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 It’s a world in which Communist messianism, the hope of a unified world in which there is no obvious master, has been replaced by the messianism of world government or, to put it another way, the will to force people to abandon their loyalty to their nation together with the relative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)

Satan in Hollywood

A Documentary by Hervé Ryssen

A covert war has been declared against the Christians of this world in general, and the Catholic Church in particular. Indeed, on television and in cinema, Christians are frequently depicted as being bigoted, sectarian, racist, and homophobic, while the clergy – especially the Catholic clergy – is commonly portrayed as a den of paedophiles, psychopaths and killers.Résultat de recherche d'images pour

In this highly watchable documentary, we learn that certain film directors use film to discredit Christian values, which form the foundation of European nations.  Indeed, certain big-budget productions psychologically condition minds for the unification of the planet, ruled by a world government, considered by some as being the prerequisite for “peace” on earth.

The English version can be downloaded for free:

http://www.mediafire.com/file/1918a4dmb3g6tc6/SAH-EN+allégé.mp4

Or you can watch directly it here:

https://rutube.ru/video/72107f97e156b00a1f4546376eac62eb/?ref=search


Résultat de recherche d'images pour

In the following interview, Hervé Ryssen talks to Jérôme Bourbon (Rivarol magazine) about the documentary:

Many of our readers are already familiar with your work as each year we review your latest book. So what have you been working on over the past few months?  

This year I took a risk: I put aside writing to focus on a documentary on “the image of Christians in cinema.”

For some time now, I have noticed that Christians, and especially Catholics, are badly treated by many film makers, though, admittedly, not all of them are Hollywood directors. So I embarked upon a systematic review. I took all the scenes which illustrated the point in the clearest fashion and organised them according to themes, in exactly the same way as I had done for my books. And I can assure that, once again, the result is quite incredible!

What do you mean?

By this I mean that these scenes, most which have been taken from mainstream films, demonstrate a deep and systematic hatred of Christianity. If we were talking about minor films which occasionally appeared on our screens to be greeted with indignation or sarcasm, then we could just about tolerate this, provided that other religions were treated in the same way.

But I see that Christianity and Catholicism – especially Catholicism, this must be stressed – have been systematically attacked for decades by film directors whose films attract multi-million dollar budgets. When you see all the scenes I have compiled, you will be alarmed by the extent to which the religion of our parents has been vilified and blackened.

What are themes that have you been able to identify? How have you gone about presenting this overview of Christianophobia to the public?

Remaining faithful to my methodology, I begin with what’s most visible and then go beyond the surface in order to show the viewer what may have escaped him. As we are dealing with video images, I began my documentary by looking at “big-budget” films with a certain picture quality. The very first film I examine is Jean-Jacques Annaud’s “The Name of the Rose”, which opens the chapter devoted to “historical” films.

Here we see that certain film directors convey their hatred of Christianity with carefully crafted scenes and tailor-made characters, whether the film is set in the Antiquity period, the 18th century or during the Second World War.

I then examine a dozen or so films in which Christianity today or in the future is portrayed as being an omnipresent and oppressive force. I then review the films in which the Christian character plays the role of the bastard, when he is not portrayed as being narrow-minded, uptight or ridiculous. Indeed, the Christian can also be bigoted, racist, anti-Semitic, a kidnapper of children, a child abuser or quite simply a dangerous psychopathic killer. And let’s not forget the killer monks as well as the bitter and twisted nuns.

In the fourth part of the documentary, I review the scenes in which Catholic ceremonies are deliberately interrupted. In several of the films examined in the early part of the documentary, the viewer is so disgusted by what he has seen of Christianity that he is delighted to see the priest or the bishop get killed. And here, I assure you, we are not talking about small-budget films.

All this lead to the logical conclusion: the best way to make people abandon Christianity is to glorify sexuality. This is based purely on the films reviewed in the documentary, but this is sufficient to understand the intentions of the film directors in question.

What did you want to show with this documentary? What conclusions can we come to regarding this hatred of Christianity? To put it bluntly, do the people who make these films all belong to one particular community?

There are violently anti-Christian films which have been made by directors from Christian families. But they had turned aggressively atheist either because they had become Marxist or just by a desire to conform. From what I have observed, the hatred of Christianity can also be rooted in homosexuality.

But it appears to me that these cases are fairly rare. The fact is that the majority of these films have been produced by filmmakers who are not Christian and who do not come from Christian families. But what is really important to understand – and this is what I explain when I make one of my appearances in the documentary – is that the producer also takes part of the blame. The producer finances the film right from the start and stipulates his terms and conditions, and is more likely to do so if the director does not enjoy great fame.

In the US, the film belongs entirely to the producer, who alters the message of the film according to his wishes. If the director is not happy, he can always release a DVD of his own version: this is what’s known as the “director’s cut”. Anyway, to answer your question in the most consensual fashion possible and without taking too many risks, I would say that these directors come from all communities and all walks of life. Nevertheless, film directors from a particular community, well-known for its influence in the world of media, do form a clear majority.

And I do believe it’s not the Muslims this time!

The aim of this documentary is not just to open the eyes of Catholics to the true nature of those who attack them. It is true that the problems which the West encounters with the Muslim world mean that many of our fellow citizens see Islam as being the biggest danger. In the spirit of objectivity, I wanted to show that the attacks against our ancestral religion do not stem from Islam. Muslims suffer the same treatment as Catholics in Hollywood films, albeit on a more moderate scale, because it really is Catholics, and not Muslims, who are insulted the most.

I also wanted to show Catholics that those who denigrate their religion are also the most fervent supporters of the “liberation of morals”: the destruction of the patriarchal family, homosexuality, “transgenderism”, mixed marriages and the multicultural society.

It’s all linked. At several points in the documentary – between film extracts – I explain the details of this egalitarian fanaticism which corresponds precisely to the hope that a messiah will one day come to this earth. In this way, I hope to gain the support of honest Catholics for our cause, which is not merely the defence of Christianity but the defence of our entire civilisation.

[…]


Translated from French

Hervé Ryssen was interviewed by Jérôme Bourbon, editor-in-chief of Rivarol magazine.

Source: http://herveryssen.hautetfort.com/herve-ryssen-satan-a-hollywood.html

The Eschatological War

The author Hervé Ryssen grants an interview to Jérôme Bourbon for the French political review Rivarol


Your ninth book has been published this week. This time you look at eschatology. Could you first of all explain to us what eschatology is ?

To put it simply, eschatology is the study of “end times”. In the three great monotheist religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – there is the belief that our world was created by God but that one day it must end. Catastrophes, wars and all sorts of terrifying prophecies are found in each of the great traditions as well as in ancient Aryan tradition and in Nordic mythology. From the ultimate war against the forces of evil, a new world will be reborn, from which the non-believers and heretics will have been banished. We find the same pattern every time.

What have you learnt from your research ? Given the close relationship between the three religions, can we say it’s possible to conceive a common future?

Eschatology teaches us precisely that the three religions are incompatible with one another for the very simple reason that their visions of the future differ on one particular and fundamental point : in the end, one – and only one – must triumph. The others must convert (in the case of Christianity and Islam) or quite simply disappear. Indeed, the Jews do not have this desire to convert the others to Judaism. The propaganda of certain Jewish intellectuals (what they say, their films, their novels, etc) consists of discrediting among non-Jews the idea of religion, race, homeland and any feeling of belonging in order to elevate the Jews above the mass of goys. Once all the nations have been destroyed and transformed into multi-cultural societies, once all the religions have been annihilated, and once a world government has been established – probably after a world war – an “absolute and final” peace will reign on earth, according to them. It is then that their much awaited messiah will come. The Jews will have kept their traditions and so will be recognised by all as being “God’s chosen people”.

But Jewish supremacism is no exception. The Muslims also seek to dominate this world.

There is, indeed, in Islam the idea that the whole world must submit and accept the message of the Holy Prophet. But, as I was saying, it is a question of converting others. Islam is not a closed sect, like Judaism, but is an open and universalist religion, similar to Christianity for that matter. But we must not forget that the Koran mentions several times the idea of fighting the infidel, with weapons if necessary.

Certain French patriots believe that, faced with the rise of Islam in Europe, the Jews, or certain Jews at least, can be allies. What’s your opinion on this?

For some ten years now, we have seen a handful of Jews, who were at one time fervent supporters of immigration, turn their guns and transform themselves, magically, into super French patriots, “more French than the French”, ever since they realised that all those Muslim immigrants, whom they helped to get into the country, are not necessarily their friends. Moreover, the rhetoric against “Islamic fascism” (Bernard-Henry Lévy used the term fascislamisme as early as 2006) is a way of mentally preparing people for a war against Iran, a country which does not threaten the French in a way at all, but which is an obstacle for the Zionist state in the Middle East.

[…]

How do Muslim theologians envisage the end of this battle between the Western world and Zionism ?

Theologians, such as Imran Hosein, have perfectly understood that the “Christian” West is today very much Jewish owing to a constant stream of cosmopolitan propaganda in the media. “Abortion, homosexuality, lesbianism, adultery are all legal today…” he writes.  He quite rightly says that the Europeans “have become Jewish”. He also vehemently condemns moves by the West to establish a world government. For him, in any case, things are very clear : God punished the Jews with a Babylonian army ; he punished them a second time with a Roman army; the third punishment will be a Muslim army, only this time it will be for real!

As for the Christians, who have not been able to protect themselves from Jewish nihilism, they will be obliged to stop venerating Jesus as if he were God and “will be forced to recognise him as a prophet”. Here we can see a difference in tone between the Muslims, who recognise Jesus as a prophet, and the Jews who, in the Talmud, insult Christ and consider that he is the son of a prostitute and a Roman solider. In Muslim eschatology, Jesus is sometimes considered to be the “Mahdi “(he who is guided by God), who will defeat the Anti-Christ at the end of time. For the Muslims also have the idea of an “Anti-Christ”. They call him the “Dajjal” and, as in Christianity, the Anti-Christ, who will persecute the faithful before finally being defeated, will come from the Jewish sect.

According to you, what are the differences between Christian eschatology and Muslim eschatology?

The essential difference is that the Muslims, like the Jews, believe in a triumph in this world, whereas the Christians, in particular the Catholics, seem to have renounced all idea of a victory in this world. Catholic eschatology is not clear, to tell the truth, and does not stir people into action in the same way as eschatology does for the Jews or for the Shia Muslims, who strive to bring the messiah to this world. A very small number of texts suggest the evangelisation of all nations, the Church’s “sixth age”, which precedes the great apostasy, as described by Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser. We read that, in the following age, that of the Anti-Christ, “the only victory possible for the Christians in these terrible times will be to be defeated, persecuted, tormented and put to death, while remaining true, faithful and resolute”. This is revealing. We see that Christians are morally defenceless and that they are turned into martyrs, whereas they could have been heroes.

La Chute des anges, illustration de Georges Chastellain, Miroir de mort, 1470, Bibliothèque municipale, Carpentras.

‘The Fall of Angels’ – Georges Chastelain, 1470

In the Conciliar Church, in accordance with the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the eschatology is even less galvanising. This time, the Church seems to have taken up the cause of Judaism. It must be humble and seems to be waiting impatiently for world government and the reign of the Anti-Christ! What about the conversion of Jews? This is postponed for the end of time and is never due to the evangelical zeal of Catholics. There is therefore no messianic activism. “Nobody will miss our gothic cathedrals”, fruit of our “pride”, writes a theologian with the authorisation of the diocese of Paris. We really do get the impression that there is a death wish. In such circumstances, therefore, it is not surprising to see our enemies gaining ground while we retreat.

What of the pagan “Weltanschaung”  ? Could you tell us a little about this?

The pagan world is generally based on an eschatology which is very pacific. It is very easy to understand why. For decades, the intellectual leader of this school of thought, Alain Benoist, has continued to trot out the idea that pre-Christian history in Europe was cyclical and not linear, and all the adherents of this movement, following him, have repeated ad nauseam Nietzsche’s phrase: “We must not hold back what must fall, but push it”. This means that, quite naturally, a number of militants within this movement believe that the best thing to do is to watch this civilisation die and even encourage its demise, as they are convinced that a new cycle will begin once everything has been destroyed. They no longer even realise that, at the end of the cycle, the white man will be dead and buried and they will have left the door open to their enemies.

The “traditionalists”, who are less political in their way of thinking, are followers of René Guénon and Julius Evola. According to this school of thought, history is a long decline, a gradual separation from the “Primordial Tradition”, and this has been the case for tens of thousands of years (or for several hundreds of thousands, depending on the many different interpretations!)

Following the Golden Age, there was the Silver Age and then the Bronze Age. We are today in the fourth and final age, the Iron Age, which has lasted for more than six thousand years, but which will soon come to an end and complete the great cycle. We have to wait for it all to end, asserts Julius Evola; it is absolutely futile to attempt to do anything to fight against the tide of decline!

With this mind, we understand better why the Jews and the Muslims are in the ascendant! Everything comes down to eschatology.

Aside from that, in the third chapter, I give some ideas which will, I think, allow readers to understand the workings of the psychological war which we must fight. In short, for us, to doubt is tantamount to betrayal!

Hervé Ryssen was interviewed by Jérôme Bourbon, editor-in-chief of Rivarol

La Guerre eschatologique is published by Baskerville (April 2013, 192 pages)


Interview translated from French

Source: http://herveryssen.hautetfort.com/la-guerre-eschatologique-entretien-avec-herve-ryssen.html