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 illogical elements of this theory

What is wrong with this version of history is that there are many paintings of kings, princes and other aristocrats making freemasons (or illuminati) hand signs until at least 500 or 600 years ago. However, at that time, most of the countries in question had not yet been placed under Jewish domination, according to the conspiracy chronology. So there is a problem. If these personalities made freemasons signs, before the Jewish leaders took power, it is because the illuminati elite is not a Jewish elite.

And if we were to think that the Jewish leaders had taken control of Europe earlier than we thought, which would explain the paintings in question, then there are a number of things that are not right. First, why wait so long before retaking Israel? With all the European rulers under their control, and with Western technological advance, it was easy to defeat the Turks and take Palestine from them. It could have been done as early as the 18th century, or at worst, in the 19th century.

In the same way, the French revolution no longer makes sense. Why get rid of the King of France, if he was a crypto-Jewish? The same goes for the Russian revolution. Why do it if the Tsar was a crypto-Jewish?

Why continue to have Jewish ghettos and ostracize Jews even in the 19th century with discriminatory laws, if Jews had already been in power for 300 or 400 years throughout Europe? For fear of mixing? But they were not afraid of such a thing in the 19th century in many European countries, when Israel's creation was still far away. And then, to take power, it was counterproductive. With only the richest Jews being present in Western society, it was much more difficult to take power in the press, publishing, political parties, courts, police, army, education, medicine, etc...

And to return to the topic of Palestine, why, at the time of colonization, in the 19th century, not colonize it? We have Europe colonizing nearly every part of the world: North America, South America, the whole of Africa, India, and a part of Asia... but not the Middle East. And this, while Jewish leaders are in power. It is completely illogical.

Especially since the Ottoman empire was apparently very weak, since the kingdom of Egypt defeated it twice (and a first time with troops 6 times less numerous) in 1831 and 1839. And in September 1840, in Palestine, the Anglo-Austrian troops defeated the freshly victorious Egyptian troops in a matter of weeks with an expeditionary force of only 7,000 men. So since the Anglo-Austrians were much more powerful than the Egyptians, who were themselves more powerful than the Ottomans, the Anglo-Austrians could have gotten rid of the Ottomans with a twist. This was the perfect time for Jewish leaders to seize Palestine through their English and Dutch puppets.

But, while they therefore had this golden opportunity to take control of Palestine, they returned it to the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. It was only at the end of 1917 that the British took over Palestine. Strange for a kingdom (English) controlled by Jews who have been obsessed for 2000 years with taking over Palestine.

See here:

"Palestine remained under Egyptian rule until the Second Egyptian-Ottoman War (1839-1841) when the intervention of the Western powers restored it to the Sultan."

And this is also true for Napoleon's expedition to Egypt. If Napoleon was under Jewish control and the English were too, then they should have joined their forces to retake Palestine in 1800; this under any false pretext. Of course, they could hardly present themselves as allies. But they could have pretended to be enemies while allowing one of them to take over Palestine. For example, England could have intervened late enough for the French to seize Palestine. England could then have destroyed the French fleet and seized the territory conquered by Napoleon in Palestine and not returned it to the Sultan. It could later have made it an independent territory under the control of Jewish leaders, allowing them to bring many of their own more than a century before the Balfour declaration. But no, instead, the English annihilated the French fleet anchored in Abukir Bay and destroyed Napoleon's plan to seize Palestine and Syria at the same time.

In addition, some say that the Turkish Empire was also under Jewish rule for some time. And that makes sense. If Jewish leaders had succeeded in taking control of all European countries, then why not Turkey? And that should have been one of their main objectives, since they were the masters of Palestine. But in this case, why didn't the Turkish Sultans give Palestine to the Jews as early as 1700 or 1800?

In fact, we do not see why Jewish leaders would have needed to make this whole complicated plan to take control of Europe before attacking the Middle East. It would have been sufficient for them to have taken power in the Ottoman Empire; for example, by instigating endless revolts in this region (a field in which they are supposed to excel).

From then on, a Sultan under the orders of Jewish leaders could have pretended to lose Palestine and had it taken by a sovereign favorable to the Jews. And after 100 years, they could have ensured that Jews be the majority and that the Jewish religion become the state religion. All this could have been done as early as 1600, or even much earlier (since in official history, it was rather since the first centuries of the Christian era that they were expelled from Palestine). So they could have reclaimed Palestine centuries ago.

And taking back Palestine would not have prevented them from seizing world power. On the contrary, having their own territory would have strengthened their power. Therefore, it should have been one of their objectives to take back Palestine as soon as possible.

 

It must also be seen that the French revolution seems to have been carried out with the complicity of the king, all the princes and the nobility. However, according to the classic conspiracy chronology, the Jewish and Freemasonic elite is supposed to have taken power in France during the revolution. Before, they were supposed to have infiltrated part of the nobility, an important part of the intellectual world. But the power was supposed to still belong to the Catholic nobility. However, if the king and the nobility organized the revolution, it means that France had been under Jewish/illuminati domination for much longer than that. So, it strongly undermines the classic conspiracy chronology. The problem is that if we go beyond this classic chronology, a certain number of illogicality appears as we have seen above.

Moreover, for France, if we think that there has been a takeover of royalty by Jewish leaders, we can easily go back to Henry II, since his wife was a Medici (Catherine de Médicis), and the Medicis seem to have been under Jewish control or to have been Jews themselves. Thus, France would have been under Jewish rule since 1547, i.e. before England and Cromwell, around 1649.

Again, one may wonder why the Israel project was not implemented earlier. And why get rid of the King of France in 1789, if he was a puppet in the service of Jewish leaders?

And since Jewish leaders are supposed to hate the Christian religion, why not have an anti-Christian policy in place since then, instead of starting it in France in 1870? Or at least, why not have an anti-Catholic policy, since before the rise of the Protestants, it was still the Catholics who were supposed to persecute the Jews? Why not have made the Protestants win by infiltrating them into positions of power once Henry IV was in power? Or even before, during the religious wars, since Jewish leaders were already in power. Especially since, like Germany, Holland, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries had switched to Protestantism; it would not have seemed very strange for France to succumb also. And Italy (at least part of it) should also have switched to Protestantism, since the Medicis were under Jewish control.

Since the Protestants had a vision of the economy closer to that of Jews, it would have saved Jewish leaders a lot of time in converting French society to a capitalist economy of which they would have been the masters.

So the story is problematic, regardless of the paintings. And if Jewish leaders had taken power earlier than conspirationists had previously thought (which would explain the paintings), the story would be even more problematic.

About the paintings with illuminati signs, some might also say that Jewish leaders had false paintings painted in the 18th and 19th centuries (of characters from the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th centuries) to make people believe 150 or 200 years later that they were not responsible for the various events that happened during those years, but the European elite.

But that seems unlikely. Because if that were the case, the old elite that was being replaced would have said so. 

But let's say that's the case and it may have gone unnoticed. This implies that Jewish leaders were very concerned that their secret would one day be discovered and that this could put them at risk.

Except it shouldn't have worried them that much. Indeed, once they had become the masters of the world, they would then have controlled all the armies and police forces of the world, so they could have locked up, eliminated or preventively prohibited any person or movement that came too close to the truth. So no one would have been really dangerous and they would no longer have to fear being exposed one day. As a result, creating these false paintings would have been of no interest.

Moreover, having the power means that they would have controlled all the media. However, in an era when the media was reduced to the press, a single person or small groups could never have influenced anything other than a very small circle of people. So, at that time (in the 18th and 19th centuries), there was no danger that a quite large group of people would ever be able to access the truth.

Then, we can also suppose that they knew not only that radio and television would be invented 150 to 200 years later, but that the Internet would even exist! That would mean that they would have had an incredibly advanced knowledge of science and technology. And not only of the techniques, but also of their uses.

Why not? But if they had such an incredibly advanced knowledge, why didn't they take the power in Europe (and even the Middle East) much sooner? And once that was done, why didn't they improve the technique from the Middle Ages, so they could take over Israel from that time on?

And radio and television, by their centralized nature, were not likely to pose more control problems for Jewish leaders than newspapers. Only the Internet could do it. But by being the masters of the world at that time, they could very well limit its use under any pretext. This meant that even the Internet was not a problem a priori. So, again, there was no reason to invent a false elite.

And then, trying to muddy the waters about the nature of the elite would not have changed much for their position in the future in the case of a revolt against their power. Indeed, whether the elite in power in the 2000s actually came from the former European dynasties or the Jewish elite, the people who revolt will still target the elite, whoever they may be. Whether the leader of the ruling dynasty of the 2000s is called Rothschild, Goldman or Jacques de Roque, for those who want to overthrow their power, it is the same thing. If people revolt tomorrow, they will arrest the members of the ruling elite. At the very least, they will arrest certain members of the former nobility preventively in addition to arresting Jewish members of the elite. But that would be of no interest to Jewish leaders in the event of an insurrection. So, lying about the origin of the elite should lead to very few advantages in the future.

And if the Jewish leaders had been very discreet once in power and had made sure that they no longer appeared as Jews and that Jewish power was hardly visible, one could have thought that this plan might have had a small interest. But that is not the case. Nowadays, there are many members of the elite who do not hide or hardly hide from being Jewish and there are others who hide from it, but who can be easily identified as such. So trying 200 years in advance to accuse the old European dynasties of being in fact the real elite was already of little use. But, by barely hiding, it's pointless.

In short, this hypothesis that the paintings of the aristocrats of ancient times showing illuminated signs are in fact fakes made by Jews in the 18th and 19th centuries in order to be able to accuse the European elite in the future rather than themselves is not logical.

So these paintings are indeed those of the dynastic elite of 500 or 600 years ago. So maybe they were already Jews. But we've seen that this doesn't hold either. So it was indeed the Christian aristocratic elite of the time that was already making these gestures.

But well, it doesn't matter that the elite presented itself as Christian at the time. For the elite, religion is only an additional means of control. All that matters here is that it was the elite.

And so, it is the elite that has been in place for 600 years that is behind everything we are seeing now. The conspiracy does not go back 200 or 300 years, and to a supposed takeover by the Jewish elite. The whole scam goes back to before. We have been under the domination of the same elite since almost the beginning, or at least for a very, very long time.

On the other hand, it is true that some of the paintings were made in the 18th and 19th centuries. This is what we can see with some supporters of the New Chronology theory. So, there is still an invention of tables and historical references. But it's useful to the European elite. This allows it to make people believe that the story goes back longer than it actually is. But it's not about hiding one elite behind another.

So this story of Jewish leaders seeking to bring the chosen people back to the land of Israel after 2000 years of exile, and who would have gradually taken power in Europe between the 16th and 20th centuries, is certainly false. It was invented and implemented by the real elite, the dynasty in power since immemorial time.

The reason for the Israel project

The next question is why did they carry out the Israel project? Since the official reason is false, it is not to bring the Jewish people back after hundreds of years of exile. So, what's the point for them?

It can't be an economic reason, since they already own all the earth. So the whole economy belongs to them. There is no new land to be won. They already own the Middle East.

At the stage of reflection I am at, and apart from supernatural hypotheses, the only reason I see at the moment is racist. The goal is to extend the white race to the Middle East. I think it's part of a great plan to expand the white world since the renaissance era. It has been extended first to America, then to Australia, and now to the Middle East.

Then, why?

The first hypothesis is based on the theory of the new chronology. It is possible that there was a world cataclysm (around 1400 ) that reduced the number of whites on earth and that the elite had as a project, following this disaster, to make the white world regain the numerical dominance it had previously, as well as the lost territories (and perhaps to conquer new ones). This would mean that the ruling elite would not consider all humans as interchangeable slaves. And it itself would not be a cosmopolitan elite. It would be a white elite favoring the white world. And, among other things, the apparently anti-white policies of recent decades would only serve as decoys to keep people from seeing that. They would also serve to prevent people from understanding that a dynasty governs the earth.

If we do not go into the field of new chronology history and remain in the official chronology, it is possible that, around the Middle Ages, the European elite became aware of the extent of the planet, realized that the white world had only a small part of it and decided to correct that. It did so by colonizing North America and Australia, which was a huge piece. But, from the beginning, the elite thought that the white world should also extend to the Middle East. And this is the Israel project.

In this second case, it means that the elite did not control all the earth at first. They would have seized power in Asia and elsewhere (probably through colonization).

It is also possible that, for the elite, whites appear to be the best slaves (smarter, more productive, more docile, more creative, more entertaining, etc.). So they would seek to favor them over other races. It would then only be a selection of the best servants.

What is the usefulness of the Jews in the Israel project?

The problem with the Israel project (which could also be called the Middle East project) is that the Middle East has many indigenous people. And there already are constituted states.

Of course, the states in this area are under control and so are the populations. So the elite could do what they want with the current populations. She could replace them with Europeans easily. But people must never suspect that there is a world elite that takes all the decisions and that all events are planned at the highest level. That would be catastrophic for the elite in question. So, they have to be able to present a story that makes people believe that events happened by chance.

So, since there are already states, the elite must destroy them. And it is the Jewish/illuminated leaders who will set up the geopolitical framework to achieve this. But the settlers will still have to provide soldiers to occupy the conquered territories. And as far as the eviction of the indigenous population is concerned, even if the Jewish/illuminati elite provides the justifications and legality, here again, the settlers have their part to play. And as there will be many indigenous populations to displace, they will have to be particularly cruel.

So, regarding the settler population, fanatical and violent people are required.

This is the case with the Jewish population. It has been specially designed for this purpose. We have a lot of very religious people; so very fanatical. In addition, Jewish holy books regularly advocate violence, which adds to the intrinsic violence of fanatics. In addition, they believe that their religion and people has been the object of persecutions. Almost all of them are inventions, but the important thing is that they believe it. And the very few that are true were decided and organized by the elite as part of the Israel project. So we are dealing with people with strong paranoid tendencies, who in turn tend to hold a grudge against other peoples and religions. So, for them, violence against others is justified because others have harmed them or want to harm them but do not yet have the power to do so.

And all the paranoia that the elite maintains among the Jews is good for the settlement plan. With this constant fear of being persecuted again, deported or even subjected to a new Shoah, ordinary Jews will be ready to vote for all the most extremist parties in due course. Because indeed, there is not necessarily a need for all Jews to be directly violent. All they have to do is vote for parties that will use violence. It is also sufficient if they do not protest against the abuses of the army, police, etc. But a small number (higher than among a less fanatical people) will be ready to use violence directly (the most fanatical, the most stupid, often young people, etc...).

Closer to us, the idea has been spread that if Jews were persecuted during the Second World War, it was because they were morally and physically weak and too peaceful. This theory is used to convey the idea that Jews have now reached the conclusions of their recent history and that they will resort to ultra-violence in the face of any potential enemy. This idea further justifies the use of violence. One manifestation of this trend is that some Jewish magazines tell us that Jews in the 2000s started doing bodybuilding, krav maga and other combat sports, so that they would no longer be like the puny and submissive Jew of the 1930s.

In addition, Jews will believe that they do not have a backup plan. In their minds, it will be either this place or persecution or extermination elsewhere. So they will have to confront the natives.

The importance of the mother in education is also a good find for the elite. Being pampered by the mother during childhood tends to create people with poor resistance to frustration and therefore potentially more violent (towards themselves and others). This is what we can also see in the Arab populations. And we see this more and more in Western populations, with the rise of divorce.

The other important element is that religious people and especially fanatics tend to have a higher birth rate. This is what we can see in Israel. Israeli Jewish women have an average of 3.1 children per woman, which is much higher than elsewhere in the West (maximum 2 children, often even less). This is a crucial asset for achieving settlement colonization.

Since Israel is an elite project that dates back several hundred years, it can be assumed that the history of the Jewish people is totally false and that it was simply invented by the elite. They probably used a minority sect that existed in Germany or Eastern Europe at the time of the religious wars. Or they created one from scratch in that area (most Protestant religious minorities were probably also created). And they have from the beginning, or gradually, invented a thousand-year-old history located in Palestine. Since the leaders of this cult were all part of the elite, it was not difficult to do that.

So the false story that was invented by the elite makes Jews believe that they have a right to this land. If they are religious, they think that this right is sacred because it is given by God. And, for those who are not religious, they feel that they have this right not only because they were the first in history to own this territory but also because the Jewish people have been so persecuted that they have the right to own their own land where they will be safe. This sense of entitlement is very important because it prevents settlers from migrating elsewhere in case of difficulty. This would happen if these settlers did not feel they had this special right to this land. In case of danger, they could think that they might as well go to another country. Now they will do anything to keep it.

So, this false story has created a nationalist territorial feeling among people who would not have had any reason to have any regarding this territory otherwise. And it is even an improved nationalism, since it is not only supported by the feeling that this land belongs to them historically speaking, but also by a feeling of divine election as well as election through their status of victims.

Thanks to these various elements, the Jewish/illuminati elite has at its disposal a population with an excellent potential for violence that will be ready to carry out the cruel actions necessary for the colonization of the Middle East, either directly or indirectly by voting for radical political parties and letting the military and other armed militias do their work. And thanks to the massive influence of religion, this population also has an excellent birth rate, which is very important for colonization. This is what Jews are used for in the Israel project.

Similarities and differences with the American project

We have seen that colonization in North America was in fact a result of a racist project by the elite, such as the Israel project. As a result, there are obviously similarities in the types of populations chosen, as well as the means used to make future settlers emigrate and to get rid of indigenous people.

First, as with Jews, many of the people who emigrated to North America at the very beginning were members of religious minorities and followed open or more or less hidden and more or less harsh persecutions (Puritans, Anabaptists, and Quakers for England; more or less Catholics for the Irish; radical pietists, menonists, Moravians, Swenkfelders, Amish, Dunkers, etc.., for the Germans; Protestants for France, etc.).

That's what we can see here:

"Many of the British North American colonies that eventually formed the United States of America were settled in the seventeenth century by men and women, who, in the face of European persecution, refused to compromise passionately held religious convictions and fled Europe. The New England colonies, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were conceived and established "as plantations of religion." Some settlers who arrived in these areas came for secular motives--"to catch fish" as one New Englander put it--but the great majority left Europe to worship God in the way they believed to be correct."

Some religious groups emigrated to America without being under direct threat of persecution, such as the pilgrim fathers in 1620 (see here). Indeed, they had fled England because of religious persecution, but had found refuge in Holland, where they could practice their religion freely. But they left because they were afraid of being assimilated (fear of disappearance by assimilation that we find among Jews today). And since they were radicals, it seemed normal for them to emigrate in order to be able to live their religion as they wanted. We see here that, in fact, there was not even always a need for religious persecution to justify a departure for America.

In passing, it may be thought that the leaders of these dissident religious movements were part of the elite or were agents of the elite and pushed other members to emigrate. It makes sense. If the elite wanted to send Europeans to America, it was, if not essential, at least extremely useful, to have men of its own at their head. And it's the same with ordinary Jews. Their leaders are members of the elite and have pushed them to go to Israel and stay there.

So, first of all, having a religious dissidence and a power that is more or less hostile to it made it possible to have many potential settlers, as happened with the Jews. The same techniques that had worked before were used with the Jews.

Moreover, the interest of having religious dissidents at the very beginning of colonization, who have been expelled from their country or who have left on their own, is that they will stay despite adversity. And of course, if their leaders are elite agents, they will ensure that they discourage community members from leaving.

Third advantage, either the chosen sects already naturally make many children because it is recommended by their god (the "grow and multiply" found in the Bible), or the community leaders advise it to strengthen the community against other (supposedly hostile) communities that are nearby (the case of Israeli Jews). In both cases, we have communities with a high birth rate that will allow the settler population to grow rapidly and replace the native population.

Of course, the fact that the conditions are favourable helps to have a good birth rate: having a large living space (the case of the USA, and partly Israel via the expulsion of the natives) is good; being economically favored by the elite too (money that rains on the Jewish community).

Fourthly, it can also be said that since North America was very sparsely populated, the idea that this land would be a kind of Promised Land (in the biblical sense of the word) was sold to some dissident religious groups, just as it was promised to the Jews. This is the case of the Puritans, who wanted to create a New Jerusalem there. But probably that at the very beginning, other groups thought so. Obviously, when there were many different groups, it was no longer possible to think that. But at least at first, it was. In the case of Israel, this is even clearer, since to start with, it is supposed to be the land promised by God in the Old Testament. Obviously, this too reinforces the desire to stay for the settlers who arrive at the very beginning.

Some migrations seem to have been caused by famine or poverty, but have in fact been hidden persecutions. This is what happened with Irish emigration in 1845-1852. In fact, it was the conditions created by the British government that pushed the 1.2 million Irish people to go to America. We are led to believe that the Irish only grew potatoes. In fact, they grew a lot of other vegetables. But the English government took almost everything from them except potatoes. And when the famine arrived, would you believe! there was no help from the English, or from other European countries (especially Catholics) or simply from the Lords who owned a huge part of the land. On the contrary, they are said to have expelled 500,000 farmers from their farms. As by "chance" also, the cost of travel to America was very affordable. And the lords sometimes financed the trip out of their own pockets for the farmers they had expelled.

One may wonder why the Irish did not emigrate to Europe rather than go to America. After all, being Catholics, they could go to France, Italy, Spain, etc... Especially since the colonies already present in the United States were Anglican or Protestant, they could fear further persecution there, even if the country claimed to be liberal regarding religion.

It is true that we could defend the idea that since people spoke English in the United States, it was the logical country for Irish emigrants. But well, the Pilgrim Fathers did emigrate first to Holland. And anyway, there has been a mass immigration of many illiterate people who do not speak the language of the country for 200 years, both in the USA and in Europe. So, there is no reason why the language barrier should have stopped the Irish (especially in the face of the real risk of being mistreated again in the USA).

In fact, everything was planned to force them to go to America. So it was out of the question that the governments of other European countries would help them. And it was also out of the question that they would emigrate to Europe (at least en masse). Their only way out was North America, as Israel was the only way out for Jews just before, during and just after World War II.

That said, it is clear that there have not only been immigrants fleeing religious persecution. There were also English immigrants of Anglican religion who were sent to the United States. The English governments of the time ensured that English following the Anglican religion emigrated to the United States. If there had only been religious dissidents or Catholics, it would have seemed suspicious.

But the English persecuted for their religion must clearly have been the most numerous, since the Episcopal Church of the United States, which is derived from the Anglican religion, currently represents only the 14th religion in the United States. However, it seems to be the religion derived from the most important Anglican religion in the United States.

And you can read here that: "By 1776, 75% of the American population were of Puritan roots". So, apparently, the number of puritans had increased very sharply. And if that is the case, given their limited number at the beginning, it is because they must have had a very high birth rate.

By the way, we can understand why there was this bizarre Anglicanism in Great Britain. It was actually intended and organized by the elite, because it made it possible to expel both radical Protestants and other dissident sects from those times, as well as Catholics. It was a win-win situation in terms of potential settlers.

And, it's to be explored, but we can think that the religious wars were partly made for that.

The fifth advantage of migrants being very religious people at the very beginning of colonization is that they are also fanatics. Of course, a very religious group is not necessarily fanatical, but in the present situation, the elite has made it so. This is the case for pilgrim fathers, puritans and others. Again, it's like the Jews.

What is the point of having very religious people to colonize a country in the beginning? It's because, as they are fanatics, they are generally intolerant and therefore much more willing to be violent towards indigenous people than more ordinary people. They will have a sense of entitlement, when normal people could feel guilty.

They will feel all the more legitimate in their violence that, as the indigenous people are not of the same religion, they will be considered as inferior beings, infrahuman and also ungodly. This was the case for Indians for religious European settlers, since they did not believe in God (being technologically inferior obviously did not help). This is also the case for religious Jews, who consider themselves as God's chosen ones and for whom a goy is therefore a sub-human.

For example, for the puritans, we are told in the Encyclopedia Universalis (here).

"The puritans of New England considered themselves God's chosen people, taking up for their exclusive benefit the Christian tradition according to which the Church would be the "New Israel", the continuator of the Hebrew people of the Old Testament. For them, America was the "New Jerusalem", God's chosen refuge for those he wanted to preserve from corruption or general destruction, while the Indians represented the remains of a "cursed race" that the "Demon" had led himself into this continent in order to rule it quietly. These ideas sometimes made it possible to theologically justify the spoliations that the settlers inflicted on the natives."

This is what we can also see here:

"The founders of Massachusetts Bay divided the world into the Godly and the damned.  Even before open conflict erupted, Puritans equated the "savage" lifestyles of Native peoples with Satanism. Each misunderstanding between English and Natives served to steel Puritan resolve to resist evil. Ministers reinforced this by linking conflict with God's testing of the "Saints". From this perspective warfare against the Pequots was a holy crusade, and official histories portrayed it as such."

Do you see the parallel with the Jews? Until you realize the connection between the two, you think that the similarity is due to chance. But once you see it, you understand that it is actually the same plan from the elite applied at different times.

And indeed, there were many wars between 1610 and 1776 (the year of independence) between the Indians and the settlers. Between 1610 and 1568, the settlers were at war half the time with the Indians (there was a succession of 6 wars). And between 1664 and 1774, there were 5 (for about 18 years of war).

So, for the war, we could say that it is because there have been provocations on both sides. But there was no obligation for the settlers to expel the tribes from their lands once the war was over. If they did, it is clearly that their intentions were to take their territories. If they had only done it once or twice, it would eventually pass. But it was an ongoing, permanent strategy. It is true that if they did so, it was of course because it was the elite's plan; it was not the settlers who decided to do that. But apparently, they didn't object so much. And they did not object too much because they considered the Indians to be inferior beings, or even Satan's accomplices, in large part because they were not Christians.

And there was also the slavery of the Indians. According to some authors (see here), there were between 2 and 4 million Indians enslaved by the settlers. Again, there was no obligation on the settlers to enslave the Indians. But this was made easier by the fact that the settlers were religious fanatics and did not consider the Indians as equals, but as unbelievers, ungodly people.

It is also conceivable that the slavery of the Indians was set up to drive them away from the lands where they lived. Indeed, we can think that in fact deaths from contagious diseases, which are often put forward to justify the disappearance of millions of Amerindians, most of them have in fact been enslaved and sent to Central and South America. Since the Indians of North America and South America look alike, it was very easy to make them "disappear" there. And then, the elite just had to blame the contagious diseases to justify their disappearance.

Many will tell me that it's bullshit, that it would be known. Except after thinking about that, I did a search. And it can be read here that researchers have discovered that there are various traces of Indian slave shipments in the Caribbean. For the European or American average Joe, the Caribbean is the group of islands located in the Caribbean Sea. But in reality, the Caribbean also includes Central America (except Mexico) and part of northern South America (Colombia, Venezuela and Guyana). So, given the number of Indians enslaved (2 to 4 million) and given that there were already many black slaves in the Caribbean islands, it is likely that most of the Indians in question were sent to Central and South America rather than to the Caribbean islands.

It is true that these sources do not say how many Indians were sent there. But in any case, my hypothesis appears all at once quite possible.

We also have this concerning the Pequot war between 1636-1638 (a war that, by the way, was probably provoked by the elite):

"Other Pequots were enslaved and shipped to Bermuda or the West Indies, or were forced to become household slaves in English households in Connecticut and Massachusetts Bay."

The West Indies is once again partly the Caribbean islands, partly Central America and partly northern South America. So deportations to Central and South America began in the 1630s.

However, a small part of them may also have emigrated to the Caribbean islands. There are a lot of mixed race people on these islands. We tend to think it comes from the mixture of whites and blacks. But it is quite possible that the majority may come from a mixture between blacks and Amerindians.

Of course, the elite could have kept them in North America. Once enslaved, whites could take their land with impunity. But that would have been problematic, because given the number of Indians, there would have been a risk of crossbreeding. And that's not what the elite wanted. By sending them to South America, this risk was eliminated. There must have been some of these slaves who stayed in the United States. But a lot of them must have been sent there.

So slavery was a good way to get rid of the Indians and take their territory. This, from the very religious settlers in question, who did not see too much of a problem about it.

And if there was indeed a mass deportation of Indians to Central and South America, it is not in the interest of the elite that this be revealed, because it would imply a little too clearly that there was a conscious and organized plan to get rid of them. While with the current official theory, displacements have only taken place within the territory of the United States (and following wars). So, people cannot think that there was a will to physically get rid of the Indians, since if they were indeed displaced, they were still in the USA. So, the elite can defend the idea that if the Indians are currently outnumbered, it is because they were few in number to begin with. And if we defend the idea that there were quite numerous, the elite can say that they have disappeared because of contagious diseases.

It is also questionable whether black slavery was not introduced in part to justify Indian slavery. Otherwise, settlers might have had less natural recourse to it, even from the religious groups in question. With the principle of slavery of blacks already accepted, it was easier to justify that of the Indians and then take the opportunity to send them to South America, thus leaving the field open to white immigrants to colonize the land left vacant.

The slavery of the Indians may also have made it possible to eradicate some of the Indians through interbreeding. Slaves had probably the right to have children with other slaves, including Indians. As black men outnumbered black women in the plantations, the former had children with Indian slaves. That's what we can see here:

"In the eastern colonies, it had become common practice to have only Amerindian women and African men as slaves, while at the same time increasing their numbers. This practice also led to a large number of mixed unions. Indigenous women were indeed cheaper to buy than men or Africans; moreover, it was more effective to have indigenous women because they were the most skilled in agronomy in their home communities, where men are engaged in other activities."

And:

"In John Norris' book Profitable Advice for Rich and Poor (1712), it is recommended to buy eighteen native women, about fifteen African men and three African women."

We can see here (and in the book "Indian Slavery and Memory: Interracial sex from the slaves' perspective", p. 112-123) that in Caroline, many former slaves had an Amerindian ascendant. So, ok, it was replacing a non-white population (Indians) with another (mixed-race). But the advantage is that this population (the mixed-race) had no right to the land that the settlers coveted.

And with the segregation that followed the Civil War, there was little risk that blacks would mix with whites. It is true that the segregation only concerned the southern states, but that's where the vast majority of blacks were present.

It should also be noted that the Indians themselves provided quantities of Indian slaves in exchange for various goods. This was already a common practice before the arrival of settlers among the Indians. But the interest in making slaves increased dramatically with the exchanges with the settlers. The most powerful Indian tribes began to capture members of weaker tribes and sell them to the settlers. So, even when there were no wars, Indian depopulation continued through slavery. The settlers then had nothing to do themselves; the Indians took care of it. 

Regarding the fanatical religious aspect allowing to justify spoliations, it was not limited to the 17th and 18th centuries. This type of thing can be found in the 1840s with the concept of "manifest destiny" (see here). Ok, at that point, the concept is no longer purely religious. It is mixed with more secular notions. But there is a religious element in this idea ("the destiny under God to do this work"), and even the profane elements have a small messianic, therefore religious, side. Indeed, the idea was that Americans, as well as their institutions, were particularly virtuous and should spread this virtue throughout the world. On the secular element, we can draw a parallel with Israel, which considers itself the only true democracy in the Middle-East area.

The other advantage of having intolerant religious groups is that they will tend to persecute other religious groups that come to settle in the colony after them. As a result, they will tend to settle elsewhere, and thus extend colonization. This is the case of the Quakers, who were persecuted in Massachusetts by puritans and moved to neighboring colonies. With tolerant religious groups, everyone risked settling in the same place (where there was already civilization), making the spread of colonization much slower. This does not concern Israel at the moment, since only Jews are there. But maybe it will be so in the future.

In short, religious settlers make settlement colonization much more effective than ordinary settlers.

It should be noted that Protestant religious communities also had a specific advantage, namely that they tended to be very hardworking, since according to them, economic success pleases God. And their rigorousness meant that they tended to focus on work and not too much on fun. This accelerated colonization, allowing infrastructure to be built quickly, which then attracted other settlers.

In a different genre, this is also somewhat the case for Jews. There too, there is the idea that success pleases God. And their most religious communities do not seem to be the kind of people to laugh a lot either, even if they seem slightly less rigid than the Protestant communities established in the USA in the 17th century. However, this way of being is not found among less religious Jews. But in Israel, it was quite possible to have the infrastructure built by the indigenous people by advancing the money. Technical progress made infrastructure not a very important problem.

The other good thing about the very religious, even fanatical settlers is that they do not think too much about the problems of this world. Apart from their daily tasks, they participate a lot in the life of their religious community. The study of the Bible (or the Torah for Jews) also takes them a lot of time. It limits the time to think about politics or history, etc... Obviously, there may be an elite among them, sometimes quite brilliant, who think much more (it's the case of Jews). But this elite often belongs to the dynasty that governs the world. And those who are not part of it represent only a few hundred individuals, too few to make a difference. Especially since the subject of their studies will often be religious problems and not political, historical or economic matters. But the mass of believers has a rather limited intellectual universe.

And people who belong to very religious communities tend to be obedient to their elites. So, you just have to put agents of influence at their head to make them follow them like sheep. You can impose any policy on them, they will obey blindly, by lack of reflection on subjects other than religion and by a sense of obedience. The elite can pass many disgusting laws against natives, they will not feel concerned (unless it affects their religious beliefs), or even be aware of them.

It can also be noted that, as in the case of American colonization, where Catholics were brought in, the elite is not always so attentive to the Jewishness of people who emigrate to Israel. Apparently, during the collapse of the Soviet empire, many Russian goys pretended to be Jews to emigrate to Israel in order to escape poverty. They would obviously have been very easy to identify by the elite. But they let them settle in Israel. This is a further indication that the elite's plan for Israel is not to install the Jewish people specifically, but white settlers in general. Otherwise, these Russians would never have fallen through the cracks. If the aim is to isolate the Jewish people from the sub-human goy, the elite would never have allowed migrants to impersonate Jews and thus soil the Jewish population with their filthy goy blood. But there, they were able to do so because they were white and the objective is not really to bring Jews to the Middle East, but whites.

Now let us look at the differences between American and Israeli colonization.

First, what we can say is that for North America, things were relatively easy because the native population was not very large. So it was relatively easy to replace. While for the Greater Israel project, there will be much more people to move.

As a result, for the Israel project, it will take more barbarism on the part of the settlers to get rid of the natives, and therefore people who are even more fanatical and violent than the Christians sent to the United States in the 17th century.

Moreover, in the United States, there were no borders and constituted states preventing white populations from spreading throughout the country, unlike Israel.

In the Middle East, the task is more difficult from this point of view. Hence the need for the whole historical montage about the Jewish people.

On the other hand, since the territory is largely desert, you need to bring fewer people.

The difference also is that it is very difficult to convert to the Jewish religion. It is a very closed religion where Jewishness is transmitted by the mother. This is an advantage for settlement colonization compared to what has happened in America, since indigenous people cannot claim equal treatment by converting. They will therefore always be considered as inferior.

One difference between Jews and American settlers is that they believe they do not have a backup plan. In their minds, it is either this place or persecution or extermination elsewhere. So they can't retreat from the natives.

Some additional thoughts about American colonization:

It can also be hypothesized that the French empire in North America served to prevent English colonization from being overly scattered in the beginning. Indeed, it could lead to a risk of numerical weakness and mixing with the Indians, or even assimilation to the Indians rather than the other way around. By having a limited territory to colonize at the beginning, it made it possible to have areas of concentration of white populations, from which they would then be able to expand. We can think that we have something similar with Israel. Israel's territory is currently quite limited, in order to have a significant concentration of Jews, in order to avoid a possible assimilation to the natives.

Here, we learn that the Indians had black slaves and that they were able to take them with them to the territories they had been "given". It made it possible to mix the Indians with the Blacks and thus to make the Indians disappear a little more. Perhaps a similar method will be used for the Israel project.

We learn here that the enslavement of Indian tribes by other Indian tribes has led to the flight of the weakest to other regions. It was therefore a very good way for the settlers to obtain living space without doing anything (apart from buying the slaves in question). Of course, this is something that was done knowingly by the elite. Thus, it is possible that a similar technique will be used in Israel in the future. By working factions against each other, the weakest could flee from their territories, allowing Jewish settlers to settle there. The problem is that there are states. So, even if within a state, population groups flee certain areas, it will not give Israelis the right to settle there. But that's true for now. It is likely that the elite will cause this or that country to collapse (or several countries) and that there will no longer be an official state, but only areas in rebel hands. So, since the country no longer officially exists, there will be no reason why Jewish settlers couldn't move in. They will no longer violate any international law. The beginning of the dissolution of some states in the Middle East currently is the prelude to this strategy.

On the same website, it can be seen that the Westos tribe, which dominated the slave trade in Caroline, had become powerful thanks to the weapons purchased from the settlers, and therefore dangerous for the latter. As a result, settler leaders allied themselves with the Savannahs from 1680, killed most of the Westos men and sold the captured women and children. So, once a group became powerful, the elite turned against it to make it disappear entirely, leaving only a few very weak groups. This technique will most likely be used in Israel when states disappear and rebel factions fight for power among themselves.

The period of the Civil War (1861-1865) is also interesting. It is obvious that this war was set up by the Illuminati elite with, as usual, the losers and winners who were already designated. Sometimes they provide relatively credible reasons for their wars. But that wasn't really the case here. The causes mentioned are not convincing and one wonders what the real reason for this conflict might have been. With what we just saw here, we already have two.

First, you can think that it was used to get rid of much of the "Indian territory" west of the Mississippi that had been given to various tribes in 1830 by the Indian Removal Act (see here). This large territory was a major obstacle to the total colonization of the United States. So they had to get rid of it. The Civil War was partly used for that. All the tribes of the 5 civilized nations (Cherokees, Chicachas, Chactas, Creeks and Seminoles) went to war, which made it possible to eliminate even more Indians.

And as the southerners lost, part of the territory of the tribes that had allied themselves with them was subsequently emptied of its inhabitants. Now, all tribes joined the southerners (except for a small part of the Creeks and Seminoles tribes). So, since they were on the losing side, it was all the easier to justify their expulsion from their territory.

Of course, they could have gradually expelled the Indians, questioning the treaties already signed, as they had already done. But this time, it made it possible to do the thing in a hidden way, without anyone noticing.

Regarding the consequences of the war, we can see here what happened to the Cherokees:

"In 1865, the five nations, worn out, were ruined, everything that had been built after the 1830s was destroyed (In 1863, it is estimated that one-third of Cherokee women unionists were widows and one-quarter of children were orphans. Similar situation on the Confederate side. From 21,000 in 1860, the Cherokees numbered only 13,566 in 1867).
Everything needs to be rebuilt, society, the economy and political institutions. On July 13, 1865, the Cherokee (Unionist) Council proclaimed an amnesty for all those who had carried arms against the United States. A major conference was held in Fort Smith on September 8 with delegates from the United States (including General Ely Parker, Seneca Indian and Grant's secretary), and Unionist and Confederate Indians (with Watie and Elias Boudinot). The Cherokees are treated as a single nation that, having allied itself with the rebels, has lost all its rights against the United States: annuities, land and protection. The United States imposed the abolition of slavery without compensation, a cession of part of the land, the right of penetration of the railway, the possibility of installing other Indian peoples on Cherokee lands, the right to establish military posts there. Ex-confederate Cherokees refuse to sign, but it doesn't matter..."

In another genre, it's a little similar to what we just saw a little before, but masked by the war. It must have been one of the last powerful nations and the elite had to be got rid of. The Civil War made it possible.

The obligation to free the slaves was an additional weapon against the Indians, since it was obvious that with all the human losses on the Indian side, many Indians would immediately couple with blacks and that the mixing would continue thereafter. The Indians could have prevented this by expelling blacks from their territory. But, fatal detail, the US government had forbidden them to do so. Former slaves were allowed to remain on Indian lands.

And, the Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes must have had a significant number of these black slaves, since we learn here that:

"Some of the Five Civilized Tribes had also acquired African-American slaves as loot from the War of Independence, which had been granted to them by their British allies."

In addition, on the same page, it is said that the tribes of the south regularly captured escaped black slaves and that, in half of the cases, they sent them back to their white masters and in the other half, kept them as slaves.

By the way, who convinced the Indians to join the South in the war against the North? The famous Freemason Albert Pike.

That's what we can see here:

"On March 4, 1861, the Confederate Congress authorized President Davis to send an emissary to the Indians. It was Albert Pike, a publisher from Arkansas and a friend of the Five Nations.
Pike was to propose a military alliance, (but the Indians would not be required to fight outside their borders), the payment of annuities previously paid by the federal government (rather badly than well!), the provision of food, weapons, ammunition, military equipment, the sending of white troops to help the nations and above all, the admission of delegates from the five nations to the Confederate Congress in order to constitute, once the war ended, a full Indian state in the Confederation."
"The Choctaws and Chickasaws signed an alliance treaty with the south without difficulty on July 12, 1861, and the Creeks and Seminoles did the same on July 10 and August 1, respectively, despite opposition from some of their own."
"There remained the Cherokees. Ross was impressed by the almost total support of the other nations for the southern cause, but he hoped to save time until the feds returned.
…. Ross, certainly against his deep conviction, supported the cause of the treaty with the south, which was signed on October 7 and saw a historic handshake between Watie and his old enemy."

So it was a member of the Illuminati elite who, knowing perfectly well who would win the war, pushed the Indians of the Five Nations to join the southern forces and find themselves among the future losers, which would lead them to free their slaves and especially to lose land again.

We can also think that the American Civil War served to stop the slavery of blacks; of course, not to free them, but because it was no longer useful to the elite. What was the use of blacks in the US colonization plan? To create infrastructure in the south, where settlers may have gone in smaller numbers at first. To justify the eviction of Indians in this area. But also, perhaps even more importantly, to mix the Indians, either by making them become slaves and make them work with black slaves, or by making them take black slaves.

However, after 1865, there was no longer much need to mix Indians with blacks. The conquest plan was almost complete. Moreover, by further increasing their number, there was a risk that blacks would mix with whites or even be as numerous as whites. It was then necessary to limit their number, and therefore their arrival, hence the end of slavery. With the end of slavery, there was no longer any reason to import blacks, and therefore no longer any risk of submersion or excessive mixing. So the liberation of the blacks was just a facade. The real reason was to stop bringing in more.

So why not expel them too, in one way or another? After all, in the long run, they were still a threat to the racial purity of whites in the United States. I think it's because they will be used as cannon fodder in World War III. So the elite chose to keep them until then. But they will expel them and kill some of them during the 3rd World War.

Of course, between the end of slavery and World War III, there was a significant danger of mixing with whites. To counteract this risk, they introduced segregation in the southern states (where there were most of them).

It is true that now there is an unbridled promotion of the mixing of whites with blacks. But, as it is only temporary and as during and after the war, they will be partly eliminated and expelled, it is not a problem for the elite.

By the way, it may seem strange that after the Civil War, the Union (the North), so kind to blacks, continued to dispossess Indians for decades to come. Indeed, even after the war, the Indians still had vast territories. But the government took it from them. The import of blacks was becoming detrimental to the plan, while the persecution of Indians remained useful.

Long after almost all the land had been taken, the US government and the media played the repentance card. Since it was actually the same team that had almost disappeared from the United States, it was obviously totally hypocritical. But at that time, it couldn't do any arm. There was no longer any risk regarding the plan for white colonization of North America. And in addition, it was useful for the current part of the plan (1950-2040), namely to promote immigration, crossbreeding, non-white peoples, white guilt, etc...

Why not take advantage of colonization to drive out blacks and Arabs in Africa and the Middle East?

If the Israel project is racist, some questions arise.

In particular, one may wonder why the elite did not take advantage of colonization in the 19th century to oust blacks and Arabs and replace them with whites in Africa and the Middle East. After all, it was easy at that time, since Europe controlled almost entirely the African continent and could seize the Middle East at any time.

In fact, I think they thought it was too big a cake. North America, which was a huge territory compared to Europe, already had to be populated. It was also necessary to send a certain percentage of settlers to South America (although much less in proportion). Then, it was necessary to send some to Australia and New Zealand. The task was therefore enormous. And they must have thought that they should limit themselves to this during the period 1500-1900 (the period of massive colonization extending rather from 1750 to 1900), before moving on to something else. They have chosen not to disperse their efforts, which seems to be a reasonable strategy.

So, the colonization of the Middle East could only come after, not at the same time. From then on, it was not necessarily very interesting to have colonies in this area right away.

It could have been possible. But the problem is that if they did a settlement colonization with ordinary whites, they didn't have all the fanaticism needed to have a population replacement. And they could no longer use Christian sects, since it had been a long time since, in the previous plan (the America project), religious wars were supposed to be over. Moreover, Christian sects would have been less adapted to this project. So, doing it like that wouldn't have been great. The Israel project was much more effective.

But if they used the Israel Project, then it was not very interesting to already have colonies controlled by the French or the English for 100 or 200 years (and maintained until the 20th century, but without settlement colonies). It reduced the dramaturgy of the Israel project. Things were getting a little too easy for the Jews. There were no longer any dangerous enemies who could destroy Israel at any time.

In addition, in this case, Jewish colonization could compete with a European colonization of Christians or atheists (if the territories were under the control of the English, French or Germans). Jewish colonization would have had less legitimacy and the settlement colonization of other whites would have been less dynamic due to a lack of fanatical motivations. So both colonizations would have competed with each other and the population change would have been much less effective. It was better if there was only one colonization, the Jewish colonization. After that, there was no problem in softening the Jewish religion and bringing in other whites (non-Jewish), making the Middle East becomes another USA.

So, if there could only be one settlement colonization, the Jewish one, there had to be no English, French, etc.., colonization before. Jews had to arrive in countries belonging to Arabs and with a purely Arab population.

The problem was that it was difficult to explain why an Arab country would give a part of its territory to Jews. So, some Middle Eastern countries still had to be controlled by one or more European countries, since it was necessary to explain Palestine's donation to the Jews by one of these countries. Hence the English mandate in Palestine (1920 to 1948), Jordan and Iraq and the French mandate in Syria and Lebanon (between 1920 and 1944). But there had to be no settlement colonization at all. This implied that the control of this area by England and France should be considered temporary from the outset, and should also be recent. And England had to give the country to the Jews (and only a small part of it) and then leave immediately afterwards. There, we had a country belonging to the Jews, and alone against the other Arab countries, without support from a European country.

And then, if there had already been a beginning of settlement colonization, it could have begun to become quite clear that there was a policy of world domination led by whites. This had to be masked behind a story of a particular population; a population that "by chance" happened to be essentially white (with a number of Arab Jews to muddy the waters. Arab Jews that the elite may get rid of once they have become useless). And this population had to return home after being persecuted for millennia, which meant that people would not think that their arrival was the result of a policy of white domination, but that it was linked to the hazards of history and geopolitics.

Regarding Africa, they could have maintained their control by not decolonizing. In this case, it would have been possible for the white world to achieve settlement colonization in a later period, once the America and Australia projects completed. The fact of having decolonized is rather in line with the idea that the projects of the elite have nothing to do with pro-white racism.

But maintaining a simple colonization of control would not have changed things much compared to the current situation. There wouldn't have been more whites in Africa. So the invasion effort would have been postponed anyway. And losing control of Africa is not a problem, since white leaders will be able to return whenever they want, this time to achieve settlement colonization. Moreover, this loss of control is only apparent. Africa remains entirely under the control of the elite, but in a hidden way. In fact, barely hidden, since it is well known that African governments are the toys of Western governments.

Moreover, we have seen that the elite tries to prevent people from becoming aware of its plans (which would inevitably reveal its existence). And for that, it's trying to cover her tracks. From this perspective, leaving Africa is an interesting thing. It currently prevents, and will prevent in the future, people who think from understanding that there was a racist project to extend the white world, except possibly at the end, when all is said and done. They too will think that if there is an elite that dominates the world, and that its goal was to make the white world take over new territories, then it would have kept control of Africa. And if they do not think this spontaneously, you can count on the elite to send them agents of influence who will pinpoint this apparent contradiction.

Why not have invaded the Middle East and Africa through mass immigration by keeping the white birth rate high and that of other countries low (and/or with high mortality)?

Alternatively, the extension of the white world could have been explained by a higher birth rate. It would have done exactly the same as current African immigration to Europe, but in the opposite direction. And in that case, no need for all this complicated plan to invade the Middle East. And no need for wars either. All this would have gone peacefully, smoothly, fluidly, with a slow replacement of the indigenous populations.

And to explain why the indigenous populations would not have rebelled, the elite could have come up with the same arguments that are currently used for African immigration to Europe.

But the plan must not be seen. And then it would have become a little too obvious. It might work for the Middle East, but not for Africa. For these two areas, and even under these conditions, it would take centuries to complete the settlement plan. Having a higher birth rate for centuries would seem very suspicious.

And it is more complicated than for African immigration to Europe. Indeed, regarding the plan to invade Africa and the Middle East, there is no way of resorting to race mixing. In this case, it's about a population replacement. With the possibility of crossbreeding, you can greatly accelerate things, since the indigenous population is eliminated in this way. But without this element (or if it is little used), the native population must be eliminated in other ways. And here, if you use simple economic immigration, it is not possible. The populations will either mix or not. In the second case, the initial population will still be present. In the first one, there will be the creation of a mixed population that will have to be eliminated in order to have a uniquely white population. This implies 4 or 5 waves of economic immigration, that is several hundred more years of immigration. And at each wave, the population will increase and it will therefore require even more white immigrants to dilute the non-white component. So, for the elite's plan to succeed, it must necessarily resort to aggressive immigration, that is, replacement colonization. The elite can use race mixing, but at very low doses.

In addition, I remember reading in a conspiracy document saying that, for the elite, whites must keep a warrior spirit to avoid sluggishness and annihilation. According to them, if everything goes too easily, Europeans will fall into moral weakness. They will lose the will to dominate, and their aggressiveness. Well, maybe it's true, maybe it's not true. But if that's true, it would provide an additional answer to the question raised here. Indeed, a high birth rate and a gentle, conflict-free invasion of the Middle East and Africa through economic and demographic immigration are not in this spirit at all.

On the contrary, various invasions carried out in the context of a dramatic history (with wars not only abroad, but also in Europe and the USA) are entirely consistent with this objective. In these war situations, there will be no risk of sluggishness, that's for sure. The whites will regularly find a new vital impulse, a new aggressiveness.

In addition, the upcoming war will change white people's view of immigration. At the end of all these conflicts, immigration and mixing will be seen as a bad thing for the next 500 years. That too will help the elite to preserve the whites from extinction. This will allow them to implement extremely restrictive immigration policies for several hundred years (and this, with the approval of the population). With the current travel possibilities, there is a risk, in a normal situation, without war, that the white race will disappear through immigration and racial mixing. What we are seeing now is obviously forced by the elite, it is not a natural situation. But even in a normal situation (without elite intervention), with a relatively restrictive migration policy, it would be possible for such a thing to happen in the long term.

Why did they limit the fertility of the European population from the 1960s onwards? And why promote race-mixing?

Also, the elite plan could have been done with an average birth rate among whites. They could have let Europe be invaded by tens of millions of Arab and black immigrants, but with a normal birth rate in the white population. Then it would have been easier to invade the Middle East. They could also have limited the mixing to a greater or lesser extent, once again to have more potential settlers to invade the Middle East later. Finally, they could have limited the population growth of other races, so as not to have to deal with large populations in countries to be invaded in the future.

On the latter point, it is true that one would think that then there would have been fewer potential immigrants to go to Europe, which would have gone against the elite's plan. But there was no need to have such a high birth rate in Africa and the Arab countries to have significant immigration. The difference in living standards was sufficient to attract tens of millions of blacks and Arabs to Europe. Africa did not have to go from a population of 230 million in 1950 to 1.2 billion in 2016. 500 million would have been more than enough.

But no, the elite clearly limited the European population by introducing abortion and the pill from the 1960s onwards. It has also very strongly encouraged race-mixing. And at the same time, they let other races develop at high speed, especially blacks and Arabs. This seems illogical in relation to the purpose of settlement colonization in the Middle East.

But we have seen that the elite absolutely wants to fool people and ensure that no one can understand its objectives not only before and during the realization of the plan, but also afterwards. And there, what better way for that? Which conspirationist could think, in the future, that the goal was to extend the area of influence of the white race, with such an anti-natalist policy among whites, such a promotion of race-mixing and a policy of laissez-faire natalism among Arabs and blacks? And of course, we're not even talking about normal people.

Doing this is to ensure that everyone will continue to understand nothing in the future. It can be said that it is an essential element of the plan. By apparently precipitating the white world to the edge of the precipice, to the verge of extinction, no one will be able to imagine that the goal of the elite was in fact exactly the opposite.

Moreover, in order to mask the truth, if there is a disappearance of Jewish leaders in the future, conspiracy fighters will tell themselves that they were wrong about the existence of the elite. The elite will even be able to make the various illuminati signs disappear in all cultural productions. So, the conspirationists will have been mistaken about the elite's desire to make the white race disappear. They will have been wrong about the will of the elite to create a world government. They will have been mistaken about the advent of the antichrist. They will have been wrong about the very existence of the elite. In short, they will have been wrong on all the essential points. It will be a huge blow to conspirationism. And of course, you can be sure that the elite will send their agents to insist on that.

It is an illustration of what the villain says in the film Jack Reacher: "we make things complicated so that they don't become complicated later on".

So, even if it makes the objective more difficult to achieve, it is useful for the elite to do so. It may seem crazy that she would take that kind of risk. But since everything is under control, it doesn't actually take any. This is all temporary. When the time comes, the elite will boost white fertility, prohibit race-mixing and reduce the fertility of blacks and Arabs. At the very least, it complicates life a little; but, nothing more.

And then, the (fake) danger of the disappearance of the white world by the migratory invasion fits once again very well with the possible objective of putting the white world under pressure to prevent it from disappearing by softening. Again, one could even say that this threat of extermination of whites by immigration is a crucial element of the elite's plan. Here, these are no longer wars fought outside, or even on European soil, but which can only lead to more or less unpleasant political changes. What we're talking about here is annihilation. As a motivation, it's hard to do better.

What the fact that the elite is not Jewish changes for the future

The fact that Jewish leaders are false Jews and that the objective of the Israel project is racist changes various things for the future. First of all, it's not a religious project. So there is no end-of-the-world history, no supernatural events and beings.

Nor is there an end to history and nations with a world government headed by Israel (in other words, a peaceful world empire that would last 1000 years). It may happen for a while (it will probably be presented as a golden age), to make it look like there was a goal of this kind. But in this case, the elite will put an end to it quickly.

Soon after, the elite will start another project, perhaps the invasion of India, or that of Africa. Or it will complement the one in South America. To be seen. And here again, it will probably take a few centuries to achieve it. But we can be sure that everything is already planned.

I will be told that nothing of this kind seems to be taking place. But this was also the case for the Israel project at the time of the colonization of America. It was only when everything was already almost finished in America (towards the end of the 19th century) that the Israel project began to become visible to the general public. So it is most likely that when the colonization of the Middle East is already almost complete, the new project will be revealed to the general public.

Of course, it is possible that once the Middle East is colonized, the elite will be satisfied with the territories already acquired. But I would be very surprised. 

All this also changes various elements for races, peoples and political tendencies.

For white racists, things change, since it means that the world's elite is actually on their side. However, for the time being at least, it does not seek to ensure a peaceful and serene future for them, but on the contrary a future of recurrent wars and anxieties about the future.

For the ordinary white people, this means that they will regularly suffer wars. The wars will also serve to ensure that their minds are entertained and that they do not seek to replace the masters of the world.

In other words, the white world will continue to take it right in the face at regular intervals.

For non-white people, this is the question. Since we do not know how far the elite wants to go in the extension of the white world, it is difficult to know which race should worry about its future.

However, it makes little difference for the next 40 years. The goal of the elite remains the same: a third world war allowing the expansion of Israel's borders (the great Israel).

For Jews, once the Israel project is achieved, it is likely that the elite, no longer needing them as violent fanatics, will soften this religion as they have done in America with Christian religious. We may even have a kind of Vatican II Jewish version. So the Jews will stop being fanatics. We will then have a calmer population, closer to the current European population. And we can think that the elite will bring non-Jewish whites into the great Israel, which will dilute the Jews in this whole. They will then cease to be privileged by the elite and will be only one community among others, which will no longer have any particular importance (any more than puritans, Mormons or Quakers do). Finally, everything that religious Jews believe in and fight for now, the elite will make it disappear once they no longer need it.

This will also be the case for the Zionists. But at least they will have the satisfaction of seeing their goal accomplished (the extension and securing of Israel's borders). Except that, in all of this, much of what is part of Jewish culture will have disappeared. So they too will have fought a little bit for nothing (because it is still to preserve Jewish culture that they believe they are fighting for a thousand years). 

All this will also make it possible to put conspirationists in their place by showing that their "delusions" about Jews were pure fantasies.

Anyway, it is ironic, because it means that in fact, Jews carry out a Nazi project (a project to extend the white race), while the Nazis are the quintessence of evil for them.

Since the technique of religious minorities has always been the one used by the elite for their invasion projects, it is likely that this will continue to be the case in the future. So if the elite chooses to invade another part of the world, it will create another religious community that it will fanaticize, persecute and send to that part of the world.

One may wonder whether there will not be a long period of peace once the Middle East is well invaded, as some forecasts that speak of the advent of the antichrist say (there would be a golden age at that time). Except that here, there will be no advent of an antichrist (there may be a charismatic leader for a while). It could help them to make white people forget about conspiracy ideas. Conspiracy movements will probably be banned at first. But, with the development of conspiracy ideas before and during the war, a large part of the people will continue to believe in them, even without a constituted movement. However, as we have seen, it is crucial for the elite that the people do not think there is a group that leads the world. By adding economic prosperity to the ban, the elite will be handling the carrot in addition to the stick.

And it will not only be economic prosperity. As we have seen above, we can think that there will no longer be any illuminati signs in cultural productions, no reference to Satanism, that the elite will make Jewish leaders disappear from the forefront, that there will be no world government. In short, everything that the conspiracy believers believed in will turn out to be false. In addition, the leaders of the different countries will be listening to the people. In short, in this state of bliss, people will say to themselves that, in the end, there is no satanist world elite that wants to harm us, that the conspiracy ideas were false and that everything that happened was due to chance.

And then, this period of peace will allow them to discreetly set up the next war. A war that will have nothing to do with the previous one, which means that people will not make the connection.

Anyway, if my analysis is correct, it is no longer only the future of the next 50 years that can be predicted, but also the future of the next 500 years, if not more. 

Conclusion

So, to answer the initial question, no, the Israel project is not about bringing the Jewish people back to Israel, but about bringing them in. And this is simply because they have certainly never been there before (since it was probably originally a sect created by the elite during the religious wars). And, more precisely, the project serves to bring white populations to colonize the Middle East. It is probably a purely racist project to extend the territory of the white race. Religion and culture are of no importance here, except to obtain appropriate behavior from the settlers. So the project is not even to bring the Jewish people specifically to Israel, since the fact that they are Jewish is of no importance to the elite. The important thing for them is that they are white and fanatical.

In fact, to summarize the problem, there are not 150 possible causes for this project. A priori, there are only three. Either the Israel project is linked to the return of the Jewish people to their former lands, or the project is Satanist or racist. As we have seen in other of my articles, I don't believe in the satanist project (but well, I remain open to this possibility). We have seen that the project of the return of the Jewish people poses major logical problems. So only the racist project remains.

At first sight, this vision of things is only the vision of the illuminati conspiracy. Nothing special. But, in the classical vision of the illuminati plot, the advanced goal is generally supernatural (generalized satanism). While here, the novelty is that in reality, the goal is racist, which changes a lot of things for the future. And it makes it possible to explain many past and present events that the satanist theory of illuminatis does not explain.

PS:  It should also be noted that the most important Masonic obedience in France is the "Grand Orient" (the "Great Orient" or "Great East") and that this name can be found in various lodges in Europe. As long as we ignore the existence of the Israel project, and its true (racist) nature, we say to ourselves that the name comes from the veneration of Freemasons for ancient civilizations, especially Egypt. But once we understand what is happening, we can think that the name "Great East" refers to the project of extending the white world eastwards. This reflection initially comes from Ulrich Walromey (a New Chronology theorist), except that he thinks rather of an economic project, to control the wealth and trade routes of the Middle East; an idea that is clearly wrong, since everything is already under control by the Jewish/Illuminati elite.

PS2: We can think that the religious sects created in the 17th century were created by the elite. And they were mainly for the America project.

PS3:  It is strange that while the English crown persecuted Protestants and Catholics, it let them go en masse to America, which could then create a state hostile to England. It should have favored Anglican colonization.

Especially since at the time, the American territory was still the site of major competition between the various European states. The Spaniards owned a large part of it, as did the French. The Dutch were present on the east coast, where the English were located. In short, it would have been quite possible for these colonies, largely composed of religious dissidents, to join their forces with an enemy state of England to obtain their independence.

Publié par hexzane527 à 10:56