Editor’s note: An interesting and possibly important development in French politics is the possible presidential candidacy of Éric Zemmour, a Jewish conservative media figure. TOO readers may recall Guillaume Durocher’s article on Zemmour from 2015 where he noted:

Zemmour, who is not a recent convert to French nationalism, has been both the most prominent mainstream pundit arguing for conservatism and patriotism, and has to some degree been increasingly marginalized while still maintaining a major audience. He was removed from a talk show on the France 2 public TV channel in 2011 to move on to the more marginal regional channel, Paris Première. He has occasionally been sued by (de facto Jewish) “anti-racist” groups (for example, for arguing that a majority of drug dealers are Black or Arab). In January 2014, the Nouvel Observateur, the leading center-left magazine, equated Zemmour with Soral and Dieudonné under the title “Hatred.” Most recently, he was fired from a talk show on i-Télé (a secondary digital TV channel) for giving an interview to an Italian newspaper which was interpreted as advocating the deportation of French Muslims. In fact, he pointed out that Muslims could be evicted during an ethnic civil war, such conflict being exceedingly common in human history. Zemmour sees such a war in France as likely in the long-term.

Zemmour is walking a fine line and is by no means “burned out” with the establishment. He continues to be employed by RTL radio and the conservative newspaper Le Figaro. In addition, the controversy re-boosted his book Le suicide français back to the #1 spot of the Amazon best-seller list. Many mainstream figures, including those opposed to him politically, such as the leftists Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, protested i-Télé’s decision to fire him as censorship.

It is very tempting to argue that Zemmour is a “kosher nationalist” whose candidacy would be used to derail the hopes of Marine Le Pen. As Durocher notes, there are major problems for politicians not approved by the French Jewish community: “French Identitarian writer Anne Kling has argued that anti-immigration books have tended to be ignored unless they are kosher. She notes that the best-seller on crime and immigration, La France Orange mécanique, was promoted by “right-wing and ultra-right-wing Zionist” Jews and that the book’s author was represented in court by Gilles-William Goldnadel, a Franco-Israeli dual national close to the Likud party,  Franco-Jewish neoconservative networks thus find it in their interest to promote books and ideas hostile to Islamic immigration.”

Durocher gives several scenarios in which a candidate like Zemmour would conform to Jewish interests:

One possible outcome would be for the center-right conservative party to become a genuinely anti-immigration party or possibly have FN participation in a coalition government (and possibly an outright FN presidential victory, although I wouldn’t bank on that before 2022 at the earliest).

This is only possible if the French Jewish community, on some level, accepts it. This may reflect in fact the optimum outcome for them: To not completely Islamize/Africanize France, but to have a multiracial country in which European-French remain the majority, with Jews as a privileged group, particularly over-represented in the oligarchy and media, and with politicians particularly sensitive to its concerns. This, it seems to me, would be optimal for French Jews, but, as we’ve already seen, Jews often pursue their ideological fervor even to the point of self-destructiveness, so the rational outcome is not necessarily the most likely. It is not clear that they would be temperamentally capable of maintaining a stable equilibrium, even one which was in their favor.

Axios presents the results of a recent small survey of 1,310 French citizens; Oct. 1-4, 2021

Emmanuel Macron 24%
Eric Zemmour 17
Marine Le Pen 15
Xavier Bertrand 13
Jean-Luc Mélenchon 11

And as Axios notes:

A split in the far-right vote could provide an opening for a candidate like Xavier Bertrand, who is seeking the nomination of the center-right Republicans.

The Harris poll gives Macron the slimmest of margins (51% to 49%) in a hypothetical runoff with Bertrand, and slightly larger leads against Le Pen (53% to 47%) and Zemmour (55% to 45%).

So Durocher’s scenario of the center-right benefiting from a Zemmour candidacy may come true (Zemmour hasn’t announced that he is running). But what is quite clear is that the Jewish community remains a power in France and is quite unlikely to support Le Pen.

Another issue is Covid policy. Macron has opted for a very strict vaccine policy which has led to protests and will likely sway some voters.

Over the weekend [July, 2021], more than 100,000 people took to the streets to decry French President Emmanuel Macron’s tough new rules that require proof of vaccination or a negative test to enter cafes, restaurants, churches, trains, shopping centers, cinemas, sports stadiums and many other public places. Two vaccination centers were also targeted by vandals. … some French venues that hold more than 50 people will start asking people to show so-called digital “health passes” that certify a person’s vaccination status. Macron has also made it mandatory for all health workers to get vaccinated. … Macron’s draconian approach to vaccines may end up hurting him as he starts his campaign for reelection next April.

A Daily Mail article (September 27) shows why the establishment would fear Le Pen in the April, 2022 election and use Zemmour as a way to derail her candidacy. Macron’s popularity is slipping, and vaccine policy and his pro-EU stance are issues:

Public dissatisfaction has been compounded by [Macron’s] bungled vaccine programme, that saw him brazenly claiming the AstraZeneca jab was only ‘quasi-effective’ before quickly backtracking amid poor uptake among the sceptical public.

The voters disdain for the EU has increased, leaving Macron more isolated as Le Pen gains ground.

Impatience with the president has been fuelled not just by the glacial vaccine roll-out but also by his apparent contradictions of scientific advice, with rivals referring to him as a ‘Napoleon’ and accusing the president of believing that he is an epidemiologist.

Adding to his woes, voting intentions for Le Pen’s party have not been this positive since her father Jean-Marie Le Pen’s campaign in 2002, when he reached the second round of the presidential election.

The right-wing party is ranking ahead of any other party in France among the 25-34 age group, who have faced unemployment and soaring costs of student loans.

Many of the younger age groups had already turned against Macron in the Yellow Vest protests of 2018, the pandemic only hardening their positions.

On the other hand, Marine Le Pen recently called the health pass “a disproportionate interference with [our] liberty” and promised that she would be a “president of French liberties.” On the EU, Le Pen  has “toned the [anti-EU] rhetoric down to try and win over more voters.”

Below is an article by Daniel Barge reposted with permission from Affirmative Right. As with Durocher, there is a real possibility that Zemmour could derail Marine Le Pen’s candidacy.

Charlie Hebdo cartoon showing Zemmour with the Le Pens as concentration camp guards

I don’t know who Éric Zemmour is or what his appeal to French people is. To get a true flavour of the guy I would probably have to learn French, which is never going to happen. But I can infer that he talks a great game, and makes plenty of good points. But those are mere details, and details are generally irrelevant. What is important is the big picture.

What is obvious, however, is that France has a Presidential election next year, and it would be extremely awkward for the governing elites if someone like Marine Le Pen won.

The way the election is structured is that there are a couple of rounds, with the final round being a run off between the two leading candidates. Last time it was the clearly astroturfed Macron vs Le Pen in the final, with Macron winning 66% to 34%.

The reason Macron won was because he was a “centrist” with almost total media support, who was able to take most of the votes to his Left as well as many Cuckservatives to his right. While he got 95% of voters describing themselves as “Left-wing” and 91% of voters describing themselves as “rather Left-wing,” Le Pen interestingly got almost a quarter or voters describing themselves as “Very left-wing.”

Since then, Le Pen has been making moves to break out of the “far-right extremist” framing imposed on her, and has made further inroads both to Leftist and Centrist voters.

For years now, in head-to-head polls with Macron she has been in the mid 40s, sometimes narrowing the gap to just 6 points. As we know, polls grossly under-count populist Right figures, so the gap may be much narrower or even inverted. Also, it has to be borne in mind that Le Pen’s support, which is socially unvalidated and constantly demonised by the media, is much harder than Macron’s, after all, his wishy-washy centrism does not inspire much passionate support anywhere.

So, from this we see that the macro-data was all pointing to Le Pen having a much better chance of beating Macron in 2022. Now, suddenly we are hearing about this “new” nationalist meteor, Éric Zemmour. Marine Le Pen’s own father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, now in his 90s, is said to be backing him.

From a quick “catch-up” article in Axios:

A far-right firebrand is shaking up the French presidential election and, with six months to go, has pulled into second in the polls.

Why it matters: This race had long seemed on course for a rematch between President Emmanuel Macron, now an unpopular incumbent, and far-right leader Marine Le Pen. But it’s Le Pen who’s now facing a major threat on her right flank.

Driving the news: Éric Zemmour, a writer and TV pundit sometimes compared to Tucker Carlson, is second in the latest Harris Interactive poll — a crucial benchmark, as the top two finishers will enter a runoff. Never before has a candidate jumped so quickly in the polls, pollster Antoine Gautier told AFP.

Zemmour — who was convicted in 2009 of inciting racial hatred and is an advocate of the “Great Replacement” theory popular among white supremacists — has yet to enter the race, but took a leave of absence from the French equivalent of Fox News.

I won’t comment on his Jewishness, but it’s clear that Zemmour is an effective communicator who talks in a way that strikes a chord with ordinary French voters, but why is he pushing himself forward as a potential candidate, especially now? Remember, details are irrelevant. It is the bigger picture that is important.

Zemmour and Le Pen

There are three reasonable possibilities of what will happen with Zemmour, all of them negative for the populist Right:

1. He crashes and burns, whereupon his lack of purchase with Right-wing voters is attributed to “anti-Semitism” and used to smear Le Pen as a “Nazi” again, scaring some voters to cling to Macron. An old trick that seems to keep on working.
2. He does well, whereupon Le Pen’s bloc is split down the middle, allowing someone else — a bland Centre-Leftist or Centre-Rightist — to push Le Pen and Zemmour down to 3rd and 4th spot, and thus set up a “safe” final round for the Establishment.
3. He does very well, whereupon he faces off against Macron in the final round and somehow manages to lose.

The idea that Zemmour goes all the way and wins the Presidency seems a little far-fetched but not impossible. However, this can safely be set aside for the moment.

So, to summarize, what are we looking at here?

In 2017 Le Pen does well for a Right-wing Populist but is defeated in the final round to an astroturfed Macron. By 2021 President Astroturf is looking shop-worn and jaded, while Le Pen continues to build a solid challenge. Suddenly, out of nowhere, Zemmour is unleashed, his most obvious purpose apparently being to stop Le Pen winning again. Conclusion: he’s a spoiler candidate.

What we are seeing here, once again, is the central principle around which contemporary French politics is built: namely stopping Marine Le Pen becoming President.

Is this part of the “shadow war,” which Colin Liddell and others allude to, that is being fought out between the West and the rising “ChiRus” powers of the East, with Le Pen weaponised to destablise the West while Zemmour is a French Deep State countermove? Or do the elites just genuinely dislike Le Pen, and think that their version of Pan-European and Eurabian multiculturalism is the way forward?

Perfect timing: France’s Tucker Carlson

Daniel Barge writes for Affirmative Right. 

I very much enjoyed Tobias Langdon’s thoughts on “The Leftist War on Identity, Nationality and Biology.” Of particular interest were Langdon’s comments on Emma Raducanu, a mixed-race (Chinese-Romanian) tennis player who won the US Open and who has been lauded and celebrated, in Britain and elsewhere, as the best of British multiculturalism, if not the best of a new, superior kind of mixed-race human. Tobias rightly pointed out that the basic problem is that Raducanu isn’t British, and “it’s precisely because she isn’t British that lots of other people who aren’t British either have been eager to pretend that she is British and to celebrate her victory.” In the following essay, I want to adopt a slightly different approach to the celebration of Raducanu, exploring not only the hypocrisy and blindspots of multiculturalists, which are only too well known, but also the tensions within liberalism on this very subject. One of the most sober and sensible comments on the Raducanu episode, for example, was made by multiculturalist Sunder Katwala, of British Future, a “thinktank that promotes debate about immigration and integration.” Katwala “warned people with liberal views on immigration against using her as a “gotcha” argument,” and stressed that cases like Raducanu are “exceptional stories.” I’d argue that they are also, in the final analysis, petty successes trotted out in carefully styled propaganda to mask a multitude of multicultural sins.

Bread and Circuses

As explored in a fascinating book by Patrick Brantlinger, the phrase ‘Bread and Circuses’ has long been associated with theories that have treated mass culture as either a symptom or a cause of social decadence. It’s also true, however, that ‘Bread and Circuses’ is perhaps the finest phrase for encapsulating the marketed appeal of multiculturalism. What better way to describe the fixation on cuisine and sports that sum up in toto the alleged “contributions” of ethnic diversity to European society? Exotic food and sporting spectacles are societal luxuries whose importance is directly correlated to the development of what Spengler called “the world-city,” in which men live in nothing but an “artificial footing.”^[1] And the celebrations accompanying Emma Raducanu, insofar as they moved beyond her victory in a tennis match and suggested broader social importance, are nothing if not artificial. It’s perfectly clear that Raducanu’s win at the US Open will have no impact on the lives of average Britons, except perhaps to further brainwash them into believing that this tennis player, by some form of socio-political alchemy, embodies all that they should aspire to. Meridian Magazine, for example, argues that:

[Raducanu’s] victory and meteoric rise into superstardom cannot, or rather should not, be viewed in isolation, as a sole, personal success but as a symbolic victory for British diversity in the face of the xenophobia that remains rooted in shadowy sections of British society. In fact, Raducanu’s victory may help transform British society for the better, in a way far beyond the control of her racket. Raducanu is emblematic of a global citizen.

Although Tobias Langdon has rightly pointed out that much of the celebration around Raducanu has come from ethnic minorities, it’s also very clear that many younger Whites, groomed from birth to be “global citizens” and now coming of age, are some of the most active and prominent purveyors of this garbage. The Meridian Magazine piece, for example, was written by a young English female college student, who further displays her thorough indoctrination by suggesting that

given both the cultural richness of Raducanu’s roots and her expertise on the court, we are fortunate to hail her victory as a British one. Not unlike 2021’s esteemed England football squad, which also champions British diversity with just three players from the squad (Pickford, Shaw, and Stones) having exclusively English roots, Raducanu’s case is serving as a reminder that our diversity and multiculturalism is what strengthens us. It allows us to take centre stage—or court—and draw upon a multitude of experiences that ultimately place us, both as individuals and as a society, in an advantageous position. And this, therefore, is a beacon of positivity against the darkness of xenophobia. [emphasis added]

Contradictions

This is a very short paragraph that manages to include a wealth of puzzling contradictions. The first sentence suggests that a nation should be proud of winners it merely adopts. Raducanu arrived in Britain aged two, which is very young and confirms a British contribution to her training [we also know, however, that Raducanu received training at the sports academy in Shenyang, her mother’s home town], but claiming her success as a British one is not fundamentally different in a biological sense from the Arab oil states and their practice of hiring what have been termed “sports mercenaries.” Kenyan runners and Bulgarian weightlifters, for example, have been granted citizenship in countries like Qatar to compete internationally in pursuit of medals and international victories that would otherwise elude these nations. While portrayed as cynical and crass, these Arab states are arguably more authentic in protecting their citizenship laws, given that these laws are incredibly rigid and are based on the concern “that foreigners might have an adverse influence on [the region’s] dynastic political system and conservative culture based on deep-rooted tribal values that are already considered under threat.” These states are happy to hand a passport to a handful of elite athletes, and for a specific purpose, but not to masses of “enriching” migrants. In other words, the oil states are happy to exploit the multicultural nationality game insofar as it relates to sports alone. They are not foolish enough to believe that a victory on a sports field will enrich their society or culture.

The West, on the other hand, celebrates its sporting mercenaries while indulging the idea that sports victories or exotic recipes are genuine reflections of a functioning and enriched society. This jarring contradiction is best exemplified in reactions to Nigel Farage’s offer of congratulations to Raducanu. Farage was heavily criticized as a hypocrite because of past statements he had made to the effect that Romanian crime statistics in Britain were “eye-watering,” and had added: “I was asked a question if a group of Romanian men moved in next to you, would you be concerned. If you lived in London, I think you would be.”

For liberals and offended ethnic minorities Farage’s two actions are contradictory, and yet they shouldn’t be. It’s perfectly possible to offer congratulations on an individual sporting victory without accepting that it dramatically alters known social conditions. The website Police Professional, for example, reports that

The lifting of employment restrictions by the European Union (EU) has seen a massive spike in crime statistics in the UK. Arrests of suspected Romanian criminals more than doubled when the eastern European nationals were first allowed to work in Britain. Transitional controls were imposed by member states on Romania and its neighbour Bulgaria, considered the poor relations of the bloc, when they joined the EU in 2007. Their rights to work and claim benefits were restricted for their first seven years of membership until January 1, 2014. At the end of 2013, the number of Romanians arrested stood at 7,383. That figure rocketed to 17,398 in 2014 with 18,127 Romanians arrested in England and Wales last year — a rise of 145 per cent in just two years.

I’d say this is eye-watering and, as Farage argued, a cause for concern. The added elephant in the room is of course the difference between more economically successful and capable ethnic Romanian nationals and masses of more socially problematic Roma gypsies, who are responsible for most of the “Romanian” crime statistics. I’ve seen no evidence that Emma Raducanu’s father is of Roma gypsy descent, and in fact she seems to have enjoyed an upper middle-class upbringing filled with a “hectic lifestyle of ballet, horse riding, swimming and go-karting.” In short, Nigel Farage is not a hypocrite, and his two actions are not contradictory.

Georgina Lawton, writing for the Guardian, has argued that “Raducanu is living proof of the way a country that celebrates cultural difference can succeed.” No, she isn’t. She’s living proof that a young woman of Euro-Asian parentage can do well academically and become extremely proficient at tennis. This wouldn’t surprise even the most hardened racialist. The fact of the matter is that, in the context of “good news,” Liberals and their allies want us to take an individual story and expand it to group level (“successful ethnic athlete = successful multiethnic culture”), while in the context of bad news they want us to take a group story and reduce it to individuals (“negative group crime statistics shouldn’t be acknowledged because we’re all individuals”). In other words, ethnicity can only be considered at group level if it leads to praise. This is the fundamental contradiction of multiculturalism, and it stands in stark contrast to the position of so-called “racists” who adopt a truly holistic view of race and the individual that is without any such contradictions — I can praise a Ugandan sprinter without believing 200,000 Ugandans will make life in my home nation considerably better.

The Discomfort of Success and the Question of “Contributions”

Another uncomfortable question raised by the Raducanu episode is the issue of immigrant “contributions” to the host society. Sunder Katwala, of British Future, worries that stories like that of Raducanu “give a popular image of the positive contribution of migration and integration, and that has a positive element, as long as it’s not overplayed.” Another representative of a British multiculturalist group is concerned that “valuing immigrants and refugees in the UK is sort of predicated on being successful and giving back a contribution rather than just being human.” Both comments reveal a further contradiction of multiculturalism; that despite talk of oppression and discrimination, some ethnic minorities are significantly and stubbornly more successful than others. The school grades of Asians, for example, remain light years ahead of those of Africans, and the gap in statistics for expulsions and suspensions from schools is equally cavernous. These facts are a brutal rejoinder to claims of oppressive Whiteness, and they are the reason why all celebrations of successful immigrants occur against a much greater shadow of failure, welfare dependance, social degradation, and crime. Success it seems, can be a burden too much to bear for the unsuccessful. In this context, it is hardly surprising to find a quote like that above, where a shamed and uneasy multiculturalist appeals for immigrants to be celebrated simply, and ridiculously, for “being human.”

Further, some immigrant “contributions” are questionable even on their own terms. Take, for example, Derek Taylor’s 2013 “Thank you for your business”: The Jewish Contribution to the British Economy, a quite shameless panegyric to the Jewish penchant for wealth accumulation. Tucked in among ridiculous tales of Jews inventing jigsaw puzzles [they didn’t; the first jigsaw puzzle was invented by London mapmaker John Spilsbury in the 1760s], and postcards [they didn’t; the first picture postcard is credited to Theodore Hook, an English Man of Letters], are very light references to their more solidly documented role in the development of British pornography and gambling. It was Richard ‘Dirty Des’ Desmond, the son of Latvian and Ukrainian Jews, who first introduced mass-produced pornography into Britain, and who ‘pioneered’ “the first pornographic channel available on satellite television in the UK.” He also “ran a premium rate phone sex company until 1988 when he sold the business after British Telecom raised concerns about the content.” That’s quite a contribution. Equally impressive is the Jewish contribution to gambling everywhere, not least Britain and the United States. I was amused recently to read an essay on Jews and gambling that admitted that Jews were pre-eminent in the development of American gambling. The piece claimed “the Jewish appetite for [sports gambling] (and probably for wagering of all kinds) remains mysterious.”^[2] I’ve approached this sentence from multiple angles, but can’t find the mystery in Jews engaging in risk to find profit without labor. Nothing, in fact, would seem more matter of fact. It’s certainly matter of fact in Britain, where Liam O’Brien has pointed out that

all of the ‘Big Three’ bookmakers have had a significant Jewish input. Coral was founded by Joe Coral from a Polish-Jewish background while Ladbrokes, originally a company catering for the upper classes only became a major company under the stewardship of Max Parker and his nephew Cyril Stein whose family were of Russian-Jewish origin. Stein was a major philanthropist for numerous Jewish and Israeli causes throughout his career. [This is a good example of using vice to facilitate large-scale transfer of wealth from Gentile to Jewish communities.] William Hill acquired a significant Jewish connection when it bought the more than 600 shops of Stanley Racing owned by Lord Steinburg.^[3]

The tension at the heart of such immigrant “contributions” is explored admirably by the website jewishcontributions.com, which appears to have adopted, and I must say perfected, an approach I employed back in 2015-16 through a subtle and satirical Twitter account named “Skype Directory.” At the heart of the approach is the contradiction of multiculturalism — that multiculturalism will celebrate the “contributions” it feels are worthy of celebration while hiding “contributions” it feels might be regarded negatively. What Skype Directory did, and what Jewish Contributions do, is to highlight the shadow behind the fanfare, or to do a kind of double-take at the other side of those things claimed as Jewish successes or achievements. When Jewish magazines, for example, claim that Jews brought America to the tipping point on gay marriage, the approach dictates that such a claim be highlighted and presented in its own right. The same can be said for the Jewish “contribution” to transgenderism, feminism, abortion, etc. While these may be celebrated liberal values, you can be sure that Jews would only welcome a spotlight on their role in certain very limited circumstances. If the “celebration” of their role became a little too loud, you can be sure that such applause would not be welcome. Joe Biden learned this back in 2013 when Jewish activists were offended when he praised Jewish power and influence:

Joe Biden should  know the ground rules by now. You can praise the contributions of individual Jews. It’s totally permissible to wax eloquent on the accomplishments of  Sigmund Freud, Jonas Salk, or Albert  Einstein—perhaps even implying that humanity would never have come on these ideas and thus be infinitely poorer for it. … You  can even  praise the Jewish community’s role in enacting public policy on which there is a broad consensus, such as the Civil Rights movement.

But you can’t imply that Jews have real power and have used it to push America in directions most Americans don’t want to go or obviously conflict with the legitimate interests of other  groups—particularly Whites. … [Biden]: “I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense. And, I might add, it is all to the good.”

And if Jews are in some way shamed or fearful regarding wider awareness of their “contribution,” what is the true nature of that contribution after all?

The Success of Multiculturalism?

It’s really quite strange that a tennis match has been used to demonstrate that diversity is our strength rather than, say, government data on crime and social cohesion. It’s in the latter that we find a true, broad, and far-reaching multicultural contribution. In Britain, Black men are apparently 5.4 times more likely than White men to be arrested for drug offences, and young Black men were 10.5 times more likely than young White men to be arrested for robbery. That’s quite a contribution. There’s also a contribution to weapons-based violent crime:

When compared to 2014, an increase in prosecutions was seen across all ethnic groups, apart from those categorised as White, which saw a decrease of 2% in prosecutions. In 2018, ethnic minority groups were overrepresented for prosecutions of possession of weapons offences, accounting for 30% of all prosecutions in this category. Of all prosecutions for possession of weapons offences, “possession of an article with a blade or point” made up 59% of prosecutions. The Metropolitan police force (London) area accounted for 66% of all Black defendants prosecuted for this offence, compared with 14% for White defendants.

Blacks, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and those of mixed-race have also been found to consume welfare payments in astonishing numbers relative to their share of the population. Another contribution! This is to say nothing of the growing agitation for the removal of historical monuments said to offend the sensibilities of these people. Ethnically motivated iconoclasm is unquestionably a contribution.

These things, we should remember, like Raducanu’s tennis victory, “allow us to take centre stage—or court—and draw upon a multitude of experiences that ultimately place us, both as individuals and as a society, in an advantageous position.” I don’t know about you, but I’m having trouble seeing just how advantageous my position is. Maybe I just need to celebrate these people for being “simply human.” Maybe I need to live in one of Spengler’s “World-cities.” Maybe I need to throw myself into being a “global citizen.” Or maybe, just maybe, these multicultural “successes” are nothing but bread and circuses for the ignorant and the willfully corrupt.

^[1] O. Spengler, The Decline of the West: Volume II: Perspectives of World History (London: Arktos, 2021), 125-6.

^[2] E. Mendelsohn (ed), Jews and the Sporting Life: Studies in Contemporary Jewry Vol. XXIII (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 64.

^[3] L. O’Brien, What’s the SP? (eBook Partnership, 2014).

“Having close to 200 independent states is a hindrance rather than a help.”—Yuval Noah Harari, From Animals into Gods: A Brief History of Humankind

The “elites” promise to have turned Earth into an Edenic paradise by the year 2030—the year their Messiah, FM-2030, will be reincarnated. Joking aside, FM-2030 was a real person and the year 2030 does seem to have some deep significance, although it is somewhat obscure. Regarding the man FM-2030, his real name was Fereidoun M. Esfandiary. He was a transhumanist who served on the United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine and was a corporate consultant for JC Penny and Lockheed. He chose the name FM-2030 as he believed he would celebrate his hundredth birthday in 2030 (at present, his corpse is being cryopreserved at the Alcor Life Extension facility in Arizona), and because, as he stated, “Conventional names define a person’s past: ancestry, ethnicity, nationality, religion. … The name 2030 reflects my conviction that the years around 2030 will be a magical time. In 2030 we will be ageless and everyone will have an excellent chance to live forever. 2030 is a dream and a goal.”

Indeed, the desire to rub out all distinctions between and among people is a common theme with the ruling class—with some obvious exceptions—and 2030 has become almost this mythical endpoint for all of the various globalist projects such as the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the World Economic Forum’s 2030Vision. For what it’s worth, the latter project’s partners include Salesforce, Google, Facebook, two arms of the United Nations, the Government of Botswana, Microsoft, Amazon, the Overseas Development Institute (a kind of Chatham House/USAID-type entity), and more.

2030 is also 2+3=5—five points or pentagram (Pentagon, etc.). Maybe a stretch, and maybe eminently silly to the reader, but rest assured a great many of the “elites” actually believe in things like astrology and numerology, and are deeply in invested in the occult. Why do you think the powerful individuals who attend the bizarre rituals in places like Bohemian Grove and give praise to Moloch while sacrificing an effigy of a child do what they do? Moloch, for the record, was a Canaanite god associated with child sacrifice, through fire or war. “You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Moloch, and so profane the name of your God” (Leviticus 18:21).

This 2030 vision is reflected pretty much across the board of most all globalist institutions (irrespective of “public” or “private”), from the aforementioned lot to the Government of Saudi Arabia to the World Health Organization’s Immunization Agenda 2030. The planning has long been in the works, and the infrastructure and regulatory framework is being brought on line as we speak.

Writing for the MIT Sloan Management Review in 2019, Andrew S. Winston discussed the “mega-trends” the “elites” have in store for the global population in 2030, which include at least two-thirds of the world’s projected 8.5 billion people shoved into cities, where “effects will include the need for more big buildings with better management technologies (big data and AI that makes buildings much more efficient).” Additionally, Winston writes, “The amount of information collected on every person, product, and organization will grow exponentially, and the pressure to share that information — with customers and consumers in particular — will expand. … But all these tools will shatter privacy in the process.” Technology is clearly the accelerant toward this globalist Panopticon whatever the justification, be it climate change, “inclusion,” or COVID-19 contact tracing and vaccine passports, which are already being tied to financial services, such as Samsung Pay and CommonHealth’s Vaccine Pass, “a digital version of your COVID-19 vaccine record you can conveniently add to Samsung Pay.”  Other similar apps include CLEAR Health Pass and Excelsior Pass. Why would this be necessary? And think longer-term, not the short-term justifications.

By the way, CLEAR Health Pass’s catchphrase is “Come Back Better,” reminiscent of Joe Biden’s campaign phrase “Build Back Better,” which is not an accident: the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Councils section of their website states explicitly that:

Global Future Council members provide strategic insights, scientific evidence, forward guidance and multidisciplinary understanding of major issues that will shape the post-COVID world through: Identifying and monitoring the latest trends, scientific research and frontier technologies with significant potential to transform societies, industries and regions. …Contributing their expertise and knowledge, sharing key lessons and developing innovative ideas to “building back better” initiatives of industry, regional and solution platforms.

We can see that the Establishment is priming the population for the continued Fourth Industrial Revolution and the AI-driven future. Despite its sheen, this agenda will subjugate and degrade humanity, and make no mistake, it is not just society but humanity itself that will be modified to fit the vision, not the other way around. As Klaus Schwab (founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum) himself notes:

The ability to edit biology can be applied to practically any cell type, enabling the creation of genetically modified plants or animals, as well as modifying the cells of adult organisms including humans. … In fact, the science is progressing so fast that the limitations are now less technical than they are legal, regulatory and ethical. The list of potential applications is virtually endless. … It is in the biological domain where I see the greatest challenges for the development of both social norms and appropriate regulation. We are confronted with new questions around what it means to be human, what data and information about our bodies and health can or should be shared with others, and what rights and responsibilities we have when it comes to changing the very genetic code of future generations.

The answer of what can and should be shared for Schwab and his ilk is, of course, everything. The use of surveillance technology as it pertains to COVID-19 is very much a part of the World Economic Forum’s agenda, as Head of Corporate Governance and Trust Daniel Dobrygowski calls this “crisis relevant tech.” Much as 9/11 ushered in an ever-expanding era of mass surveillance in the United States, COVID-19 is serving a similar purpose (among many other insidious purposes) both in the US and abroad—both engineered events have been major catalysts in dragging the public along the road to the globalists’ future utopia by playing on their fears and using propaganda to mold and shape the narrative.

Klaus Schwab has discussed the possibility of AI-shaping narratives, and given the number of sheer coincidences (or not), and the fact that AI does in fact now generate a significant number of news features as opposed to articles by human authors, this is not all that much of a stretch, especially given the advances in quantum computing. With velocity as a key feature of the modern world, as Schwab is quick to acknowledge, the power of AI to simply overwhelm the human mind in a deluge of data is becoming more of a possibility than ever. Indeed, as the Israeli author and proponent of this agenda Yuval Noah Harari states:

It is all about the data. … When power is concentrated and hierarchical and you inject AI, it’s much easier for algorithms to take it over. It’s a gradual shift. More and more decisions are taken by the algorithms that humans don’t understand. They trust their algorithm but they don’t understand the decisions they are taking and they find increasingly that they become like puppets in the hands of these algorithms.

As far as “crisis relevant tech” is concerned, Tim Hinchliffe writes:

The WEF openly supports the development of so-called “crisis-relevant tech” as evidenced by its backing the development of health passports, which act as digital records of your health status to determine whether or not you are free to travel or even go outside. Earlier this year the WEF announced it was supporting the development and launch of CommonPass — a platform whose mission is “to develop and launch a standard global model to enable people to securely document and present their COVID-19 status (either as test results or an eventual vaccination status) to facilitate international travel and border crossing while keeping their health information private.” The WEF also lent its support to another health passport initiative called CovidPass, which was built by one of the WEF’s own “Young Global Leaders,” Mustapha Mokass, who used to be an advisor at the World Bank. CovidPass “uses blockchain technology to store encrypted data from individual blood tests, allowing users to prove that they have tested negative for COVID-19.” In supporting both CommonPass and CovidPass, the Davos elite have made it clear they want “crisis-relevant tech” like health passports to be part of the great reset solution.[1]

People are obviously reticent to have themselves tracked and traced, as the WEF readily acknowledged in July 2020: “Non-mandatory contact tracing apps have met with only limited success so far due to privacy concerns.” Consequently, larger carrots and sticks have been needed to coerce the population into compliance, such as bribing them with stimulus checks/UBI and/or framing those who do not accept this foreign material being injected into their bodies as public health threats. And because concepts such as the COVID-19 “health passport” are conspiracy theories (like the Great Reset itself, as The New York Times will remind you, even though there was an issue of Time magazine dedicated to it, and the entire World Economic Forum website centers around it, and Schwab has published books on it), Denmark rolled out its coronavirus digital passport in early 2021, available on the Danish digital health portal, sundhed.dk. Estonia began experimenting with a “digital immunity passport” in 2020, and as of February 2021, the UK government was funding at least eight firms to develop a similar platform. Many airlines have a mobile app version as well. Just conspiratorial nonsense, though, by “fringe extremists,” criminals, misinformation spreaders, and terrorists (all terms being linked in the flood of propaganda regarding any dissident, be it regarding stolen elections or the COVID-19 medicalized tyranny).

Also sitting at the intersection of medical tyranny and big data/technology is the World Health Organization. You may recognize them from the ongoing COVID-19 saga as a preeminent authority on all things coronavirus. In addition to the centrality of data as they readily acknowledge, per their Immunization Agenda 2030:

The COVID-19 pandemic has reminded the world of the power of vaccines. … Immunization is playing a critical role in achieving the [United Nations] Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Immunization reaches more people than any other health and social service, making it the foundation of primary health care systems and a key driver toward universal health coverage. This makes immunization critical to SDG3. … Because health is so fundamental to development, IA2030 will also contribute—either directly or indirectly—to 13 of the other SDGs. Immunization is an investment for the future, creating a healthier, safer and more prosperous world for all.

A world, of course, where travel and other basic freedoms are privileges not rights contingent on getting a mandated shot or two or thirty in the arm, right?

Another representative organization, in this instance linking finance and “inclusion” (unless, presumably, you don’t take the jab) would be the Council for Inclusive Capitalism established by the Vatican; according to its website, “The Council is led by Guardian CEOs and global leaders,” who naturally include people like Marc Benioff of Salesforce, Mark Carney (UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance and Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Finance Adviser for COP26; former Governor of the Bank of England; former Governor of the Bank of Canada; Board member of Bloomberg Philanthropies; member of the Group of Thirty; member of the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum), William Lauder of the Estée Lauder Companies, Alex Gorsky of Johnson & Johnson, Kenneth C. Frazier of Merck, Mark Weinberger of EY, Darren Walker of the Ford Foundation, Rajiv Shah of the Rockefeller Foundation, and Lynn Forester de Rothschild (Inclusive Capital Partners, Estée Lauder Companies, Columbia University, E.L. Rothschild LLC, The Economist Group, Gulfstream, General Instruments, United Nations Advisory Committee on Inclusive Financial Services, the McCain Institute for International Leadership, National Information Infrastructure Advisory Committee and the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board under President Clinton, the Council on Foreign Relations, Bronfman-Rothschild, Chatham House). Other organizational partners include State Street, BP, Mastercard, Bank of America, TIAA, the OECD, Visa, DuPont, and the Office of the California State Treasurer.

Each of these organizations has made commitments that they explicitly align with select UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals. For example, citing SDGs 3 and 10, Johnson & Johnson states that they aim to, “advance the development of an affordable COVID-19 vaccine candidate for emergency pandemic use, including scaling up capacity to meet a goal of supplying at a rate of more than one billion doses of the vaccine globally by the end of 2021.”

What is it about this crop of vaccines—which are inferior to natural immunity regarding the much-hyped Delta variant of the coronavirus—that is causing every major institution not just in the United States but across the globe to put the pressure on people to take it, in many cases mandate it even?

The United Nations states on its Sustainable Development Goals website that its SDGs not only intersect with climate change, but that “more important than ever, the goals provide a critical framework for COVID-19 recovery.” In Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret’s 2020 book COVID-19: The Great Reset, “recovery” from the pandemic—which they state “will not be possible without a vaccine”—is also explicitly tied to things like climate change. The currents of this global Hive/Internet-of-Things project seem to be getting stronger, and they’re taking us into some deep, threatening waters. With COVID-19 as justification, we see all of the pieces falling neatly into place to realize the culmination of said project.

Parties and governments intertwined in this globalist network also treat the 2030 SDGs as binding. For example, Canada’s Green Party, currently helmed by Annamie Paul (described as “the first Black Canadian and first Jewish woman to be elected leader of a major federal party in Canada”), believes that the SDGs and the “climate emergency must be the lens through which every policy envelope is viewed–the economy, health, education, foreign affairs, immigration, public safety, defence, social welfare, transportation.”

Their actions support their words. According to Canada’s Voluntary National Review submitted to the United Nations in 2018:

The Government of Canada’s policies, programs and priorities are already well-aligned to the SDGs. … Canada is responding to these challenges through concrete actions to reduce poverty, advance gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls, narrow the socio-economic gaps that exist between different groups, foster inclusion and celebrate diversity, and improve equality of opportunity for all. … In June 2017, Canada announced its Feminist International Assistance Policy, which seeks to eradicate poverty and build a more peaceful, inclusive and prosperous world. Canada firmly believes that promoting gender equality and empowering women and girls is the most effective way to achieve this goal and drive progress on all SDGs. … Canada will mainstream a gender-responsive perspective in the implementation of the SDGs, consistent with its emphasis on gender equality as a cross-cutting priority. The Government will launch a process … to develop a national strategy on the 2030 Agenda through collaboration with all levels of government, Indigenous peoples, civil society and the private sector. Data is key to developing solutions to challenges facing the implementation of this Agenda, to ensure no one is left behind, and to track progress on the SDGs. As such, this report includes validated Canadian data for the SDG Global Indicator Framework.

Data being the “fossil fuel” of the Fourth Industrial Revolution as the digitized sphere becomes the focal point, moving away from the physical world and, as Schwab and Malleret note, modifying the physical realm:

During the peak of the pandemic, O2O—online to offline—gained major traction. … This phenomenon of blurring the distinction between online and offline …  has emerged as one of the most potent trends of the post-COVID-19 era. The pandemic crisis accelerated this phenomenon of eversion because it both forced and encouraged us towards a digital, “weightless” world faster than ever, as more and more economic activity had no choice but to take place digitally. … We could go as far as to say that, for a little while, teleportation supplanted transportation. … Large online companies like Amazon and Alibaba expanded decisively in the O2O business, particularly in food retailing and logistics.[2]

The globalist Establishment has been working for some time to consolidate control over the food supply, as with everything else. As just one example of the current efforts, the Rockefeller Foundation has called for a need to “reimagine and re-design our food systems” as COVID-19 has been a “stress test” that somehow (this is never actually explicated by the Establishment even though they are constantly linking it) is connected to/exacerbates/comes from “climate change.”

According to Sara Scherr (President and CEO of EcoAgriculture Partners) and Sara Farley (Managing Director, Integrated Operations, Food Initiative at the Rockefeller Foundation) writing for the World Economic Forum website on June 9, 2020, “In 2021, the global community will develop a new action framework for the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, advance action under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and begin the UN Decade for Ecosystem Restoration. Sustainable food systems must be central to these strategies.” The Food Systems Summit of 2021, called for by the UN Secretary-General, is based on the UN’s premise that, “our food systems must change to achieve the goals of the 2030 Agenda.” You know, living in a pod, eating bugs, and all that. As Danish Parliamentarian Ida Auken writes for the World Economic Forum in “This is what 2030 could look like if we win the war on climate change”: “By 2030, your CO2 emissions will be greatly reduced. Meat on your dinner table will be a rare sight. … If you choose to call a car, an algorithm will calculate the smartest route for the vehicle. … Air traffic has started to decline. … People are trying out new types of living arrangements with more shared functions and spaces.”

Already we see examples such as Portland, Oregon’s Residential Infill Project, which follows in the footsteps of Vancouver, Minneapolis, and Seattle with duplex and triplex re-legalization, and Austin, Texas’s “sixplex-with-affordability.” There are also size limits on one-unit buildings, and four homes can be built on most residential lots. There will also, of course, be a diversity component, although the ruling class always speaks in euphemisms; writing for the Sightline Institute, Michael Andersen reports that, “Portland’s new rules will also offer a ‘deeper affordability’ option: four to six homes on any lot if at least half are available to low-income Portlanders at regulated, affordable prices. The measure will make it viable for nonprofits to intersperse below-market housing anywhere in the city for the first time in a century”—non-profits like the Open Society Foundation and their ilk presumably. Open Philanthropy has provided significant grant money to the Sightline Institute; Open Philanthropy’s main funders are the Jewish Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna.

The above-mentioned EcoAgriculture Partners, based out of Fairfax, Virginia, “brings together women’s groups, farmer cooperatives, civil society organizations, universities, international NGOs, United Nations agencies, governments, and more to advance multi-stakeholder management processes in landscapes, strengthen governance strategies, and promote cross-sector research. We connect landscape leaders across national boundaries to share experiences and inspire innovations in integrated landscape management.” In case you were wondering, some of their major partners include: the Rockefeller Foundation, the World Wildlife Fund, the World Bank Group, the UNDP, the Ford Foundation, the Gates Foundation, and the US Department of Agriculture.

Interesting to see the USDA and the Gates Foundation there, especially as Bill Gates is now the biggest private owner of farmland in the United States. What was it Henry Kissinger said? Oh yes: “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.”

[1] Hinchliffe, Tim, “A skeptical look at the ‘great reset’: a technocratic agenda that waited years for a global crisis to exploit,” November 2, 2020. The Sociable.

[2] Schwab, Klaus and Thierry Malleret, COVID-19: The Great Reset, 2020. pp. 177-178.