I’ve recently come across an interesting document (found here) which details a conference that took place in Israel on May 7, 2013, called the “Jewish Contribution to the European Integration Project.”
It is comprised of transcripts of the talks given by the various Jews and European representatives who were at the conference, which was sponsored by Germany’s Konrad Adenauer Foundation, and is well worth a read.
Dr. Sharon Pardo, in his “welcoming remarks,” begins the conference with a deluge of sickening praise for the Jews as “Europe’s Chosen People” and the “essence of Europeaness.”
An example of a reason given for this praise is that “the Jews in the twentieth century were the principal cosmopolitan, integrating element in central Europe: They were its intellectual cement, a condensed version of its spirit, creators of its spiritual unity,” but mostly it is predicated on the fact that they are and have been the main promoters and instigators of the ‘multiculturalizing’ of Europe – i.e. the forced integration and destruction of the identity, culture, and traditions of the indigenous White Europeans, who are now, thanks to this multiculturalism, likely to be replaced by an Islamic caliphate that will, in all probability, be defined by crime-ridden slums, terrorism, mass rape and brutal, long term internecine warfare.
Imagine holding an international conference in which European speakers claimed that Whites are “Israel’s Chosen People” and the “essence of Hebrewness” due to their leading role in the destruction of Jewish identity and the forced integration of millions of Blacks and Moslems into Israel, and you’ll have an idea of just how absurd and offensive this all is.
The message and tone of the document is essentially that because of the alleged Jewish Holocaust, Europe must be mixed and mongrelized with third world savages in order for Whites to atone for the unforgivable sin of allowing God’s Chosen to be harmed.
This mongrelization and deliberate destruction of European identity and the White race has always been the goal of the EU. Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, whose ideas were inspiration for the EU and the European “integration project,” wrote in his book Practical Idealism that
The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.
Kalergi referred to the Jews as “a spiritual nobility of Europe,” and claimed that emancipation from their ghettos was a gift from Providence that “provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit.”
I wish it could be said that Kalergi’s plan for a mongrelized Europe ruled by Jews was just some sort of paranoid, anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, but it does unfortunately appears to be a reality – one that this document only serves to bolster. The speech transcripts provided therein give the typical kvetching over the threat of anti-Semitism you would expect out of such a conference, as well as some history of important Jews who have been instrumental in making the EU’s “integration project” a reality, such as Walter Rathenau and Fritz Bauer.
Bauer is praised for his role as prosecutor in the second Auschwitz trial of 1963-65 where he successfully transferred guilt for the alleged genocide of the Jews from the NSDAP leadership onto not just Germans, but all Europeans collectively. That is, of course, a much more beneficial outcome for the Jews, as it helps to place them above reproach and at the same time morally disarms their European competitors, and so that is why Bauer is celebrated, specifically:
The crime against humanity committed by Germans has become in a large measure thanks to Fritz Bauer’s efforts, an essential part of the German as well as European collective historical memory. Without him the German public would have continued to live in silence about the Nazi crimes for much longer.
The most shocking segment of the document is by Michael Mertes who is not a Jew, but rather is a self-hating German. Mertes is apparently so wracked with racial guilt and hatred for his own German people that he claims to feel “a deep discomfort at symbols of collective pride such as the national flag, the national anthem, and national solemnities.”
Mertes describes the driving force behind the European integration project, with its philo-Semitic and anti-nationalistic overtones, as follows:
Nationalism (at any rate its ethnocentric version) had identified the Jews as an alien minority, excluded them from the Volksgemeinschaft – the national community – and finally treated them as enemies who had no right to life. In that sense, the fight against nationalism and the fight against anti-Semitism have always been two sides of the same coin.
Thus the project of knocking down European borders and making Whites a minority in their own countries in order to secure perpetual safety for Jews is a necessity that supersedes any possible negative consequences that may result from that project, and so Mertes enthusiastically and energetically works toward that end.
To put it in perspective, this was a German sitting in the highly nationalistic and hyper-racist State of Israel, quite literally plotting the extermination of his own people as retribution for the Holocaust – an event alleged to have taken place over 70 years ago by individuals who are no longer alive. Also bear in mind that Israel is an ethnically homogeneous state which expels non-Jews regularly and requires a DNA test for citizenship.
Mertes even goes so far as to pledge that if the Jewish led forced integration/genocide of Europeans were to cause a significant backlash an emergency law that will suspend nationalists’ right to vote, which he refers to as a “nuclear option,” could very well be put into effect:
Should the Euro crisis considerably strengthen right-wing extremist parties that openly advocate anti-foreigner policies and an anti-Semitic worldview, Article 7 could become a serious option.
Article 7 is cited as follows:
[The] Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2. … [The Council] may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council.
That they will bomb a country into oblivion if it goes nationalist, using the alleged Holocaust as the pretext, is also heavily implied by Mertes, with Serbia given as an example:
[T]here could be situations where the imperatives “Never again war!” and “Never again genocide!” were mutually incompatible, and that the imperative “Never again genocide!” had to be given moral priority in case of doubt. When the “red-green” German government of Chancellor Gerhard Schröder (a Social Democrat) decided in early 1999 to participate in NATO’s military campaign against Serbia to protect the ethnic Albanians of Kosovo, Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer (a founding member of the pacifist Green Party) justified that step by citing the imperative “Never again Auschwitz!
“[T]he Shoah has had a strong, and even increasing, impact on European integration,” says Mertes, reassuring the Jews that “the fight against anti-Semitism has become a number one priority on the agenda of European elites and institutions.”
The implications of these statements are very ominous indeed.
What Mertes and other European leaders like him are doing by putting a foreign peoples interests above that of their own like this, is committing high treason, by any reasonable definition; as well as genocide, by the official U.N. definition:
Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
An ambassador from Spain, Alvaro Albacete, gives a similar talk, while using the history of the Inquisition as the moral pretext for allowing mass immigration into Spain in particular and the so-called Holocaust for Europe in general.
These themes are very revealing considering the nature of the conference. The European representatives did not simply talk about how they thought integration was a good thing, and about how great it was that Europe was well on its way to becoming a big wonderful multicultural utopia, and then thank the Jews for their central role in bringing this about; instead, they made statements such as this:
it is a particularly relevant government initiative of Spain . . . to address the reform of the criminal law regarding public incitement to violence or hatred, directed against a group defined by their religion or belief, descent or ethnic origin (anti-Semitism in the strict sense), as well as publicly condoning, denying or trivializing crimes of genocide (Holocaust denial).
Spain is not an anti-Semitic country. But there is some anti-Semitism in Spain. Hate speech is corrosive and contagious, and the moral corruption that it involves turns easily through demagogic speeches. For this reason, we must be as clear as our language permits us: Anti-Semitism, or any other type of discrimination have no place in the twenty-first century world in which we stand. This is what we want for Spain, and for the entire European continent.
It does not take a genius to read between the lines of the statements quoted above to understand what forced integration is really all about: It is not because “diversity” is an actual strength, or because there is a low birth-rate among Europeans, or about altruistically helping out “refugees” in need; it is about destroying Europe and Europeans as revenge for the Holocaust – as punishment – and to prevent them from ever having the capability of organizing and rising up to wrest political control away from the Jews back into the hands of their own people again, as did the Germans in the 1930s.
That is also, I will note, the only thing that really makes any sense. Diversity is most certainly not a strength, it is a weakness, as all data prove, and as anyone can see; a low birth rate could be fixed through simple government incentive programs; and most of these so-called “refugees” are a) not really even from war torn countries anyway and b) healthy men of military age who – if their country really is at war – should be at home fighting rather than invading Europe and demanding free everything.
The Jews not wanting Europeans to have the capability of voting in an anti-Jewish government ever again, on the other hand, makes perfect sense – and so far they have been doing a very good job at accomplishing this goal.
The game isn’t quite over yet though.