Europe: Stepping-stone to World Government

In Les espérances planétariennes, published in 2005, Hervé Ryssen reveals the true motive behind the European Union


The European ideal, as currently defined by Brussels, is clearly one of the ideological weapons in the arsenal of those who support globalism. The establishment of the euro marks a great step forward to the unification of the continent. But this is just one stage in the project, because the European Union is in fact a mere stepping stone towards the unification of the entire planet. Jacques Attali confirms this in his Dictionary of the 2ist Century: “The euro will lead to the creation of a European government in the first quarter of the century. It’ll probably even be used as a model, in the second half of the century, for a world currency.”

Other globalist thinkers share this vision of the future. We shouldn’t believe that the European architects plan to abolish nations in order to lay the foundation of a powerful empire, capable of meeting the century’s challenges.  The motivations of a globalist thinker like Julien Benda, quoted by Alain Finkielkarut in his L’humanité perdue, are entirely different:

“The idea of a fixed European frontier is illusory in this unstoppable evolution. With Europe, European man…will have made a great step towards his true destination” which is the unification of the planet. (1)

The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu fell into line with Julien Benda’s thinking when he declared during a conference* that :

“I should like us to be a sort of European parliament for culture. I say European in the sense that I believe this to be a phase. Being European represents a higher level of universalisation, in so far as this is better than being French.”

In this respect, it is considered, following the example of Benda, that “Europe, albeit impious, is necessarily less impious than the nation” because “the European citizen will inevitably feel less attached to Europe than a French citizen is to France…Via a looser link, his feeling of national identity and loyalty to the land will be weakened.”

It is, therefore, this determination to tear up national roots which is at the heart of the European project, fully endorsed by Alain Finkielkaraut, whose remarks are invariably tinged with contempt for the indigenous population:

“By becoming European, the French citizen will transcend his natal pettiness, expand his backyard and will occupy a greater space, more abstract, more rational, and more civilised than the nation”

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 20th century, numerous intellectuals were filled with enthusiasm by the tremendous progress that the European project was making. They were excited by the spread of globalist thinking and the accelerated construction of the pluralistic society.

Their enthusiasm was in no way curbed by the war which had broken out between the Serbs, the Croats and the Bosnians in what used to be Yugoslavia.  With warlike prose, many of them undertook the defence of multicultural Bosnia. Among the ultra belligerent “freedom fighters” pushing for a war against Serbia, Bernard-Henri Lévy and Alain Finkielkraut were at the forefront.

“With its ontological purity and multinational innocence, Bosnia was in opposition to sinful nations, sinful by the very fact they are nations. Freed from all heritage, division and discord, its citizens didn’t need to be embarrassed or apologise for their affiliation. Their name was the hallmark of cosmopolitanism and their territory formed a miniature model of the universal. Being Bosnian was better than being Slovenian, Croat, Albanian, Macedonian or Serb.” (2)

President Bill Clinton’s key advisors were in total agreement with this way of thinking. They are the same people who advise George Bush today: same feathers, same song. War, therefore, was inevitable, and so Serbia was duly bombed in order to “free” Bosnia and Kosovo. The Serbs were driven out of Kosovo.

Basically, the only way to permanently eradicate national resistance movements, as well as all groups defending national identity, is to dissolve the population in a melting pot on a planetary scale, the first in line for this treatment being the European nations, whose native populations are the most likely to threaten the New World Order. Alain Finkielkarut confirms this: “The deadly risk to the world posed by the worship of national allegiance, the segmentation of humanity and the imprisonment of individuals in their race and culture can only be permanently averted by the creation of multiethnic societies.” (3)

So, ethnically homogenous nations are the principal barrier to the establishment of the universal society. This is what the battle is all about. The fact is that, following the American bombing of Serbia in 1999, it was the Serbs who were persecuted by the Kosovar Albanians: they were forced to flee their historical birthplace.  The final outcome of Western military intervention was the spread of Islam across the region. The idea was, once again, to construct a multicultural Europe.

The globalist ideal is not, therefore, a mere philosophy, confined to the intellectual circles of the French republic. It permeates all major social debates, inspires our journalists and politicians. When the front page of Courrier International stated “Europe lacks Immigrants”, the editorial director, Alexandre Adler, knew that those in power would listen to him.  Josef Alfred Grinblat, UN population affairs officer, pursues this policy. In his 1999 UN report on the problems posed by a weak and ageing European population, he advocates “replacement migration” and recommends that Europe be subjected to a “migratory flow of 159 million non-Europeans per year over the next 25 years.”

With this perspective in view, Bernard Birsinger, the Communist mayor of Bobigny, donated, in October 2004, a large plot of land to the local Muslim community, so that they could construct a mosque. In 2005, Emmanuel Aeschlimann, the liberal mayor of Asnières (Hauts-de-Seine), also donated land to the local Muslim community and, during a ceremony, the prime minister at the time, Nicolas Sarkozy (the “hard” right), came to lay the mosque’s foundation stone.

The European Union is a stepping stone to world government. In February 2005, the Fondation pour l’innovation politique, a think-tank very close to Jacques Chirac, published a revealing article in its Lettre No. 8. The article was entitled “European Identity?” written by the academic researcher François Ewald, president of the scientific committee.  He asked:

“Does Europe mean the construction of a large nation tied to its territory, similar to Vidal La Blache’s conception of France confined within its hexagon? Or does Europe mean the formation of an open political group, free from the concept of borders and from all forms of identity (racial, ethnic, and religious), destined to constantly expand because it is based on liberal principles?”

Acting on behalf of the head of state, François Ewald revealed his vision of Europe:

“Europe does not have an identity: it is a promise. It is destined to expand: to Ukraine tomorrow and then, why not, to North African countries the day after. What greater hope could there be for the coming century?”

Former vice-president for the European Commission, Sir Leon Brittan, who descended from a persecuted Lithuanian family, was already advocating a single currency and total European unification in 1994. Of course, we would be wrong to think that the Brussels technocrats have been gifted with extraordinary political foresight because everything seems to have been pre-programmed.

Logically speaking, therefore, Turkey will enter Europe, unless a popular uprising stops this process. It will then be the turn of Morocco, which is knocking at the door, followed by Israel, which competes in the European football league and the Eurovision Song Contest.

Turkey’s entry into the EU is backed by all the globalist thinkers, from the extreme left to the liberal right, and has enjoyed the support of successive American governments. For instance, Pierre Moscovici, a socialist member of the European Parliament, believes that: “Turkey’s membership could be a form of protection against terrorism and a way to reinforce our security. Turkey’s Muslim character is highly beneficial. Europe should be multicultural and multi-religious. It should be open and recognise various legacies.” On the other end of the political spectrum, the deputy general secretary of the main liberal right party holds a similar view: “Everything must be done to drown the river of Islam in the ocean of democracy and human rights.” (4)

His remark only applies to a “Christian club”, because Islam remains for ever irreconcilable in Israel. Pierre Lellouche, Chirac’s diplomatic adviser and vice-president of the group France-Israel, maintains that: “To think that Islam is irreconcilable with democracy is to agree in advance to a war of civilisations. The question is whether we help Islam to come to terms with human rights and the market economy, or whether we let it retreat into fundamentalism.”

Only days after his return from Israel, Nicolas Sarkozy, chief of the liberal right, made the following declaration during a meeting held by the Cercle des Européens on 21 December 2014: “The problem is not Turkey but the identity of Europe. If we really want to expand to this region of the world, we should first of all integrate Israel whose population, being largely of European origin, shares our values.”

Jacques Attali, needless to say, concurs: “If there is a need to include Turkey in the EU, it is because France is a Muslim nation, owing to its historical geopolitical choices. Islam is the religion of over two million French citizens and a third of immigrants present in our country.”

Attali, of course, doesn’t intend to transform Europe into an Islamic homeland. But, in his way of thinking, Islamic immigration permits the dissolution of old European national communities. It also provides a way to confuse feelings of national identity and psychologically uproot the native population. It is in this respect that Islam is useful to globalist plans.

In his book Europe(s), published in 1994, Attali had already warned:

“Europe ought to see itself not as a Christian club but as a space without borders, stretching from Ireland to Turkey, from Portugal to Russia, from Albania to Sweden. It should culturally favour the nomad over the settled population, and should choose generosity rather than an inward-looking attitude…Recent debates on the right of foreigners to vote and on the right to asylum and citizenship clear the way for these changes.” (5)

Ten years later, the debate on the EU constitution enshrined the idea of nations merging to form a European government. Things have rapidly changed following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and it is precisely this fact which excites globalist thinkers. The messianic fever seems to have reached its peak. Never before has Europe been so dominated by globalist thinking. It creeps in everywhere: the press, radio, TV documentaries, as well as adverts where, as in the cinema, multiculturalism and mixed race couples have become an almost inviolable rule within a space of ten years. All this didn’t happen naturally. It reflects, in truth, a wilful and obsessive attempt to achieve world unification, which is thought to be the prerequisite for the coming of a messiah.

With this in mind, we can see that Europe is without doubt an essential first step. Jacques Attali confirms this in his Dictionary of the 21st Century, which, at the end of the day, very much resembles the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, published in the early 20th century. He again confirms that Europe is a mere stepping-stone to greater projects:

 “A Mediterranean union, bringing together three southern European countries (France, Spain and Italy) and three North African countries (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia) could be a back-up strategy or even one that is complementary. In the medium-term, such a union would have almost as many inhabitants as the European Union itself, and would contribute to political stability in a zone which is vital for France. It could first of all be set up as a common market and then taken further to form a cultural and political entity…The southern markets will not, of course, replace those of Europe – not before a long while, in any case. But the success of the Mediterranean union would pave the way for the subsequent opening of the major African markets. A Euro-African common market will be the objective of the next century.”

It couldn’t be any clearer: Turkey’s membership of the EU is but one step in the process.

In The World is my Tribe, published in 1997, the essayist Guy Sormon was already encouraging Turky’s entry into the EU:

“Closer relations with Turkey are a matter of urgency, because this would be a way demonstrate that one can be Muslim and European”

The journalist Alexandre Adler, of course, argues for the same thing. In his article, published in Le Figaro on October 2004, he demonstrated a degree of respect for those he wishes to avoid:

“We should not say to the French that Turkey’s entry into the EU is a trivial matter, presenting no great risk, because this method only heightens the anxiety of a highly intelligent people.”

This certainly makes a change from the anti-French tirades of Alain Minc and Bernard-Henri Lévy. But in fact it is just a way to better sell his line of thinking, for he goes on to say that Turkey which has “free elections “free elections, a free press, intellectuals which are equal to ours, marvellous and outward-looking universities” represents “a fabulous opportunity… Let’s understand this sign today in order to safeguard the freedom of our continent tomorrow.”

Our freedom is at stake, obviously. In 1983, Alexandre Adler was among those who supported Henri Fiszbin’s dissident communists. Today he supports the liberal right. His career path is typical of cosmopolitan thinkers, the majority of whom came to realise that liberal democracy is a more effective means than Communism to construct a world without borders.

So everything seems to be programmed in advance. Unless, of course, resistance movements stop the machine…

[…]

*The Strasbourg conference, held in October 1991, brought together various thinkers to discuss, among other things, Europe and the war in Croatia.


(1) Alain Finkielkraut, L’Humanité perdue, Seuil, pp. 141-142.

(2) Ibidem p. 143

(3) Ibidem p. 147

(4) Le Parisien, 15 September 2004

(5) Jacques Attali, Europe(s), Fayard 1994, pp. 196 and 198


Translated from French

Source: Hervé Ryssen, Les espérances planétariennes, pp 112-18.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s