic and political phenomenon. The standard reasoning is the following one. Western countries are rich, so immigrants want to go there. Western governments are weak; thus they let tons of them come, even if they don't need them. So, it's logical to have plenty of immigrants settling in those countries. In the mind of ordinary people, it's a kind of fatality.

Latinos immigrants will probably be expelled during the war. For what reason? I am not sure for the moment. But probably that a harder political tendency among republican will be elected and will decide to expel them under the pretext that immigrant are taking the jobs of American citizens, are an important cause of criminality or some other reasons like that.

The rise of someone like Donald Trump is maybe the first sign of this kind of thing. Media will most probably accuse the dumbing-down of American people for the election of this sort of guy. Even if partially true, the real reason will be that Jewish leaders need a guy like that to explain the shift toward a harsher politic toward immigrants.

Declarations of Donald Trump against Mexican immigrants are also a first move toward this goal. You suddenly have sentences likes those ones:

- "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people"
- "Sadly, the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our major cities is committed by blacks and hispanics -a tough subject-must be discussed"
- "The Mexican government is much smarter, much sharper, much more cunning. And they send the bad ones over because they don't want to pay for them. They don't want to take care of them"

In the 90's, if a US politician like him had made only one declaration like that, he would have been thrown out of his party in the minute. But now, Trump can repeat that again and again without any sanctions.

As I said, it's a first milestone. WWIII is probably not for tomorrow. And Trump probably won't be elected president. So Latinos won't be expelled during the next 10 years. But there will be other Trumps in the future. So those kinds of sentences will be repeated more and more often from then on. A new Trump will finally be elected as president, and he will throw Latinos out of the US. He will probably expel some black people also.

You will also notice that suddenly, Mexican people are the new bad guys in US movies (for example: "the counselor" from Ridley Scott, "savages" from Oliver Stone). And the emphasis is put in the newspapers on the criminality in Mexico. It's true that all Central and South-America countries are considered as plagued with corruption; but Mexico is considered to be the most corrupted and dangerous one. It's not a coincidence. Jewish leaders use also their propaganda tools to get people used to the Latinos bashing, which is a prelude to their future deportation. Mexicans will be the first to be highlighted as a problem for the US, but the other Latinos will follow. And of course, at first only illegal immigrants will be targeted by these new political trends. But after that, all immigrants from Central and South-America will be.

The massive Latinos immigration is also useful for Jewish leaders for the following reason. With it plus with the massive immigration of Blacks and Arabs in Europe, the white race is clearly under threat of annihilation. Of course, for the moment, common people don't care about that at all. They repeat the ideas Jewish leaders have implanted in their mind: that race-mixing is inevitable, is the future of humanity, that race-mixing is cool, that a more tolerant race will arise from race-mixing, etc, etc... So they don't mind that the white race disappear. But, if Jewish leaders pull the right levers, most of those white people will finally change their mind and say that this threat upon us is unbearable. Suddenly, racism won't be a bad thing anymore (just see how people have changed their mind regarding Muslims since the 80's). Then, the return of racism will give another reason for expelling Latinos from the US. But maybe Jewish leader won't play this card. We will see.

Regarding black people, maybe Jewish leaders will try to have a lot of them converting to Islam before the war. So they will be able to denounce them as a threat for the USA. It will allow Jewish leaders to exile a part of them.

lundi 16 mai 2016

Split countries and the plan of Jewish leaders for WWIII

With the theory that Jewish leaders are organizing events to get a third world war, we can understand another thing. Splits of countries or threats of them are a part of the Jewish leaders plan for World War III.

For the extension of Israel borders, Jewish leaders need a split of Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, that is, a balkanization of the Middle-East. If they were the only countries enduring that, it could seem suspect. But if many other countries follow the same path, such a thing will appear as normal to the general public. So, Jewish leaders need to have other countries being split or under threat of being split.

This is, among other reasons, why Ukraine has been separated from Russia. This is why you have stories talking about tensions in Belgium which could lead to a separation between the French and the Netherland side. You also have threats of division about Turkey from the Kurdish side. In Spain, you regularly have stories about Catalonia wanting to be independent. You also had this referendum about the independence of Scotland in 2014. The Brexit (UK leaving Europe) threat is another form of that kind of break up.
Of course, most separations will have other goals than that. Jewish leaders like to attain several objectives with the same event. But one of the goals is that.

It goes without saying that Jewish leaders don't rely only on this to make the balkanization of the Middle-East appear as normal. They also spread intensely the idea that Middle-East is a powder keg, with lots of ethnic groups and Muslims tendencies (Sunnis, Shia…), etc… which implies that separatist tendencies are normal.

samedi 14 mai 2016

All terrorist attacks or Islamic movements are phony and are done/controlled by Intel agencies

So the plan from Jewish leaders is to cause a third world war with Arabs/Blacks vs. Withes in Europe.
It means that all the terrorist attacks are in fact false flags (and for most of them, hoaxes too) made by western secret services like CIA, MI6, Mossad, DGSE (French), etc..; all of them controlled by Jewish leaders of course.

And logically, each times you have a terrorist attack, many websites now point out the flaws in the official story and show they are all false flags, and mostly hoaxes.

It's quite the same thing for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Europe. Most of it is pure invention from Intel agencies. However, since Jewish leaders will need troops for the war, it is possible that a little part of it have some reality. Jewish leaders probably try to radicalize some young Muslims in order to have soldiers for the future war, and before that, for the islamization of European countries.

You could then think: "So, maybe some terrorist attacks are real and are done by those manipulated guys". But Intel agencies won't let guys like that do this. False flags are serious job. Only Intel agents do it. Those manipulated guys are only here to be the rank and file. And as most terrorist attacks are in fact hoaxes, Jewish leaders can't let manipulated but honest guys participate to them.

In the Middle-East, secret agencies are probably able to get more real members. But even there, most of them are in fact Intel agents.

The takeover of certain countries (or part of them) by Islamic movements (like Daesh in Syria) is also an invention from secret agencies. Everything is controlled by them. Do you imagine really that a powerful state as Syria could be suddenly put in serious trouble by ordinary guys? The government would send the army and everything would be over after 4 or 5 days. And it's even truer knowing the fact that Syria is controlled by Jewish leaders (like all countries of the world). Jewish leader would crush immediately any movement not controlled by them with all the military force they have.

But in fact, they wouldn't even have to do that, since no free movement can exist without their support. To have a free movement which reaches some importance, you need a lot of money, advertising (thus a lot of money), many talented propagandist (so, once again, a lot of money) and mass media talking about you (and as they are controlled by Jewish leaders, they will never do it). And, if by any incredible miracle, someone succeeds a little bit in doing that, Jewish leaders are able to stop the rise of the movement by infiltrating it with agents, by making the promotion of other movements which lead to nowhere (and of course proposing much more money, entertainment, advertisement, etc..), by compromising their leaders with fake affairs (sex, money…), etc, etc… So you can't have free important political movements in this world, and especially a free Islamic movement in the Middle-East.

All those fake terrorist events, the fake radicalization, and the fake victories of Islamic movements in the Middle-East are necessary for the Jewish leaders to explain the swing of several European and Middle-East countries into Islamism in the future, and thus world war III. Because events in Europe won't be limited to just some terrorist attacks. Those ones are just the beginning. Things will go much farer than that. There will be a takeover of certain European countries by Islamic forces. If there wasn't that takeover, European government would just have to expel fundamentalist Muslims from Europe. And that would be it; no WWIII. Jewish leaders need to have countries controlled by Muslims (totally or partially). Then serious things (WWIII) can begin.

jeudi 12 mai 2016

Why we can think the goal of Jewish leaders is not to destroy the white race

With the importation of millions of Arabs and black immigrants in Europe, you could think that the goal of Jewish leaders is to eliminate the white race and replace it with mixed race people. The idea commonly adopted in nationalist circles is that they would then have a race of people without past, less cultivated and intelligent than Whites; that is, people Jewish leaders could control more easily.

But, there is a problem with this theory. White people don't pose any threat to Jewish leaders. They are productive, intelligent, creative, obedient, and completely gullible. In fact, they are the perfect slaves. So, wanting to get rid of them wouldn't make sense for Jewish leaders.

And Jewish leaders are also white people. So, in a world where they would be the only white people, they would be in danger of being assimilated sooner or later. If their plan was based on the racist idea that mixed people are less intelligent than Whites, and that by being the only Whites, no one would be able to challenge their domination, it wouldn't be sustainable because of that. After 1 or 2 centuries, they would be assimilated into this "inferior" mass.

And, in a world where they would be the only Whites, their domination would be much more visible. Whereas, in a world where there are tons of white people, they can remain hidden eternally.

So, things don't add up. This theory seems quite absurd when studied more closely. There must be something else.

With the evolution of their propaganda regarding Arabs, you can understand the real motive behind all this.

During the 80's and the 90's, while getting millions of colored people to come to Europe, Jewish leaders forbade white people to criticize them (especially Arabs and black people). A real hysteria was organized regarding that. And the white population adopted this way of reacting fully. The beginning of a shadow of the slightest critic against Arabs or Blacks in general made people enter in a state of trance. It was worse than if you had talked about torturing and killing their mother, their wife and their children right now. You better had to stop and make a retraction immediately; otherwise, you were banned from your group of friend.

So, during those years, things were coherent. Jewish leaders seemed to want to overwhelm white countries with colored immigrants and to destroy the white race. And the propaganda regarding Arabs and Blacks made sense with that.

BUT, all at once, shortly after the beginning of the 2000's, the discourse changed. Suddenly, Arabs were presented in the media as potentially dangerous people. And the more the time passed, the more they were presented that way. And, not only that, but tons of false flags, where Muslims (mostly Arabs) were presented as the perpetrators, were organized by Jewish leaders.

But, all the while, Jewish leaders kept importing Arabs and Blacks in Europe.

So, all of a sudden, the official speech didn't make any sense anymore. Why keep importing colored people to Europe while the discourse from Jewish leaders makes them pass as the bad guys. If the goal was to destroy the white race with race mixing and replacement, why not keep the same discourse about them (that is, that colored people are more open minded, more beautiful, more generous, more human, more manly, more everything, than those close minded white people who are all potential racists, and that the only solution to wipe out all this white ugliness is in race-mixing and race replacement).

So, suddenly it became obvious that the real objective wasn't to destroy the white race. And when you understand a little bit how things work, everything becomes quite clear.

The real goal of Jewish leaders was to create the conditions of the third world war; and this, in order to extend the frontiers of Israel; that is to make the greater Israel.

To have a credible WWIII, they needed to have a European racial civil war. A war between Europe and Arab countries wouldn't seem serious at all, because Europe is much more powerful, military speaking, than Arab countries. The affair would be resolved in one month. It would be ludicrous.

So, they needed to make tons of Arabs and black people come to Europe. Once enough of them settled, the racial civil war would oppose two sides of the same force and would then be credible.

They also needed people to accept this very aggressive invasion; thus all the propaganda describing colored people as the future of humanity, and race-mixing not only as inevitable but also desirable.

You can notice that Asian or South-American people were not concerned by this positive propaganda. This is because the main groups involved in the war will be Arabs and Blacks. This is why you could still make a little bit of fun of Asians during the 80's and the 90's, whereas doing the same thing for Arabs or Blacks sent you directly to the stake. This is also why just few Asians were imported in Europe during this time. They are not needed for world war 3. Jewish leaders got some of them to come to Europe in order to avoid making their plan too obvious.

But, of course, before the war, Jewish leaders needed to change their speech. They couldn't begin it with people continuing to be in a state of beatitude regarding Arabs and Blacks. This is why there has been the "rise" of those fundamentalist Muslim movements (Al Qaeda, Daesh, all phony organizations created by the CIA, Mossad, MI6, etc..) and all those fake terrorist bombings and attacks (also made by the CIA, Mossad, etc..). And this is why the discourse from media has changed regarding Arabs. Suddenly, they were depicted as potential terrorists. And it works very well. With this avalanche of propaganda, people's mind is evolving. Blacks are still considered as cool, but Arabs are now considered more and more as mad, violent and obscurantist people, and thus, as potential enemies.

So, the hatred against Arabs (and probably Blacks) will rise more and more. And when Jewish leaders trigger the war, people will be mentally ready for it. What's ironic is that it's probably those very kind of people (or at least a great part of them) who almost fainted when earing the slightest critic against colored people in the 80's who will be the ones the most ready to kill them (or to make them kill by others). It's normal; they are the most easily manipulated ones.

mardi 10 mai 2016

World War 3 explained: summary

In my previous blog, I have studied the past. In this one, I am going to study the future. The future that Jewish leaders (or the illuminatis, it's the same thing in fact) prepare for us.

And this future will be a third world war.

Many people begin to understand that there will be a third world war. But, in my humble opinion, very few people understand the real plan and the real reasons behind it. And of course, many Intel agents make blogs or videos about it, in order to create confusion and obfuscate those real reasons.

In my opinion, the goal of the third world war will be to extend the territory of Israel and to give even more power to Jewish leaders.

Jewish leaders could extend the frontier of Israel right now. They have all the power required to do this. But, it would show too clearly who the boss is. And Israel would appear as the bad guy. People would always say that the Greater Israel is illegitimate. And it seems Jewish leaders want people to approve the Israel extension.

They could also force people to accept even more violations of their rights. It happens already. But they need catastrophic events in order to make people accept them on the long term.

In order to achieve those goals they need a third world war.

This third world war will oppose white European people and Arabs (in fact, Arabs and Blacks). As Israel will also fight Arabs, Israelis will become our allies and even our friends. Thus, European people will applaud to the enlargement of Israel, and also to everything that Israel does.

And of course with those catastrophic events, people will accept numerous violations of their present rights, even long ago after the war.

The problem Jewish leaders face is Europe is much much more powerful, military speaking, than Arabs countries. So, if the war was only "European countries vs. Arabs countries", the war would be finished in one month. Thus, World War III would look ridiculous. And Jewish leaders don't want that.

In order to have a credible World War III, Jewish leaders need to have two sides of the same force. So, the idea is to get tons of Arabs and black people to come to Europe. Then, when there will be enough of them (let's say 35 or 45 % of the population of certain European countries), with the help of 10 or 20 % of European people, there will be two sides of the same force. At this moment, Jewish leaders will trigger a European civil war (and also a war between some European countries and some Muslim countries).

At the beginning, white European people will lose. After, they will win. White people will finally prevail. Then, almost all Arabs and black people leaving in Europe will be either killed or deported to Africa and Middle-East. 

As Israel will have participated to the war on the white European side, it will be granted new territories and the Greater Israel will become a reality. And, what's best, it will be with the approval of all white goyims.

This is why Jewish leaders have got Arabs and black people to come to Europe en masse since the 60's. This is why it was nearly forbidden to criticize even slightly Arabs and Blacks during the 80's and the 90's. And this is why, suddenly, newspapers and other media have begun to talk almost every day about the Islamic menace since the beginning of the 2000's; and this, while keeping importing tons of Arabs and black people in Europe (the critical mass hasn't been reached). They needed to start their propaganda campaign against Arabs before reaching the critical mass of Arabs and Blacks in Europe.

One thing which is not understood correctly is the real reason of the rise of the sexual perversion and satanic circus in Western countries. With the present explanation, you can understand it.

As Jewish leaders like to have two very opposed sides (democracies against empires for WWI, democracies and communism against Nazism and Fascism for WWII) there will be the same thing during World War 3. Thus, you will have on one side, Arabs fundamentalist Muslims, and on the other side, sexually perverted white democrats, an explosive situation.

They also need Arabs to have a strong reason to fight against white European people. Of course, you could have Arabs becoming too tyrannical against white people. But, as you have seen it, Arabs and black people won't represent more than 40-45 % of the population. Thus, it will be probably difficult to have them dominating completely white people.

With white people representing everything Arabs Muslims abhor, and vice versa, a racial civil war full of hate will be able to take place. Perverted white people will be the incarnation of evil for Arabs and black Muslims. And Arabs and black Muslims will be the incarnation of obscurantism and violence for white people.

This is why Jewish leaders don't stop promoting sexual perversion in Western countries and also make a more and more obvious promotion of Satanism.

There is also the case of white people who will be more or less on the Arab side. This group will consist of people rejecting all those sexual and moral perversions of Western societies. There will be Christian among them. There will be just normal people. There will also be a lot of people believing in conspiracy theories. Jewish leaders will push them to believe that all this Satanism and sexual perversion is the sign of the coming of the Antichrist. This is why you have all those sites about Satanism and perversion promotion in the music, movie, etc.., industry. They are almost all made by Intel agencies like CIA, MI6, Mossad, etc... What they say is partially true. But they don't give the real reason behind all this.

As the "perverted" white side will win, Jewish leaders will be able to eliminate a lot of people believing in conspiracy theories. And they will be able to forbid those theories after the war. Conspiracy theorists will appear as very dangerous people, and also traitors. So, ordinary people will completely agree with this decision. Jewish leaders will thus be able to get rid of this dangerous subversive group (dangerous for them of course) for quite a long time (maybe something like 40 or 50 years).

I can be wrong, but, as it will be useless after the war, I think this satanic theatre won't be promoted anymore by Jewish leaders. Same thing for the sexual perversion. They need slaves, not idlers fucking all the time. And slavery don't accommodate very well with Satanism. It accommodates much more with obedient people believing in a benevolent God.