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).

 

History and future of Southeast Asia

Here's a new publication on the Asian zone. This time, it's about Southeast Asia. With this document, plus the previous one about China, the past and future of the whole of Asia are revealed.

It's only partly about World War 3. So, it's a bit of a departure from the blog's theme. But, since it's now possible to make forecasts that go much further into the future, it would be a shame not to cover this subject.

Once again, given the length of the document, I've published it as a PDF.

Practical detail: reading in Google Drive apparently doesn't allow chapters to be displayed in the sidebar. Yet these are very useful for navigating through the document. So I suggest you load it and then open it with a PDF reader or your browser.

As usual, the document is available in English and French:

 

History and future of southeast asia.pdf

L'histoire et l'avenir du sud-est de l'Asie.pdf

The history of China, Mongolia and Russia

Thinking about the Great Wall of China, I ended up developing a somewhat advanced analysis of the history of China, Mongolia and Russia. And it has a few links to the Third World War and what happens afterwards. Here it is available as a pdf, in English and French.

 

The history of China, Mongolia and Russia in English (pdf)

L'histoire de la Chine, la Mongolie et la Russie, en français (pdf)

 

The presidential election of 2020 and the future civil war in the USA

With the turmoil of the current presidential election, I'm beginning to understand how the elite will set up civil war in America. Now that things are settling down, it's becoming pretty clear.

Until now, it wasn't. Given the very cordial side of American political life, one wondered where a possible civil war could come from.

The fact that Trump was a kind of populist was clearly a first step towards a more anti-immigrant state. But it didn't say much about how a civil war would develop in the future.

And he was more of an American-style populist, that is a rather soft one. And the American economy seemed to have improved under Trump. And when the economy is doing well, it's harder to introduce political tensions. So, there was apparently still no reason for the US to go to civil war. The elements that could trigger it seemed to happen in the future and therefore were still unknown for the time being.

 

But with what is happening now, a pattern is taking shape.

Indeed, during the presidential campaign, there was a very strong increase in tension between Democrats and Republicans. Until now, the American elections have been a tennis match between gentlemen in white suits. Everything was played with total fairplay and everyone respected each other. All of a sudden, in each camp, there was a demonization of the other camp that had never been seen before in American political life. You almost had the impression of being in France when an election opposes the RN (ex-FN) to another party.

Why this demonization of each camp?

Let's look first at the Democrat side.

First, the anti-immigrant nationalists are on Trump's side. And Trump has clearly been on this line, with the construction of the wall on the Mexican border. So, for the democrats, the Trumpist camp is composed of racists. Not Nazis, but not far away.

Trump also questioned the theory of global warming, something that has become almost a religion in the Democrat camp. And Trump's voters are following him down that road. In a concrete way, Trump pushed for the development of shale gas. He questioned the Paris climate agreements. So, for the Democrats, Trump is a public danger that threatens the planet.

Now let's look at the Republican side.

For some time now (2 or 3 years), anti-illuminati conspirationists has been on Trump's side, and Democrat politicians are considered by a small but growing number of Republicans to be the devil's representatives on earth. For them, Democrats are illuminati agents whose plan is to create an evil dystopian society, or even to bring the devil and his demons to earth.

And even without going that far, many Republicans totally reject the society that the Democrats want to impose, where homosexuality, ultra-feminism, political correctness and therefore censorship, mass surveillance, euthanasia, idiocracy, etc.., are promoted in a practically dictatorial way. It is indeed a real daily mass propaganda that is made in the media on these themes. Thus, even without the evocation of supernatural occult forces, the Democrat camp seems to be leading America towards a dystopia for a good part of the Republicans.

The two camps thus have more and more valid reasons to hate each other. And you can count on the elite-paid agitators to continue to heat up the minds at boiling point.

 

Race Mixing as a Racist Pro-White Project

With the plan of mass immigration and promotion of race mixing currently being imposed by the elite in the West, there is a very significant increase in the number of black/white and Arab/white mixed-race people in Europe and black/white and Latino/white in America.

One wonders what will happen to all these mestizos after the 3rd World War. Will the elite simply exterminate them? At first glance, I don't think so. Maybe some of them will disappear during the war. But most of them should survive.

In my opinion, the elite will expel them to Africa. They'll use this to partially whitewash this continent. Then they'll be able to bring in more and more white people.

So, in fact, the current race-mixing trend serves the elite's racist pro-white agenda.

The people who are currently mixing are convinced that by doing so, they're using the ultimate weapon against racism. But in reality, the exact opposite is happening. Instead, they are serving white supremacism. What an irony.

Thus, it strongly suggests that the next part of the world to undergo the racist project of the elite will be Africa. It makes sense to me. Once they've whitewashed North America and the Middle East, the elite obviously won't stop there. And the next few targets are not many. It's either Asia, India, Africa or South America. And since Africa is closer and poses a greater threat to the integrity of the white race than Asia and South America, it is likely that it will be the focus of the next elite whitening plan.

Perhaps it will be Africa and South America. Indeed, one wonders what will become of the mixed-race Latinos in America. But, as Africa is a big chunk, the elite will probably focus mainly on that continent. In that case, perhaps some of the Latinos in question will go to South America and some to Africa. We shall see.

All this will take time, probably 200 years or more. So, in addition to predicting what will happen in the next 70 years, we can foresee approximately what will happen in the next 200 or 300 years. If my analysis is correct, of course.

PS:

And the Africans will not be able to refuse these immigrants, since they will be partly racial brothers, who are moreover attached to African culture. So how to say no to their coming? And in any case, Africans will have no choice. Here as elsewhere, it is the elite who decide and the people who obey.

We can think that some of the whites who will have allied themselves with the blacks and Arabs in Europe will also be expelled to Africa. As a result, they will help to whiten this continent a little more. The elite will probably make sure that a substantial part of them will not assimilate, which will allow the first white colonies to be established there. So these people, who will be among the most anti-racist, will be forced to serve a totally racist project. Furthermore, the elite will manage to make their children become more and more racist over the generations so that they will approve of the white colonization project.

That's what happened in Israel. Those who arrived in the 1930s and 1940s were mostly anti-racist and anti-xenophobic. And now, a lot of their grandchildren are xenophobes, or even uninhibited racists. A number of these elders must be disgusted with what has become of their people. And some of them are letting it be known. But they're out of touch. They are people of the past. As their xenophobic or racist grandchildren will become when they are no longer needed by the elite.

It's the same with the communists. They saw themselves as the future of the world in the post-wwII years, then they became totally old-fashioned and their ideas rejected by their children once the elite no longer needed communism. Among the people of this generation, the most adaptable/opportunistic evolved, people of conviction and psychorigids continued to believe in it and became relics of the past.

PS2:

It is possible that the elite use Asian immigration to Africa to justify European intervention. They will make Asians act obnoxious against Africans. As a result, Africans will be more than happy to welcome white people back. In addition, if African countries accept mass Asian immigration, they will find it difficult to justify refusing mass European immigration. But well, this is a prediction based on the growing influence of the Chinese in Africa that is currently underway. But over the next 200 years, that could very well change and this hypothesis could become obsolete.

PS3:

And regarding the colonization of Africa by white people after WWIII, the birth rate won't be a problem. At that point, the elite will ensure that the white one increase sharply, while the black one collapse. As a result, the migration balance will turn in favor of whites in Africa and eventually South America. But this time, there will be no turning back. At the end of the process, there will be no blacks at all and very few Latinos.

Historical revisionism was a creation of the elite

I became interested in revisionism in the late 1980s. And especially from 1990, when the Fabius-Gayssot law, which banned revisionist opinions, was passed in France. Of course, from that date on, I was convinced that the revisionists were right. If a government bans an opinion so hysterically, it is most certainly true. But finding books on the subject was almost impossible because of the ban. As a result, I was only able to discover revisionist writings in 1996, through the Internet, by going to the famous Aaargh site. And from the very first articles, I received confirmation that the Holocaust was a pure invention.

Of course, this very quickly led me to become interested in the career of the most famous revisionists, including Faurisson. From the outset, two or three things made me slightly twitch. At the time, not being in the extreme conspiracy, I let pass this strange information. But as I became more and more conspirationist, and thinking back on this information a few years ago, I had more and more doubts. Especially since I had discovered in the early 2000s that many of the new stars of revisionism were in fact agents.

Over the last 3 or 4 years, I began to think that the first dissident movements had probably been set up by the authorities to launch conspirationnism among the masses. There, I began to think that revisionism was one of these movements.

But since I did not see too much use for revisionism for the masters of the world outside of that, since I was thinking about other things and since Faurisson was still a monument in my mind, I had left it at that; even if my doubts were becoming more and more important.

But, since I understood, a few months ago, that the Israel project must be a racist pro-white project and that a large part of the Jews of the diaspora will most likely be deported to Israel before and during World War III, there, the role of revisionism, in addition to participating in the rise of the conspirationnist movement, became very clear to me. Its primary goal was to raise "anti-Semitism" in order to send Jews from the diaspora to Israel. It confirmed that revisionism was indeed a project of the elite.

This was very difficult to understand for a very long time as also because, until about 10 years ago, the revisionist movement remained a niche trend, something known only to a few ultra-conspirationnists. So it was hard to think that it could be of any use to the elite in any way. It's only in the last few years that we feel that revisionism is starting to come out of its ghetto and that we can glimpse its role.

And of course, the Fabius-Gayssot law in France was created on purpose to advertise revisionism. It was not made to bury it, but to spread it. A law that prohibits a historical research movement is a clear signal that this movement is right and that the government is trying to hide the truth. Once again, for 30 years, the true purpose of this law did not emerge, because revisionism has remained a small group. Thus, the situation was consistent with the apparent purpose of this law, namely, to destroy revisionism. But it's getting clear, now that revisionism is becoming more widespread, that the aim was actually to propagate it. It just took 20 years for it to become clear. The operation was meant to act with delay. So the real goal was unsuspected.

And the development of revisionism will increase anti-Semitism. Revisionists have been viciously persecuted for decades. Most Western countries have enacted anti-revisionist laws and others to combat anti-Semitism. Obviously, in the minds of people who have understood the scam of the holocaust will grow the idea that the Jews control the world and that they are truly ruthless and obnoxious tyrants. And it's not just revisionism that's used for that. There are also many revelations made elsewhere about Jewish power. Many Jewish-critical leaders have also been martyred. Jews are more and more associated with Satanism, the migration invasion, etc... In short, the evidence on the existence of occult Jewish power and on its odious and destructive character is accumulating, all provided by the elite in reality. On this basis, the elite will be able to justify the coming to power of anti-Jewish political movements (an alliance of Muslims, leftists and conspirationists), and then the expulsion of some or all European Jews to Israel (and even American ones). This will ensure that there will be enough people to colonize the greater Israel that will be created around World War III. And after the greater Israel, will come the colonization of the whole Middle East by the whites.

 

That's why the extermination evidence is ridiculous on every level. It's because the elite wanted some people to understand that it was a scam.

If the elite had wanted the Holocaust to look real, they would have had no problem making it look like that. As Hitler was an agent of the elite, he would then have ordered his secret service to produce thousands of false documents to prove that an extermination project was being carried out. The German authorities could have put thousands of bodies of German and Russian soldiers killed in combat in pits near concentration camps; and even civilians dead in hospitals and without families. They could have made private videos of Hitler declaring his extermination intentions to his trusted ministers. All this would have been "discovered" by totally "independent" observers. And then no one could have doubted the reality of the Holocaust. If the elite did not do this, it was because they wanted people to realize the deception as soon as they looked closely at the evidence of the Holocaust. They wanted the lie of the Shoah to be exposed and that many people end up no longer believing it.

It's like the Islamist attacks right now, they have to be staged and the deception often has to be completely grotesque for many people to understand that it is all false and to switch to the conspirationist side.

 In fact, even assuming that Hitler was not an agent of the elite, it would have been possible for the victors to create false documents, to have apparently reliable, credible and neutral witnesses, and thus to produce seemingly irrefutable evidence. If they did not do so, it is because they wanted us to find out that this holocaust story is bogus. And, of course, since it wasn't ordinary people who were going to dare to ask these questions, they put agents to do the job. In any case, the elite obviously would not have wanted ordinary people to question the lie. It could have been dangerous, because they could have asked themselves embarrassing questions (as I do now). So it had to be agents who did the job.

As the document is very long, i put it here in PDF format. And since the translation will take some times, I put it here first in french. The english version will follow.

Robert Faurisson, très probablement un agent V.2

 

October 21, 2020. Finally, I have translated the text in English:

 

Robert Faurisson, most probably an agent

During the translation, I have heavily modified two subparts of the document (thus de second version of the french text). The one about the attacks of Faurisson (subpart 1.10.3 "Details and thoughts about the attacks"), and the one in appendix 8 (A. 8.6: The problem of developing revisionism 2.0 in the USA in the 45-70s).

The march against islamophobia, in France

On Sunday 10 November 2019, a march against Islamophobia was organized in France in Paris. It gathered 13,500 people.

It is an interesting event to analyze.

Indeed, we have seen on this blog that in France, the elite will bring to power a coalition of Muslims and conspirationists.

We can think that this is one of the first concrete steps towards the constitution of a Muslim political movement in France. It starts with a march against Islamophobia, then leaders will emerge. And these leaders, after having gone through occasional actions to fight Islamophobia, will start to form organizations against Islamophobia, then they or new leaders will create Muslim parties, first to defend their rights, then to impose Islam in France.

It can be noted here that the Islamophobia promoted for many years in the media will thus have a double utility for the elite. It will continue to excite the white world against Islam, as it has done for more than 15 years. But we can see here that it will also help to promote Muslim movements. By becoming excessive, it justifies a reaction from the Muslim side, and therefore gradually the creation of organizations against Islamophobia (then, movements for Muslim rights, etc...).

Once again, we can see that the elite likes to kill two (or three) birds with one stone.

In addition, Mélenchon, a well-known far-left leader in France, gave them his support. The fact that Mélenchon supported them is also logical.  Currently, it was necessary to support these movements against Islamophobia so that it did not seem to be only a movement of Islamists (and also Arabs and Blacks). And since the classical socialist left is more or less anti-Islamist nowadays, it was necessary to use an extreme left movement for that.

Will the Jews of the USA and France be expelled to Israel?

While thinking about my previous paper and the expansion program of the State of Israel, I had an idea about the Jews of the United States and France.  What if the elite were planning to expel them to Israel before and during World War III?

Until then, I had told myself that this was unlikely, because I thought that the presence of everyday Jews served the Jewish/illuminati elite to control the USA and France. So I didn't think about it more than that.

But if the objective of the elite is actually to spread the white race, and Jews only serve as fanatical white settlers, then it is different. All ordinary Jews will be used for this purpose.

Moreover, when you think about it a little more, it is clear that the Greater Israel project will suddenly require a rather large population inflow. It is true that Israel's Jews have a fairly high birth rate (near 3.2 children per woman). But that may not be enough when large territories are annexed by Israel. It will therefore require a massive and rapid influx of people.

And even if the goal was not to increase the territory of the white race, but the one of the Jews, we saw for the 2nd World War that the elite had no problem deporting Jews. So, to the extent that they will most likely be necessary to populate the Greater Israel, whether the real objective of the elite is the expansion of the white race or the expansion of the Jews, it will not change anything for them. They will be moved to Israel. 

It is true that in this region, there is mostly desert. This too must have unconsciously made me think that the inflow of Jews from the USA and France was not necessary. But in fact, there are quite a lot of people in this area. It's not just desert everywhere. So, there will still be a need for many settlers to occupy the territories taken.

Especially since, as we have seen, it is likely that, in reality, the Greater Israel project is underestimated and that the entire Middle East will be targeted by this white race expansion project. So it will require a very large number of settlers.

Thus, it becomes likely that the Jews from the USA and France will be expelled in order to occupy the territories taken from the Arabs when  the Greater Israel is established. Why them in particular? Well, because of their numbers. These are the two countries with the highest number of Jews outside Israel. The Jews of the USA are in the 5.7 million, those of France probably in the 600,000 (see here). That's 6,300,000 that could be used as settlers. But in the United States, there would be 10 million Jews if you take a broader definition of Jews. So that could be 10.6 million Jews who could be mobilized to colonize the greater Israel. Of course, it is possible that Jews from other countries may also be targeted, such as those from Italy (see the map of countries that will come under Muslim control before World War III).

Does the Israel project really serve to bring back the Jewish people who would have been expelled 2000 years earlier?

The most common theory among conspiracy theorists who believe in Jewish conspiracy is that the creation of the state of Israel is the result of a conspiracy by Jewish leaders to bring the Jewish people back to the lands from which they were driven 2000 years ago. Jewish leaders would have gradually taken control of all Western countries with the aim not only of being masters of the world, but also of recreating Israel. Once this is done, an additional objective would be to make Israel the world's capital. Moreover, Freemasonry is said to be a creation of Jewish leaders. It would be an intermediate power created to have the elite of the goys applying the orders of Jewish leaders.

That's what I thought until a few years ago.

On the surface, it seems to make sense as an idea. Indeed, there appears to have been a takeover of the various European countries by Jewish leaders over the past 500 years. The first country would have been Italy with the Medici, then England with Cromwell, then probably the USA during the colonization, then France with the 1789 revolution, then most European countries with the takeover of Europe by the French under Napoleon, and finally Russia in 1917.  And for Freemasons, some say that Freemasons' rites are Jewish from A to Z.

As for the desire to recreate the state of Israel, it seems logical, since, according to their sacred books, it is the land promised by God and they actually lived there for several centuries before being driven out. And since Jews have remained very religious for centuries, it is normal that they wanted to return to the land that God had promised them. However, before the end of the 19th century, we don't have much evidence that they were making a plan to get back there. But from then on, things became clear (writings by Nathan Birnbaum from 1882, book by Theodore Herzl "The State of the Jews" in 1896, Balfour declaration in 1917, San Remo conference in 1920, etc...). Moreover, we can think that the desire to take power in Europe, then in the world, is a strong indication of this desire to return to Israel, beyond the mere desire for domination.

The reason why there are all those satanic signs and themes in movies, songs, events, etc…

With what I have already said on the subject, namely that the system sets up an opposition between whites and Arabs/black people in Europe at the racial level and an opposition between Satanists/normal people and democrats/despots at the level of ideas, you can understand why we have had more and more movies since the 1990s on the theme of Satanism or including more or less references to Satanism inside. The same goes for video clips, song lyrics, and various events.

 If you want to set up a Satanist/normal opposition, people who could oppose Satanism must already know that there is a hidden Satanist force. And since there was no sign of such a force until then, there was no reason for anyone to suspect it. Therefore, it was necessary to reveal its existence through the different means of communication. Hence all these films, video clips, and illuminati signs by famous people, etc....

And it must be revealed in a fairly clear way. Since until then, no one was aware of the existence of this Satanist orientation of the ruling elite, and since it is something quite incredible, just giving vague clues, things that are a little too obscure would make it almost impossible for anyone to be convinced. So the elite had to put signs and clues that will leave no doubt to conscious people that the elite is committed to Satanism. That's why we have more and more obvious signs that are shown in movies or by famous people and that's why we have artists who say squarely they have sold their souls to the devil, and things like that.

And of course, for those who would not understand the apparent evidence on their own, there are websites and videos on Youtube denouncing the satanic/illuminati plot to inform them and get things perfectly clear.

But, since the illuminatis do not want to convert everyone to anti-Satanism, it mustn't be overly disclosed. So that's why it's not displayed in such a way that even the mass of ordinary people would become aware of it either. It's still opaque enough so that only the most knowledgeable and conscious people understand.

And then there is the safeguard of anti-conspiracy discourse. Most people will not dare to believe that the elite is corrupt and Satanist, because that would be conspirationism and, in their heads, it is the speech of half-crazy guys. With this mental barrier, ordinary people will think that the signs they see in movies or shows, are just a fashion. For films specifically, they will think that it is just one theme among others, something that appeals to young people, and that's why it often comes up. Or they will see it as a sign of a degeneration of society, but will not go any further. And for the music videos, they will think that the singers introduce these themes only to shock.

In addition, many people will focus on Islamists. This will be the case for many nationalists. For them, the real threat is Muslim immigrants. So they will not focus, or not much, on all these illuminati and satanic signs. They will attribute moral and sexual decadence to leftism without going any further. And the leaders of the nationalist camp, who are all agents of influence in the service of the elite, will do everything to divert those people from the idea of a Satanist conspiracy and instead make them focus on the problem of the Islamists. And they are already doing that by saying that the decadence of the mores comes from leftists, the legacy of the sexual revolution of the sixties, feminism, the questioning of authority in all its forms, the child king, the homosexual lobby, corrupt elites, the media that want to make easy money, moral relativism, possibly atheism, etc...

Thanks to this strategy, Jewish/illuminated leaders will succeed in convincing part of the population that there is an attempt by our elites to establish a Satanic world, while the majority of the population will continue to believe that there is nothing of this kind and that all these are the deliriums of conspirationists.

Anyway, if there are all these satanic/illuminati elements in all current cultural production, it is because it is done on purpose so that people can learn about it.

On the side of the anti-illuminati conspiracy camp, the explanation for the presence of all these "evidences" of the Satanist plot is that the Satanists are now so sure of their power that they are no longer afraid to reveal themselves in the open.

That's what I thought at first, when I discovered all this. But once you realize the scam of the 3rd World War plan, it becomes clear that this is not the real reason.

Moreover, the way things have been going in the last few centuries does not go in that direction. Jewish/illuminated leaders were already all-powerful 3 centuries ago. So there was nothing stopping them from doing that before. If they are really Satan worshipers and wanted to convert the population to Satanism from the beginning, they should have indoctrinated it in this way a long time ago, for at least 2 or 3 centuries.

But that's not what we can see. There have been advances and setbacks in the liberation of the mores over the past 300 years. We had the century of Enlightenment very liberal and very anticlerical. Then, the 19th century was much more rigorous. The end of the 19th century was quite anticlerical in France. But it was one of the only countries to have this policy. Why do you do that, if the goal was to have increasingly perverted populations? Why not take advantage of the advances of the 18th century to go even further in the 19th century? Why not establish anticlericalism in other European countries at the end of the 19th century? Thus, they could have achieved their goal 100 years ago.

Then there was the interwar period (1918-1939), when mores were somewhat dissolute. But this was only true in the big cities of some countries (the "Roaring Twenties" in France, the "Golden Twenties" in England, the "Goldene Zwanziger" in Germany or the "Roaring Twenties" in the USA). And in the United States, it was still the era of prohibition (1919-1933). It makes no sense to impose prohibition in a country as big and influential as the United States if the goal is to pervert the world. Then, in all Western countries, it became (or remained, depending on the country) quite serious again in the years going from 45 to 65, despite the arrival of rock music. In the USSR, life was totally sinister. So, here again, it slowed down the establishment of global perversion and Satanist society. It is only since about 68 that mores have really degenerated (and only since the 1990s in the countries of the former USSR). Satan's worshippers apparently do not seem in much of a hurry to establish the reign of their god.

So, all these advances and setbacks concerning mores go in the direction of the idea that the real goal was not to establish a Satanist society, but to manipulate one of the two camps for the objective of the 3rd World War. And once it is over, the elite will drop this story of Satanist society, just as they dropped communism once it has no longer been useful. Who still believes that the whole earth will one day be under communist control? No one. It's now a thing of the past, a dinosaur thing. So much so that the younger generations barely know what it is all about. Well, it will be the same for Satanism once it is no longer useful for the elite.

The ban on foreigners to buy real estate in New Zealand, and the closing of the frontiers of several South American countries, the beginning of a general trend?

I saw a news story a few days ago saying that foreigners could no longer buy real estate in New Zealand.

We can think that this is just the beginning of the movement. Indeed, when the war in Europe and eventually in America begins to become a little too obvious, many people will be tempted to flee to foreign countries that will be far from the future conflict: countries like New Zealand, Australia, South America, China, etc....

Of course, the Jewish/illuminatis leaders have anticipated that. So long before people start to understand what is happening, they will close the borders of these countries and prohibit foreigners from owning real estate there. So Europeans and Americans will be forced to stay in their countries and wage or suffer war.

In short, they will close the trap as they did in 1939 for Jews (see my blog on the Second World War).

Nationalist parties, why a rise in power as early as the 80s?

Many European nationalist parties were launched in the late 1990s or even the early 2000s. And their rise in power has been essentially from the 2000s. This is the case in Finland with the Finns Party (from 1999), in Greece (Golden Dawn, Popular Orthodox Rally), in Hungary (Jobbik), in Norway (Progress Party), in the Netherlands (Party for Freedom), in Sweden (Sweden Democrats), etc.... So, it corresponds roughly to the agenda described in the previous article (necessity to have nationalist parties in the late 90s and early 2000s, especially on the Internet, to counter anti-illuminatis).

But there are two nationalist parties which have become important in European countries since the 1980s, this is the case of the National Front (NF) in France and the FPO in Austria (with a score of 9.7% since 1986).

It is true that there was also the Italian Social Movement. But it was stagnating at around 5% or 6%, and those scores were down from the 1970s. Similarly, there was the Vlaams Block in Belgium, which had already existed since 1978. But, at first, it was more of a separatist party than an anti-immigrant party. And he scored fairly low until the 1988 Antwerp elections when he scored 17.7%. But it was only in one town. And it didn't result in such high scores in the general election. So, in the 1980s, the only two real nationalist parties, with significant and increasing scores were the FN and the FPO.

That said, the FPO was a little behind the National Front, because it was more a populist party than a far-right party as heretical as the National Front. So his positioning was less extreme. Moreover, even if it belonged to an ideologically emblematic country (Austria, the homeland from which Hitler came), it was of much less geopolitical importance. So it had an impact, but clearly less than that of the NF.

So, in reality, it was mainly the National Front that, in the 1980s, was the great far-right party in Europe.

Once again, one can wonder why the masters of the world made these parties become important so early, when they could have made them emerge towards the end of the 90s, like the others.

In my opinion, there are several reasons.

First, it was used as a deterrent. It was important to continue to impose immigration hysterically, making it a moral problem, almost religious, therefore, a choice that is not debatable. Since Jean-Marie le Pen, the leader of the National Front, was presented as Hitler's spiritual son, who was considered then almost as the devil, to fight against the Pen was to fight against the devil, against the threat of a society with values totally contrary to those in place then, a little hell on earth, therefore clearly a religious type of fight. Moreover, French nationalists regularly complained about the "reductio ad Hitlerum", of the demonization to which they were subjected.

And it ensured that people didn't think clearly. If the debate had been dispassionate, people would have been able to say to themselves that it was not normal to bring so many immigrants without training, without money and without speaking the language, which meant that most were unemployable and this, in countries already suffering mass unemployment. But now, with the NF's rejection, people were only thinking with their guts, with their emotions. And as a result, the masters of the world could impose this immigration in European countries easily.

Nationalist movements. Why and why now?

As we have seen, during the 3rd World War between Arab and black Muslims and white Europeans, the latter will be divided into two camps: the anti-illuminatis (allied to Muslims) and the anti-Muslims (themselves divided into moderate democrats and nationalists).

Thus, the rise of nationalist movements has resulted relatively little from the political, economic and social events of the last 40 years. It's something clearly built by Jewish leaders. And of course, all nationalist leaders are Jewish or Freemasons.

If Jewish leaders had wanted there to be no nationalist movements, there would have been nothing or virtually nothing. We would have continued to celebrate the African immigrant as the new superman. We would have continued to say that crossbreeding was inevitable and enviable, and that immigration was economically necessary. And anyone criticizing that would have been blacklisted. The elite would also have put in place a few agents of influence to play the villains who are stigmatized, so that everyone is terrorized at the thought of suffering the same fate. And nobody would have said anything, not even in the private circle.

Even if they hadn't had a particular will on this, most likely nothing would have happened, because the ability of ordinary people to ally themselves is extremely weak.

So, the development of nationalist movements is something that is wanted, put in place, organized by Jewish leaders. This is all under their complete control.

 

The reason that leads them to do this is that since there will be a rise in power of Muslims, it seems normal that there will be a rise in power of nationalist movements. The second is logically the counterpart of the first.

That said, we can think that the illuminatis could have made traditional parties assume the role of nationalists. After all, they could have made them gradually change their minds regarding Muslims and become increasingly hostile to them to the point where war would seem inevitable. Then there would have been no need for nationalist movements.

But, first, it would have seemed odd if extremist movements had not developed at that time. There is an extreme left wing for economic and social issues. It would have seemed suspicious that the far right is not growing in power thanks to the question of immigration. So it was natural to make them gain followers with the arrival of mass immigration.

And second, for the Jewish leaders' plan, there must be fanatics on both sides. It helps explain a future war with the rise of extremism; whereas with moderate democrats on the white side, it lacks fanaticism and hysteria.

These two elements are not totally indispensable. But it makes the story more credible. So it is interesting for the illuminatis to have powerful nationalist movements.

But one can wonder why the illuminatis set up the nationalist movements now. Why don't they increase their power, say 10 or 20 years before the war (around 2035 or 2025)?

After all, it can then be said that because of the abuses of Muslims, democratic parties have changed their minds about them, have hardened and now want to fight them. Since Muslims will then clearly represent a danger to democracy and the Western way of life, it will seem normal for the democratic parties to become hostile to them. And before that, the illuminati can justify the fact that if they continued to bring them in Europe until 2030 or 2040, it is because they were blinded by anti-racism because of the Second World War. In fact, that is what is happening in England. The Brexit is supposed to have been voted in part because of a rejection of immigration, but all this with the classical democratic parties. So, in England, there was no need for nationalist movements to have an already slightly more restrictive policy towards immigrants. And so, we don't see why there would be a need for it in the future.

Well, already, we have the two reasons already mentioned. But there is a third one, which makes the thing indispensable.

As we have seen, during the war, there will be two opposing camps: the anti-Muslim camp and the pro-Muslim camp. And these two camps will consist of two sub-groups:

• the nationalists and the perverted democrats on one side
• the Muslims and the anti-illuminatis conspirationists on the other one.

In these two subgroups, we are interested in nationalists and anti-illuminatis conspirationists.

Here, there is a problem at the level of anti-illuminati conspirationism for the masters of the world. Without another movement facing it, it would be the only conspirationist movement, especially on the Internet.

Of course, at the level of normal people (blue pill), there is all the anti-conspiracy propaganda that allows to control them and prevent them from going to this side. At that level, there is no problem.

But all potential dissidents would risk joining this one movement. In other words, a good number of people of this kind who might otherwise be seduced by nationalism could adhere to anti-illuminatis ideas, particularly about the fact that attacks and wars are bogus. And the illuminatis don't want that. These people must continue to believe in propaganda about the terrorist attacks and think that wars are "real" (in the sense that there are real enemies and nothing is rigged). So there has to be another movement that deals with anti-illuminatis on the Internet and eventually in real life. There must be opposition to anti-illuminatis at the dissident level. There must be some counterpart.

And of course, this counterpart is the anti-Muslim nationalist movements. By having very active nationalist movements on the Internet, we have this opposition to anti-illuminatis on the ideas that the Jewish/illuminatis leaders do not want to see adopted by the anti-Muslims, notably concerning the fact that wars are arranged, that the leaders of the various camps in fact all work for the masters of the world, that the attacks are not only false flags, but even hoaxes, that there are crisis actors, etc...

And this counterpart had to be put in place as soon as the anti-illuminatis movement was launched.

And the latter had to be launched in the early 2000s. This because it took time before the war to spread these incredible ideas and because it was necessary to launch the perversion of society early enough, therefore, it was necessary to launch the anti-illuminati side so that this one makes revelations on the perversion of society.

So, since the anti-illuminatis movement had to be started in the early 2000s, anti-Muslim movements also had to be launched at that time, especially on the Internet. It was absolutely essential.

If nationalist movements were launched around 2030 or 2040, it would be too late. Anti-illuminatis conspirationists would have occupied the ground of dissident ideas for a long time. Therefore, having an anti-Muslim camp right now is necessary to prevent a part of people from adhering to the anti-illuminatis revelations.

That is why, starting around the year 2000, we saw the emergence not only of some official nationalist movements, but also of many small groups of nationalist activists acting essentially on the Internet, as well as individuals holding nationalist blogs.

In fact, it is mainly the last two that are important here. In official nationalist movements, there are mostly ordinary people who are not so likely to believe in anti-illuminatis ideas. Of course, it is still interesting to have official movements to ensure that even at this level, there is no contamination by those ideas. Especially since the power of these organizations (in terms of number of members, and recognition by the media) gives credibility to the small groups that do activism on the Internet.

But since anti-illuminatis propaganda is mainly done on the Internet and aimed at the most rebellious people to official ideas, the most important are the small groups and nationalist individuals who engage in activism on the Internet. It is they who, through their propaganda, prevent nationalists from being seduced by anti-illuminatis ideas.

They are all the more necessary as there are countries that do not have significant nationalist parties yet in 2018. In these countries too, it must be avoided that the anti-illuminati discourse dominates. Therefore, anti-Muslim propaganda on the Internet is needed to keep nationalists away from these ideas. Concerning this battle of ideas, everything is played on the Internet in several countries.

And of course, not only will the various anti-Muslim nationalist movements put forward ideas contrary to those of the anti-illuminatis on the important points we have seen above, but they will also do so in a hysterical manner.

Indeed, the anti-illuminatis camp makes revelations that seem true. Therefore, there is a risk of contamination of anti-Muslims by anti-illuminatis ideas. The mere presence of anti-Muslims and their opposition to anti-illuminatis ideas is not enough. The nationalist camp must be fanatical, hysterical on those points, so that the people who belong to it cannot be convinced by the ideas of the other camp. They must not think calmly. And their field of consciousness must be limited to the problem of Muslims alone and some other political stuff of a lower level of consciousness and therefore not at risk for the Jewish/illuminati leaders.

This is why we have extremely aggressive and often insulting reactions on nationalist sites when a person makes a comment saying that a Muslim attack is a hoax made with crisis actors or that the Second World War was staged and that Hitler was an agent of the system (we can find this kind of reactions also on mainstream sites that let nationalists react on the comments section). This is because these ideas must remain totally taboo among nationalists.

And of course, the overwhelming majority of guys who react like that on forums and blogs are agents of influence. There must be some real excited people who have been influenced by all these years of propaganda. But 99% are paid agents of influence. The true nationalists are not numerous enough to intervene on all subjects on all forums. And they wouldn't be as hysterical, aggressive, ironic, insulting, closed, etc... There's only an army of agents of influence trained for that who can carry out this kind of mission.

And for ordinary people, these reactions from nationalists seem logical. For them, nationalists are aggressive and heinous people. So it's normal for them to react hysterically and obtusely. They will not think for a second that they are agents of influence.

PS: This is also why a number of these anti-Muslim movements are more or less pro-Israel (and completely forget that it was the Jewish leaders who brought Muslims to Europe and continue to do so). Since the aim is for Europeans to approve Israel's enlargement after the war, propaganda must begin right now within the nationalist movements.

This obviously does not mean that nationalist groups that criticize Israel are not led by agents. Jewish leaders control all trends. Same thing for blogs, those which criticize Israel are not all held by true nationalists. There must be some. But most of them are run by agents.

Why do agents of influence reveal the concepts of false flags, hoaxes and crisis actors?

We saw in the previous article that it is normal for agents of influence to reveal the plan of Jewish/illuminatis leaders. It does not bother the latter since the truths revealed are only partial.

But there is one thing that seems rather incredible, it is the revelation of the system of false flags, hoax and crisis actors. There are many sites that are obviously run by agents of influence who regularly reveal new false flags and show that all terrorist attacks are actually carried out by Jewish/illuminatis leaders, and that they are hoaxes made with crisis actors.

At first glance, that sounds extraordinary. Because it seems to go totally against the interests of the elite members, since it shows that the Muslim threat is completely bogus. This is the kind of thing that could ensure that the Third World War does not take place, since many Europeans could think that all this is false and that there is no way they fight against Muslims.

And then, there are reasons to doubt about the fact that these guys are agents. And you can be led to think that, finally, the anti-illuminatis who reveal this are real dissidents, real independent conspirators and not agents of influence.

But when you think about it, you realize that it doesn't really bother the members of the elite.

Because, who's talking about false flags? The anti-illuminatis.

And what will be the role of anti-illuminatis during the 3rd World War? Well, in part to serve as allies for Muslims against anti-Muslims.

From then on, will revealing the false flag principle cause them to be against Muslims during the war? No. On the contrary, since they will know that Muslims are innocent of the crimes attributed to them, they will be all the more ready to ally themselves with them against the "hordes of Satan".

Moreover, it has the important advantage of greatly strengthening the credibility of the agents of influence. With such advanced revelations, people can only think that those who reveal them are real conspirationists and not agents working for the elite.

So, we have this extraordinary situation where agents of influence can speak freely about false flags without it hindering the Jewish/illuminatis leaders' plan for the 3rd World War. However, there is a limit, which is that these revelations can only be made in the anti-illuminatis milieu. Elsewhere, it would become problematic. But still, Jewish/illuminatis leaders can offer themselves the luxury of unveiling some of their most advanced manipulations without them hindering their final plan.

 

That said, in practice, anti-illuminatis agents of influence speak of false flags, but without saying what the purpose is for the illuminatis. The thing is almost never put into perspective in relation to more global objectives. It is part of the recurrent theme among anti-illuminatis that all the information we are given is false, but it does not go any further. As a result, the revelation loses much of its impact. Apparently, even if revealing that it is used to invent a false Muslim enemy is manageable as we have just seen, the elite must still feel that it could be a problem. Perhaps at the present time, these truths could influence some people in the anti-Muslim camp, which would be counterproductive. Thus, agents of influence generally say little or nothing about the root causes of these false flags.

However, people who discover this information about false flags could reason on their own and understand their real cause. But, as we have seen, the agents of the anti-illuminati camp generally do not talk about the war to come against the Muslims (or in a few lines). They focus essentially on the arrival of a Satanist society, the antichrist and other demons. So, the overwhelming majority of people who read this information about false flags will not make the connection between them and a possible 3rd World War against Muslims. In order for these people to establish the link by themselves (since anti-illuminatis agents do not), the anti-illuminatis should also regularly speak of a possible war against Muslims. But they don't.

So, in theory, Jewish/illuminatis leaders could reveal the reasons for false flags. But in practice, it could be quite risky and since they don't like the risk, they don't do it (at least for the moment). But, they can reveal the existence of the false flag system itself without it being problematic for them. As long as the real causes of these are not given, everything is fine.

 

Where it would really be surprising is if some nationalists also revealed the principle of false flags, hoaxes and crisis actors. By this I mean the fact that the overwhelming majority of attacks are actually bogus. Now, that would really go against the interests of the illuminatis. Because there, many anti-Muslims could say to themselves that since the attacks are bogus, Muslims are not the bloodthirsty fools of Allah whom they are told and that there is no way they will fight against them.

But, on the anti-Muslim side, nobody reveals the principle of false flags, with the exception of a few rather particular ones. On the contrary, as soon as an anti-illuminati comes to speak of false flag regarding a terrorist attack, most nationalists (mainly agents of influence) criticize him hysterically. On the anti-Muslim side, the false flag principle is almost totally taboo.

It shows that the nationalist side is completely under control, because most false flags are obvious. So if they were honest, some nationalists should talk about it (I mean people who have a blog or a website). But no, nobody does. Nobody does it because nearly all of them are agents.

In fact, there are some false flags that are revealed in the nationalist milieu. But it's essentially when it affects Russian interests. Here, all of a sudden, it is acceptable in this political milieu to talk about false flags (generally presented as made by Americans of course). As it remains within the framework of the influence game between states, and as it concerns only a rather small number of events, it does not lead to any major questioning. Nationalists will not extend the concept to all attacks (whereas this is the case among anti-illuminatis; for them, all attacks are false flags). So that's not a problem for the elite.

And they hardly ever talk about hoax. For them, even for the very rare times they speak of false flags, they almost always admit that something really happened and that the people involved in the affair are real people, but manipulated by this or that power. As a result, the concept of crisis actors is also unknown to them.

So, we are very far from the impact of the anti-illuminatis revelations concerning this subject.

And one can think that if there are these few revelations concerning false flags on the nationalist side, it is probably partly to counter the concept that is proposed on the anti-illuminati side. This allows saying that on the nationalist side, people are not closed to the concept of state manipulation regarding terrorist attacks.