Freemasonry, Revolutions and Wars


From its very inception, Masonic ideology contained all the heresies of the modern age. These contribute to the destruction of European nations, empires, societies and their foundation: the Catholic faith.

Image associée

Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the secret society the Illuminati of Bavaria, declared to its members:

“We must establish an authoritarian, universal regime, a form of government which covers the entire world”

“It is in the privacy of secret societies that we must shape public opinion” (1)

This is what nationalists fight against. Weishaupt condemned these “partisans of National Pride” in his letters, seized by the Elector of Bavaria’s police.

Another revealing text is the La Marseillaise des Franc-Maçons written by Jouy (2) :

“The Universal Repbulic is merely the temple of the Masons; they drew the blueprint of this from their symbolic lessons”

The utopian dream of the Universal Republic has not changed.

In 1968, Roger Leray, the Grand Master of the Grand-Orient lodge, reminded the General Assembly of Freemasons (3) that:

“Two hundred years ago, Chevalier Ramsay declared the Universal Republic”.

“Ever since, Freemasons the world over have indefatigably contributed to its construction.”

Likewise, Patrick Kessel (4) in his inaugural speech declared that :

“The Freemasons of the Grand-Orient de France have a project, a task, a hope: the Universal Republic.”

We shouldn’t believe that this utopia is unique to the atheist Grand-Orient whereas other Masonic orders are, supposedly, different and “trustworthy”, as some would try to have us believe. Guy Piau (5), Grand Master of the Grande Loge de France, takes care to open the eyes of the gullible by pointing out that:

The quest for both a European and world community falls within the ambit of our thoughts and our actions.”

And it is confirmed that :

“Freemasons from the Grand-Orient are not the only ones to advocate the destruction of nations; those from the Grand Loge adopt the same language”

“For the Freemasons, the construction of a European zone is merely the precursor to the creation of a universal territory, the entire planet as a homeland

In Europe-Parlement, a private publication reserved for politicians, Richard Dupuy (6), (7), also Grand Master of the Grande Loge de France, confirmed what the common goal was:

“We work for the creation of a Universal Republic and this Republic depends on Europe”

So we should have no illusions. All Masonic orders and their “fellows” work to achieve the same goal, as confirmed by J Baylot (8), another Grand Master of the Grand Loge Nationale:

“Each order has its own specific characters and language but, in truth, members all receive the same Masonic instruction, leading to the same goal”

“The lodges will give way to Masonism, which will be a universal religion”

It couldn’t be any clearer and we can see that, after two centuries, the goal remains the same:

Universal Republic, universal religion, Masonism

Another revealing text can be found in Travaux (T.XI, p.3.), published by the Grande Loge de France:

“The Grande Loge de France has the great advantage of welcoming among its midst members from different orders who have their own particular rituals”

This is in no way a problem for them because

“All fellows agree on the fundamental principles, otherwise they could not be Freemasons”

Could there be any better proof of the fact that all Masonic orders work to achieve the same goal?

These documents show that the Grande Loge Nationale de France is no more “trustworthy” than the other lodges, contrary to what some of its agents, who claim to no longer be Masons, would try to have us believe (9).

To ensure that this “universal, Masonic religion” or “Masonism” was viable, it was necessary not only to destroy Catholicism but also its political foundation: the nations which drew their inspiration from Catholicism, monarchies based on the divine right of kings.

The new nation of the revolutionaries has no connection with the natural homeland, the product of previous generations.

In 1993, the Grand Master of the Grand-Orient, Gilbert Abergel, recalled that:

“As early as 1987, during the draft stages of this reform (of the law governing the entitlement to French nationality, replacing the principle of jus sanguinis with that of jus soli) our order – via the Grand Master at the time, Jean-Robert Ragache (10) – had reiterated in Le Monde its commitment to the republican idea of nationality which ruled out all use of the jus sanguinis principle as the foundation of French nationality”

So the Freemasons, in the execution of their globalist plot, rely on the principle of jus soli in order to drown nations in a vast inflow of foreigners, thereby preventing any nationalist backlash.

Bush’s condemnation of Austria’s immigration policy in 2000, reported by Roger Cohen in the New York Times, demonstrates how the globalists rely on immigration to “break down the barrier of the nation”.

This passage from the Contrat maçonnique européen (11) provides further evidence of the development of this policy:

“The European ideal, a vital element of universalism, is inherent in the Masonic tradition, which declares that the construction of a Masonic Europe is necessary”.

Following the triumph of internationalist ideas of the French Revolution, the new nation of the Freemasons was defined in ideological terms. All those who adhere to these “new ideals” belong to this “nation”, regardless of their religious beliefs or national origins. In order to properly understand this total transformation of the concept of a nation, we have to go back to Weishaupt.

In the letters he wrote to his followers, he divided his contemporaries into two categories:

Those who, like him, adhered to what he called love of the world, the ancestor of globalist cosmopolitanism.

Those whose acts are motivated by love of the nation (12). His followers were urged to fight these nationalists.

It is clear that, right from the very inception of the Masonic utopia, the two camps were already diametrically opposed to each other

On the one hand, we have the citizens of the world, the globalists for whom the new nation is planetary in nature, the Universal Republic.

On the other hand, we have those who understand the grave consequences of these revolutionary, internationalist ideas and who fight against this utopia. Henceforth we will call them nationalists.

We must emphasise the importance of these definitions and the historical origins of the nationalist ideal. Some people wrongly believe that the Jacobins were nationalists, because they declared that the “homeland was in danger”. To believe this is to fail to understand that words did not have the same meaning and purpose. The revolutionaries defended the “new” nation, which was “ideological”, “internationalist”, and was opposed to the inherited, traditional nation.

The following statement from Point de Vue Initiatique (13) is very clear:

“Citizenship is open to all those who identify with the values of the Republic, whether they be foreigners or natives”

Nicolas Sarkozy’s declaration clearly expressed the same principle:

“I don’t want any more talk about native-born French”

We understand why, because he doesn’t belong to this category!

So for the revolutionaries of 1789 and their heirs, the nation and the homeland are mere ideological constructions which reject the idea of the nation as a heritage, a nation inherited with all its defining cultural characteristics.

This is why Anacharsis Cloots, a Prussian Jew and one of the key foreign agents of the so-called “French” Revolution, was granted French nationality by the Convention upon publication of his book, entitled The Universal Republic

Résultat de recherche d'images pour

As far as the members of the Convention were concerned, the key criterion to be French was the identification with the internationalist “values of the republic”.

A fact rarely highlighted is the large number of foreigners involved in the French Revolution:  Cloots, Marat, Necker, Franklin, Weishaupt, Cagolistro, Mesmer, to take just the most famous names, not to mention Israelites from France and elsewhere, who actively participated in the revolutionary turmoil and financed it.

Likewise, the ranks of the republican army were full of foreign officers committed to “new ideas”. Many of them went on to play a role in the revolutions in their own countries, in particular in Spain and Latin America during decolonisation.

Another type of nation, which aimed to destroy the traditional nation, emerged from this revolutionary process.

On the one hand, we have the nation of heritage which represents the intellectual, moral, spiritual capital, gradually built up by previous generations, that is to say everything which has come to form the unique character of each nation.

On the other hand, we have the new and artificial homeland, the ideological nation, which rejects and hates national heritage. This is a new nation made of men who are supposedly equal and undifferentiated. The only thing these men have in common is their commitment to the revolutionary utopia, irrespective of their nationality. (12)

From this perspective, nationality no longer defines the individual; it is ideology which defines the individual and, according to this logic, the nation of heritage will gradually disappear to the point where it is no longer the defining framework or reference point for the citizen who is now a “citizen of the world”. Consequently, the nation is regarded as superfluous.

Such is the inherent and destructive logic of globalism, the product of the Masonic utopia, the disastrous consequences of which we can see today.

Jacques Ploncard d’Assac (14) made a cogent analysis of this programmed destruction:

“Nations no longer form a coherent whole.”

“Things have somehow lasted through force of habit, but, as the principles which form the idea of nation disappear, the masses become once again open to the artificial regroupings of stateless technocrats.”

“Societies are to be portrayed as being sorts of refugee camps where men from all over the world will work for an unnamed and gigantic company in exchange for a salary and a home, their work having no precise meaning in an extinct historical community”

This is precisely what certain groups, at the time of the Revolution, were fighting against. This is why the Freemason Weishaupt warned his followers of those he called “nationalists”. They were liable to endanger these Masonic and globalist ideas.

Once the monarchy gave way to revolutionary ideas and certain “initiated” members of the aristocracy, such as Philippe Egalité, started to collude with financial speculators (most of whom were either Jewish or Protestants from England) to corner the market for consumer goods in order to drive up their price (sparking widespread anger), the nationalist backlash, which worried Weishaupt, emerged by default from a monarchy which had surrendered its role. (12)

Understanding the darker purpose of the Masonic internationalist conspiracy, Joseph de Maistre (who had decided to leave both the Freemasons and the Martinist Order) had identified exactly what was really underlying the Revolution and where it would lead society and the nation (15). In a letter to viscount de Bonald, he wrote:

“Nations are destroyed by conquest, that is to say by invasion. But in this case we have an important question. Without being invaded or transplanted, can a nation die on its own soil just through decay, simply by letting corruption reach its heart and the founding principles which define its character? This is a serious and daunting problem. At this point, France and the French no longer exist. Rome is no longer in Rome and everything is lost.” (16)

This question precisely defines the process which began with the Revolution and which, if nations fail to take action, will conclude with the programmed destruction of nations. It is at the root of every nationalist analysis.

(1) Augustin Barruel. Mémoires pour servir à l‘Histoire du Jacobinisme.

Londres 1798.

(2) Humanisme. février 1998, p.1 78-1 79.

(3) ibid, juillet l969.

(4) ibid, N°219, décembre 1994, p. 51.

(5) Points de Vue Initiatiques, 1989, N°71.

(6) Jacques Ploncard d’ Assac. Le secret des Francs-maçons.

(7) Serge de Beketch wrote of him that he was his “dear friend”

(8) J. Baylet. Oswald Wirth, 1860-1943.

(9) Philippe Ploncard d’ Assac. Enquête sur la Nouvelle-Droite et ses Compagnons de route.

(10) His friendship and his literary dealings with the aetheist and now deceased Jean Mabire, editor of National Hebdo, are well known.

(11) Humanisme, N° 213, décembre, 1993, p. 93

(12) Philippe Ploncard d’Assac. Le Nationalisme français.

(13) Point de Vite Initiatique N° 97, mars 1995, p. 132,

(14) Jacques Ploncard d’ Assac. Les idées qui tuent, p. 34,

(15) The Freemasons and their supporters conceal his criticism of Masonic ideoglogy and the Revolution.

(16) Letter to viscount de Bonald, 1.12.1814, in Lettres et Opuscules, T. I. P· 243 ·


“Without being invaded or transplanted, can a nation die on its own soil just through decay, simply by letting corruption reach its heart and the founding principles which define its character?”

Joseph de Maistre’s question leads us to examine the means by which the “founding principles” of a nation are endangered.

We have already discussed the political and financial role of numerous Jews in the French Revolution, in particular Marat, Necker, Cloots and Weishaupt.

The means by which this plan is put into action are always the same, as demonstrated by declaration made by Paul Walberg, a Jewish financier, before the American Senate:

“We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.”

Twenty years later, Baron Edmond de Rothschild (1), comes back to the same obsession:

The barrier which must be breached is the nation!” 

Prior to this, certain members of the Jewish community, in particular Sigmund Warburg, Arman Hammer and Jakob Schiff, had supported the Bolshevik Revolution from its very beginning. This gives credence to what the American historian Ivor Benson (2) observed. He considered international Communism to be:

“The explosive needed to destroy Christian nations”

This explains the ease with which the Soviet Union collapsed. Once Communism had completed its designated task of destruction, it became more profitable for its backers, the cosmopolitan plutocracy, to open new markets in the ex-USSR by destroying it from the inside! There was no need for intervention by Pope Jean-Paul II, who had refused to sanctify Russia at the Sacré-Coeur. The globalist elite which had backed Communism decided to change its strategy, and this alone was enough for it to disappear. This is the truth of what appeared to be the opposition between cosmopolitan capitalism and Marxism, both of which are merely two sides of the same coin, namely atheist materialism, which is opposed to Christian society.

The continuation of this globalist desire to destroy nations can be seen in the statements made by French official representatives of Judaism, who express their hatred of France:

Bernard-Henry Lévy, (3)

“Hurray for everything which can contribute to the destruction of reactionary mythologies of the nation-state, chauvinistic nationalism, region, bagpipes and folklore”

The same hatred of the nation is also expressed by Georges-Marc Benamou (4) :

“Everything to do with region, berets, drunkenness, bagpipes, in short anything typically French and jingoistic is alien to us, not to say abhorrent”

As for Pierre Bergé, patron of the Globe and various gay magazines, he claimed that:

“Homeland is the most hateful word for us”

Us ? What does he mean by “us” ?! A statement made by Jean Khan, president of the Jewish European Congress, leaves no room for doubt:

My political party is the Jewish people”

In addition, he considered that:

“Any form of reference to the baptism of Clovis constitutes a very strong incitement to racial hatred” and he called for a “crack down on any reference of this kind”

In the light of certain statements, we can see what lies behind this hatred of nations.

In his memoirs, the globalist Jean Monnet (7), one of the “fathers of Europe” and an American agent revealed the objective:

“The European community itself is merely a step towards the organizational structures of tomorrow”

This is what all Masonic orders declare, while obsessively striving for the creation of the Universal Republic,  as we have seen above.

Jean Gandois, who was president of the CNPF (National Council of French Directors), made a revealing remark:

“Labour and national capital no longer serve the nation and its people” (8)

Who does benefit from them, then ? Felix Rohatyn was the American ambassador to France and the director of Lazare bank. He was also the head of the highly influential and highly secretive French-American Business Council (FABC). He gives us the answer:

“It is time to think about Europe in a new way, no longer as a group of nation-states but as constellation of dynamic cities and regions which will be our clients” (9)

Note that he doesn’t say “partners” but “clients”, meaning people fit only to buy their products…!

Likewise, during the American military operation against Serbia (a country which sought to protect the birthplace of its religious and national identity, Kosovo) the US chief of operations, General Michael Wesley Clark (10), declared in July 1999 on CNN that:

“There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states

“That’s a 19th century idea, and we are preparing the transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multiethnic states.”

Again, notice this very revealing “we”.

These declarations concur with those made by the cosmopolitan financers Paul Walberg and Edmond de Rothschild for whom:

“The barrier which must be breached is the nation” (1) !

Aside from revolutions, we must also examine the way in which wars are used by the Freemasons as means of securing world domination.

There were two “sparks” in twentieth century history which triggered the globalist chain reaction. These events correspond to specific stages in the Masonic blueprint for the world. These events were engineered using the well-known technique of provocation:

The First World War: The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by the terrorist Prinzip, a Jewish Freemason.

Léon de Poncins (11) notes that :

“Some authors have claimed that the war of 1914 was in fact a Jewish and Masonic war, perhaps triggered by them, or at least used by them, in order to achieve their objective. Indeed, they did benefit greatly from the Versailles Peace Treaty with the collapse of European monarchies, the democratisation of Europe, the break-up of Catholic Austria, the fact that financial power fell into Jewish hands, and the creation of the League of Nations, which had long been called for and heralded by the Jews and the Masonic lodges.”

We ought to touch upon the Sarajevo assassination, as it played a major role in the outbreak of the First World War. A high-ranking Swiss Freemason wrote a letter regarding the heir to the Austrian throne, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This letter was published on the 15 September 1912 by the Revue Internationale des Sociétés Secrètes, edited by Bishop Ernest Jouin:

“He is good, it’s a shame he is condemned”

“He will die on the steps to the throne” 

On the 28 June, 1914, the heir to the Austrian throne and his wife were killed in Sarajevo.

The eight assassins were all members of the Serbian Masonic group Narodna Odbrana, similar to the Italian Carbonari.

The minutes of the trial leave us in no doubt that they were Freemasons, as were the instigators. (3).

Regarding the First World War, the F.A. Lebey (12), one of the official bodies of French Freemasonry, claimed at the time that:

“The current campaign is the continuation of that started in 1789”

And at the Masonic conference, held in Lisbon on 13 May 1917, the Portuguese Grand Master, Magalhaes de Lima, proclaimed:

“The allied victory will be the triumph of Masonic principles”

Thus the massacre of 1914-18 merely served to continue the destruction of political structures which obstructed the path to the Universal Republic.

The Second World War: The assassination of the German diplomat, Ernst von Rath, carried out by a Jew, Herschell Grynzspan, on November 1938 in Paris, led to an intensification of the crackdown on Jews by the Germans, who were already infuriated by the declaration of war by the Jewish world, published on the front page of The Daily Express on 24 March 1933:  “Judea declares war on Germany”

Résultat de recherche d'images pour

Swept along by the rage of cosmopolitan pro-war propaganda, England and France were led to declare war against Germany. All European countries were weakened by this war, both victors and vanquished alike. This war opened the path leading to the destruction of colonial empires in Africa and Asia, much in the same way as this had been done for the Spanish and Portuguese Catholic empires in America. This marked a new phase in the globalist conspiracy to weaken European nations.

It is in this way that the globalists use revolutions and world wars in their quest for the Universal Republic.

(l) Entreprise,  18.7.1 970

(2) Ivor Benson, The Zionist Factor. The Noontide Press.

(3) France-Soir, 24.4.79

(4) Globe, N° I, 1988

(5) Quoted in Rivarol, 8.5.91.

(6) Tribune Juive, April, 1996.

(7) Jean Monnet revived the Crémieux decree, following the liberation of Paris. The decree, named after the president of the Alliance israélite universelle, granted French nationality to all Jewish Algerians, and excluded Muslims, sparking the revolt led by Mokrani, who had just fought for France in the war against Prussia in 1870 c.f. Le Nationalisme français, chap. VIII.

(8) Report for 11th Plan, p.274-275,

(9) Wall Street Journal, 7.5.99

(10) Whose surname at birth was in fact “Kanne” : his mother’s second husband gave him the name Clark.

(11) Léon de Poncins, La F.M.’. d’après ses documents secrets. p. 185-86

12) Albert Mousset. L’Attentat de Sarajevo. Court minutes of the trial.

(13) The regionalism of the pro-European new right is objectively the ally of globalism. cf. P. P. d’Assac. Enquête sur la Nouvelle-Droite et ses Compagnons

Translated from French

The original author was Philippe Ploncard d’Assac

Source: La Maçonnerie, pp 181 – 194

Résultat de recherche d'images pour

George Soros

The idea of a world without borders, with whole of mankind finally unified, is certainly not new. What is new, as we enter the third millennium, is that, for the first time in history, Westerners get the impression that the entire human race is resolutely committed to this process.

Hervé Ryssen

François-Xavier ROCHETTE, journalist for Rivarol magazine, gives his views on George Soros.

The Globalist Utopian

Following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the vast majority of patriots in the world applauded the dramatic demise of an anti-Christian Communist system which destroyed freedoms and killed the sovereignty of the countries under its rule.

The 1990s marked a turning point in the creation of a new world vision which came to be shared by the West and Eastern Europe, which was said to be liberated from tyranny. At first, there were two ways to see the future.

We had hoped for the rebirth of nations, a new lease of life for identities and the rejuvenation of cultural origins, the reestablishment of roots.  But it was a second way of seeing the new world which ruthlessly prevailed not only in politics but also everywhere in the world of culture.

In 1990, the modern media, as epitomised by the insufferable Anne Schwartz “Sinclair” on TF1, believed that the world was heading for a new age, the religion of the individual, and that it had entered the final stage of human development, the “end of history”, as Francis Fukuyama put it.

According to the official rhetoric during the 1990s, the world was becoming a sort of universal democracy, where nations had been demoted in favour of the individual, which could be likened to a painter in possession of an infinite palette of colours. This individual is (irrationally) insensitive to dereliction and is detached from all form of transcendence.

It’s this vision of the world, immediately criticised by Solzhenitsyn, which, ever since the collapse of the Berlin wall, has been forced upon entire populations, dazed by propaganda. It’s a world in which Communist messianism, the hope of a unified world in which there is no obvious master, has been replaced by the messianism of world government or, to put it another way, the will to force people to abandon their loyalty to their nation together with the relative trust that they still place in their respective states.

Anne Sinclair’s dream, and that of another Schwartz (the real surname of the two people in question here), George Soros, is that of a planet without nations, without states, without communities, without principles, without values.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour

What they hope to see for the entire planet – their “planetary hopes”, to use the term coined by Hervé Ryssen, who has done an outstanding job of compiling and analysing evidence in this domain – is the disappearance of the white man, the family and all forms of allegiance. Any form of authority must disappear, too, and is to be replaced by a new form of religion, the religion of the “open society”, a theory constructed by the philosopher Karl Popper. Though Popper died in 1992, he remains the intellectual guru of the highly pernicious George Soros, who, despite being 86 years old, remains an active troublemaker in the world.

The neo-globalists are confident that tolerance of everybody and everything is the only rule which allow humans to live peacefully in a world without borders. This postulate requires that we accept an idea which is even more “challenging”. Or, rather there is a consequence that needs to be accepted or addressed. Soros does not conceal this need: the individual of the open society must discard rationality.

For Soros and his friends, this means that the individual not only has to tolerate all forms of madness, vice and perversion but that he must also completely abandon the quest for moral, philosophical and religious truth. And it would appear that Soros does, at least, adhere to this rule of irrationality, for it’s certainly true that his words and his actions fly in the face of the most elementary logic.

But should we not be suspicious of the image that this sinister character has created for himself? Who is this untouchable speculator who plays with nations and who is said to be a philanthropist?

One thing is certain: George Schwartz attempts to conceal his role in the system. His disguises are sometimes hilarious. Soros does not act alone. He is a man who has agreed to play a role to which he is totally committed. He is not the mastermind of a plot  but an agent among many others working to ensure the smooth running of what can only be described as being a globalist conspiracy.

The essential first step was to portray Soros as an impartial philanthropist, eager to create the open society everywhere, no matter what the price. Even in Israel where, according to his official biographers, Soros demands the government to be slightly kinder to the Palestinians. But this is just empty posturing.

Where are the hordes of immigrants, aided by the No Borders pressure group which is directly financed by Soros in France, Scandinavia, Germany and Holland? Where are the Femen in Israel? Are religious Jews also victims of the vicious acts committed by these idiotic girls who target our Catholic churches here in France? Where are the blasphemers in Israel?

In truth, Soros seeks uniquely the image of an anti-Zionist, an image maintained by the Zionist intelligence agencies, such as NGO Monitor (a highly subversive organisation where the wife of that rather suspicious German journalist works. This journalist just so happened to be present when the terrorist attack in Nice took place on 14 July and then, a few days later, was just 30 metres away from the Munich shopping centre, where another terrorist attack was carried out. Rather odd, wouldn’t you say?)

Résultat de recherche d'images pour

So the chaos created by Soros and his billions cannot, according to commentators who lack an inquiring mind, be the result of action taken by Zionist agencies because he is described as being a terrible anti-Zionist “who doesn’t even have a house in Israel” (sic). But the fact remains that Israel remains untouched by attempts to impose an open society, which is characterised by the absence of nations and ethnic groups.

This brings us back to the incomparable Hervé Ryssen who, in his Espérances Planétariennes (Planetary Hopes), has compiled the statements made by George Soros concerning his Jewish origins. To say the very least, these statements temper any notion of Soros being a pure individualist, unattached to any particular community.

It is true that Ryssen identifies a statement, made by George Soros on page 43 of his book Le Défi de l’Argent, which could suggest that this individual is merely a cosmopolitan, eager to establish world-wide fraternity: “My father was an esperantist. It was thanks to the profits he had made from publishing an Esperanto newspaper that he came to run a portfolio of property assets. He is the only person I knew to have made a living from rental income. He managed to leave Hungary in 1956 and that’s when arrived in America.”

But Esperanto is a Jewish creation, a device designed to facilitate the creation of a unified world, a world to be ruled by the “chosen people”. On page 186 of the same book, Ryssen identifies a statement which proves this megalomania: “When I was a teenage boy, I dreamed of being a superman. I have already talked about my messianic urges…I am absolutely fascinated by history, which I have a deep desire to influence”

On page 115, Soros states: “I am proud to be Jewish. I believe in the idea of Jewish genius. You just have to look at the success that Jews have had in science, arts and in the economy. It’s the result of their efforts to transcend their minority status and accomplish something universal. Judaism is an essential component of my personality and, as I have said before, I am very proud of it. I am also conscious that my way of thinking partly promotes the Jewish utopian ideal. My foundations connect me to this tradition”.

But Soros goes further and asserts the fact that he is Jewish doesn’t merely influence his political choices but dictates them: “When see you the way in which the Jews react to persecution, you discover that they tend to look for one of two ways to escape. Either they transcend their problem by turning to something universal or they identify with their oppressors and try to become like them….I chose the first option. A third possibility is Zionism, the foundation of nation where Jews form the majority”.

The plot seems very clear. Weaken and discredit all nations, render governments obsolete, and destroy specific national characteristics.  In parallel, carry out other operations to protect the Zionist entity and accord it the status of a sanctuary. In short, and we must reiterate this point, Soros is not a demiurge despite his acute megalomania. He is a an agent of Zionism whose mission is to destroy the Christian world.

Soros strives to corrupt European societies. European Zionists, such as the vulgar Eric Zemmour, are considered to be patriots. But they advocate the Israeli solution to the problem of Islamic extremism in European societies (which for them is exactly the same as the Palestinian problem). “We should do the same thing as Moshe, it works over there”. We saw the results of this in Nice.

So we weren’t surprised by the latest Wikileaks revelations regarding the activities of George Soros. Many of the hacked documents concern financing the flood of immigrants into Europe.

Other documents reveal how large sums of money are invested in various organisations in order to “change the policy of the Catholic Church” (or rather what now masquerades as the Catholic Church). These documents prove that, in the spring of 2015, funds were granted “to obtain the public support of bishops for the Church to be open to the consideration of racial and economic issues, so as to create a critical mass of bishops who agree with the views of the pope.”

Basically, millions of euros have been scattered here and there in an effort to foment civil unrest. Soros perhaps hopes that, by creating friction, he will trigger a chain reaction, an explosion which will wipe out all the historical vestiges he hates.

For instance, we discover that he finances the organisations which defend the right to wear the famous “burkini”. On the other hand, Soros also finances organisations and policies to promote homosexuality, “transgenderism”, abortion (an industry which appears very important for Soros), pro-pornography campaigns and, in particular, gender theory. The hacked documents prove that these lunatic organisations collaborate with the French ministry of education, which has become just as insane.

What does all this mean? Why does this man of infinite tolerance, the advocate of the open society, finance projects with contradictory aims? What does this Schwartz want exactly? What could be more intolerable for Muslims than the fact that he grants them financial aid while simultaneously financing gender theory which turns little boys into little girls and vice versa? If an immensely wealthy man wanted to create permanent civil unrest within a given society, he couldn’t choose a better strategy. In any case, it appears that the cynicism of Soros, a mere henchman for the Rothschilds, is limitless.

A man who financially ruins nations through currency speculation, who financially brings companies and their employees to their knees by speculating on commodities, who pushes ethnic groups to kill each other while urging free nations to wage war, as he does close to Russia’s borders, must be an evil man if not a demon.

Article Translated from French

The author was François-Xavier ROCHETTE

Source: Rivarol (N°3249 — 15 SEPTEMBRE 2016)