TOPIC: UN Migration Pact Would Bring 60 Million Brown People to Europe
UN Migration Pact Would Bring 60 Million Brown People to Europe 29 Dec 2018 13:40 #141
The Religious Origins of Globalism
Contrary to what most people think, the use of the word “Jew” is not yet against the law.
Hebraic prophecies thus promise the progression of humanity towards a unified world, and parallel to that, the suppression of social inequalities. Here one can see the primitive sources of Marxism as well as the inspiration of our planetarian ideology at the beginning of third millennium, which, propagated by the media, is the dream of so many of our fellow citizens.
Here is the heart of the Jewish vision of the world.
One can thus argue that the concept of “promised land” means nothing less than a hope of planetary dimensions, where all the nations will have disappeared.
It is just what the philosopher Edgar Morin tells us, when he writes: “We do not have the Promised land, but we have an aspiration, a
wish, a myth, a dream: to realize a global fatherland”
It is undeniable that the leaders of the American Jewish community bear a good part of the blame for the war in Iraq.
One would have to be blind not to see it; one would have to be insincere to deny it.
Their (Jews) political weight has been important in each successive US government since the beginning of the 20th century.
But people will state in all sincerity that these wars are works of “peace”! Just listen to Elie Wiesel, winner of the Nobel Prize for “Peace,”
who was naturally an ultra-warmonger in 1991, when he agitated for war against Iraq: “It is not only a question of helping Kuwait,” he said then, “but of protecting the entire Arab world.” Thus all Westerners were to be mobilized against the “butcher of Baghdad,” guilty because he threatened
the state of Israel:
“Against war,” Elie Wiesel writes, “it is imperative to make war. Against destructive force employed against humanity, it is
necessary to oppose a greater force, so that humanity can survive. For the sake of the safety of the civilized world, its right to peace, and not only for the future of Israel. . . . A thirst for vengeance? No: a thirst for justice. And for peace” (Elie Wiesel, Mémoires 2, [Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1996], pp. 144, 146, 152).
But it is of course out of the question that the Jewish state itself should deal with this military grunt work. It is the task of the West, which must be convinced by “sensitivity” campaigns, to go to oust the dictator. Once your enemy is vanquished, your tireless combat for democracy and “peace” can be resuscitated whenever politically convenient.
You speak about “democracy.” What kind of relationship can there be between a political system and Messianic faith? Is democracy necessary for the arrival of the Messiah?
Democracy was not always the sole vehicle of planetarian hopes.
For a long time, the Marxist ideal also played this role. It is well-known that Marx himself, and the great majority of the main Marxist
ideologues and leaders, were Jewish: Lenin had Jewish origins, Leon Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Georg Lukacs, Ernest Mandel, etc., just as were
almost all of the leaders of May ’68. It is not an accident, and every Communist militant knows it.
Marxism aspires to the establishment of a perfect world, where religions, like nations, will have disappeared along
with social conflicts.
This schema, we note, fits perfectly within the messianic framework.
The thought of Marx is ultimately only the secularization of traditional Jewish eschatology.
George Steiner has presented Marxism from the point of view biblical prophecies: “Marxism,” he says, “is at bottom merely Judaism in a hurry.
Neither Marx, nor Lenin, nor Trotsky believed in a God, and yet their Jewish origins appear in full light within the framework of Jewish
This mobilizing Utopia is always necessary for a despairing democratic system, which offers nothing to its youth but trips to the mall. Thus Marxism ultimately renders its best services when it is nested inside democracy. Marxism and democracy are two absolutely complementary and mutually indispensable forces in the project of constructing a global Empire. Without Communism, the opposition would inevitably move
towards nationalist currents, and the system would not survive it.
After the failure of state Communism, are multiracial democracy and “human rights” now the absolute weapon of the “planetarian” forces?
The objective of the globalists is to destroy rooted, traditional cultures to create a uniform world.
This aspiration to unity was expressed by the Hasidic philosopher Martin Buber, who does not appear to
realize that he is giving us an exact definition of totalitarianism:
Everywhere,” he writes, “one will find [in Judaism] the aspiration towards
unity. Towards unity within the individual. Towards unity between the
divided members of the people, and between the nations. Towards the unity
of man and all living things, towards the unity of God and of the world”
(Judaïsme, 1982, p. 35).
To arrive to this perfect world, it is thus necessary to mix, crush, dissolve all national resistances and ethnic or religious identities. “Unity” can be created only from human powder and the residues of great civilizations, and in this enterprise of destroying traditional civilizations, immigration plays a crucial role. The doctrines of “human rights” are here a weapon of war of a terrible effectiveness.
Here is what grand rabbi Kaplan says: “The advent of an era without menaces to mankind will depend largely upon the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. . . . Respect for the Universal declaration of human rights is an obligation so pressing that it is the duty of everyone to contribute to all the projects tending toward its universal and complete application. ”
The whole of humanity must submit to it. This amounts to saying that “human rights” are the tool privileged for carrying out the promises of Yahweh.
Thus it is no accident that René Cassin, the inspirer of the 1948 declaration, was also the general secretary of the Alliance israélite universelle. In 1945, General de Gaulle appointed him the head of the Council of State. His body rests in the Pantheon, in the temple of the great men of the republic.
Is there unanimity among Jewish intellectuals on the question of immigration?
Jewish intellectuals can be liberals, Marxists, Zionists, religious, or atheists. But all these divergences do not at all invalidate the messianic foundation of their aspirations. And on immigration, I can assure you that they are unanimous.
....only a multiracial society guarantees the realization of the planetarian project.
A November 2005 report of the World Bank also encourages Russia to open its borders and to undertake a large-scale immigration policy, which
would be “one of the main conditions of a stable economic growth” and would make it possible to face the ageing of the population.
Let us note all the same that Paul Wolfowitz, the President of the World Bank, has never encouraged Arab immigration to Israel to support the wavering population of this country.
Remarks of this sort are found systematically in almost all Jewish intellectuals, be they Marxists like Jacques Derrida, socialists like Guy
Konopnicki, or liberals like Guy Sorman or Alain Minc.
Moreover, they all show an annoying tendency to treat us like morons, by telling us, for example, that immigration has not increased for twenty years or that insecurity would not in any case be related to this phenomenon. Cohn Bendit ensures us straightforwardly that “to stop racism, it would be best to further increase the number from abroad”!
Their remarks on this subject are staggeringly brazen.
For instance, Guy Sorman flatly states that the France of yesteryear, with its dialects and patois, was altogether “more
multicultural than it is it today” (En attendant les barbares, pp. 174-79). It is one example among many of this invincible brazenness, of which they are very proud, and which they call “chutzpah.”
The objective is to destroy the white world, and, in a more general way, all rooted societies. All these intellectuals assure us that this development is inescapable, and that consequently, there is no use opposing it.
You must understand that they seek to prohibit the very idea of defending
oneself. The unanimity of cosmopolitan discourse on this subject is really
One often hears that the Jews were regarded by the Nazis as an “inferior race.” Your research, I believe, tends to show that they regard themselves as “the superior race.” Please explain.
I can assure you that there is an immense pride in belonging to the “chosen people.” And among intellectuals this pride combines with a no less great contempt for the sedentary nations, considered to be very definately inferior
It is not enough for these intellectuals to talk nonsense, to lull us with “human rights,” to bind us with repressive laws, and to inject us with alien
cultural poisons. They also have to pour into our ears their contempt for our old cultures.
But this contempt does not seem to fully satisfy their thirst for revenge.
They must also insult us and spit in our faces: “ignoramuses, xenophobes, paranoiacs, morons, lunatics, etc.” That is what we are.
In La Vengeance des Nations (1990), Alain Minc, who explains to us the benefits of immigration, ensures us that it is “ “ignorance which feeds xenophobia” (p.154), that it is thus necessary “to fight against the crazy xenophobes, and be done with this “French paranoia” (pp. 208).
Toward this end, Alain Minc proposes systematically to favor immigrants over the native French, on the American model. As media sensation Michael Moore proclaims in his 2002 book Stupid White Men, in the United States it is no longer really necessary to treat stupid white men with kid gloves, since they do not understand anything that is happening to them.
And I will not recount the innumerable films in which the cosmopolitan scriptwriters take their revenge against Christian civilization and the whites in general. It seems obvious to me, regarding all this logorrhea, that these people hate us. It could not be any more obvious if they wore flashing neon signs on their heads.
How do you explain this obvious lust for vengeance in [Jewish] religious texts that profess universal peace? What is the source of this
The spirit of revenge is found in quite a few texts. It appears in novels like Albert Cohen’s Frères humains or Patrick Modiano’s
La Place de l’Etoile. Albert Cohen’s Frères humains or Patrick Modiano’s La Place de l’Etoile. The current American guru of Afrocentrism, Martin
Bernal, who is “white,” also evokes this sentiment: “My goal is to reduce the intellectual arrogance of Europeans.”
Now, if one plunges into the remote past, one realizes that these attitudes have traversed the centuries
without so much as a wrinkle.
At the beginning of the 16th century, for example, Rabbi Shlomo Molkho, who was regarded by many Jews as a Messianic figure, wrote his
very revealing prophetic visions in which one finds the idea of a “revenge against the gentiles” which will be achieved.
He also assures us that “the foreigners will be broken” and that “the nations will tremble” (Moshe Idel,
Messianisme et mystique, 1994, pp. 65-66).
...then he adds furthermore: “God reveals not only how to fight against Christianity . . . but still how to break the force of Christianity so that the Redemption occurs”
Isn’t it clear?
One can find this type of delirious prophecy in many other Jewish historical characters, such as Isaac Abravanel, who was the chief of the
Jewish community of Spain before the expulsion of 1492, and who became one of the mythical heroes of the Jews of Iberian origin.
For those who still wonder about the reasons for this secular hatred, here is a small explanation: “It is close the day when the eternal will take revenge on all the nations that destroyed the First Temple and which controlled Israel in the exile. And with you also, Edom, as you made at thetime of the destruction of the Second Temple, you will know the sword and revenge (Obadia). . . . Any deliverance promised to Israel is associated withthe fall of Edom” (Lamentations 4:22; p. 276).
This vengeful hatred, nursed for twenty centuries, was also expressed by the philosopher Jacob Talmon, who wrote in 1965: “The Jews have very old blood feuds to settle with the Christian West” (J.-L. Talmon, Destin
d’Israël, [Paris: Calmann-Lévy 1965, 1967], p. 18).
Pierre Paraf, the formerPresident of the LICA (League against Anti-Semitism), writes, in the voice of a character of his novel republished in 2000: “So many of our brothers marked by circumcision groan under the whip of the Christians. Glory to God! Jerusalem will gather them together one day; they will have their revenge!” (Quand Israël aima [Paris: Les belles letters, 1929, 2000, p. 19).
These people are tenacious in their resentment.
Isn’t the desire to found a world government one of the delusions of the “enlightened,” as Taguieff would say?
It is quite clear that all this is being done to make us disavow our roots, our traditions, our history, our families, and our fatherlands, in order to make us more receptive to the “open” society dear to cosmopolitan hearts and to the idea of a world government.
The postmodern man must cease “pursuing traces of the past in himself as in others.”
From there, one can finally admit the idea of a “planetary confederation,” as advocated by the sociologist Edgar “Morin” in all his books, or better yet, to work for the introduction of world government, as Jacques Attali expresses it: “After the installation of European continental institutions, the urgent need for a world government will appear”
The enemy of the Jews is the enemy of all humanity.
This is also what Elie Wiesel means when he writes in volume 2 of his Memories: “Thus it is and cannot be otherwise: the enemy of the Jews is the enemy of humanity. .
But there is also another interpretation, more classical, which is based on the idea that the Jews alone are defined as humanity, the other nations deriving, according to a so-called formula of the Talmud, from “the seed of cattle.”
You have to understand: “the Jew” is always innocent.
These too are not isolated testimonies, and this attitude seems to be that of a majority of the Jewish intellectuals.
One also often hears that anti-Semitism is a mental illness.
Since anti-Semitism is unexplained, and the Jews are innocent, logically the problem can come only from the goys. The explanation of anti-Semitism as mental derangement is very frequently found in the writings of Jewish intellectuals.
Last Edit: 29 Dec 2018 13:45 by annabelle.
Only registered members can reply. Create an Account to join the discussion.