So, our 99% of REAL JEWISH citizens do not corner the market on SATANIC sects but Eco bringing his novel released in 2010----RIGHT AFTER ROBBER BARON few decades of sacking and looting US, Canada, UK, Western Europe -----is a deliberate attempt to bring the same POPULATION TENSIONS as pre-Weimar Germany and Western and Eastern Europe. We like how Eco creates this entire network of secret societies working for global banking 1% creating all kinds of FAKE NEWS against one population group and another.
THAT IS INDEED ECO TELLING THE TRUTH. ECO AS A GLOBAL BANKING 1% FREEMASON STAR FOR OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS---KNIGHTS OF MALTA KNOWS TRIBE OF JUDAH IS TEAM ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE. TAG TEAM IN WORLD DOMINANCE.
No matter how many times we are told our Jewish citizens have a goal of world dominance---we see our global banking 1% CATHOLIC KINGS AND QUEENS as being continuous wars.
This is why we spend so much time discussing Eco's sentiment of global banking 1% TRIBE OF JUDAH not caring about 99% of REAL Jewish citizens ----indeed. Yet this is true of global banking 1% KNIGHTS OF MALTA not caring for 99% of Catholic or Protestant citizens as well. neither are RELIGIOUS.
The Prague Cemetery
by Umberto Eco – review
Umberto Eco's picarasque novel about 19th century Jew-haters is a gift for conspiracy theorists
Sat 26 Nov 2011 19.04 EST First published on Sat 26 Nov 2011 19.04 EST
Imagine Dan Brown adorned with a PhD: that's Umberto Eco, who before he took up fiction 30 years ago in The Name of the Rose was a semiotician and a medieval literary scholar. Like Brown's The Da Vinci Code and The Lost Symbol, Eco's sixth novel, The Prague Cemetery, snakes along an underground trail that twists through the enlightened heresies and bigoted gospels respectively propagated by Freemasons and Illuminati, Jesuits and Jew-baiters, before hinting at an ideological conspiracy that underlines the deceits of contemporary politics.
The difference is that Brown devises a puzzle and goes on to solve it, whereas Eco's more highbrow pleasure lies in open-ended mystification. Brown wants us to believe in his cobweb of mystical coincidences and to trust his elucidation of those cryptic codes. Eco, however, is at best whimsically sceptical, at worst deliberately misleading: for him, the purpose of a story is to tell ingenious lies rather than to arrive at a drearily rational truth. Brown's recurrent hero is an academic turned detective, a so-called "symbologist" from Harvard whose special skill is the reassuring decipherment of riddles, while the protagonist of The Prague Cemetery is a professional forger, a malcontent who fakes documents for a living.
In this rambling, ramshackle picaresque novel, the bilious Captain Simone Simoni slithers across Europe in the pay of one secret service after another, claiming personal responsibility for the calumnies that provoked most of the political crises of the 19th century. He serves his apprenticeship during Italy's campaign to liberate itself from Austrian rule. Officially he joins the novelist Alexandre Dumas in embellishing the mystique of Garibaldi; secretly he demolishes the patriotic myth, exposing the fabled warrior as a short, bandy-legged mediocrity. Abandoning Sicily for Paris, he stirs up trouble during the Commune, and goes on to concoct the incriminating document that causes Dreyfus to be convicted of treason. Side excursions link him with the Turkish conman Osman Bey and with the Romanovs in their efforts to suppress the bomb-throwing nihilists. Simonini's customers and victims are all actual historical characters, which enables Eco to suggest that history is a tissue of fictions, not a tale told by an idiot but a text slickly pieced together by self-appointed authorities who should never be trusted.
Simonini also dabbles in diabolism, and enjoys hoaxing the hoaxer Leo Taxil, who in 1897 staged a perverse and sexually flagrant Black Mass to mock Freemasonry and the Catholic church. His masterpiece is a Gothic fantasy about a nocturnal gathering of rabbis who come together in the cemetery in the Prague ghetto, among upended gravestones that might be the pages of a chaotic, crumbling book, to avenge the humiliations of their race by planning a Jewish coup that will commandeer financial and political power. Elaborating their mad schemes, Simonini the crazed anti-Semite sketches the notorious "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", which Hitler called his "warrant for genocide".
Despite the venom, The Prague Cemetery is a literary exercise, a novel that contains a critique of its own artifice. Eco awards himself the capitalised status of Narrator, and tries to elucidate the maunderings of two less reliable narrators, Simonini and a priest who is his alter ego. Wittily self-conscious, Eco discourses on the difference between plot and story, and supplies a diagram of their parallel development to help us through the labyrinth. This is a book made from a garbling of other books, with Victor Hugo, Proust and Zola, among its mob of subsidiary characters.
For Eco, the undertaking may be playful, a study of noxious nonsense that is illustrated with some controversially nasty caricatures of greedy Jews. But some of the million copies of The Prague Cemetery already sold in Europe and South America have probably been read by fanatics and fantasists who are eager to be duped by the conspiracy theories that Eco sceptically demolishes. The chief rabbi of Rome has expressed alarm about the violence of Simonini's hatred, and a review in the Vatican newspaper worried about the zest with which the novel revives injurious stereotypes. The world we live in – economically shaky, politically feeble, menaced by zealots, with a fearful populace half-elated by the prospect of catastrophe yet still urgently searching for scapegoats – is only too similar to that described by Eco in his survey of 19th-century Europe. What may have begun as a learned game, a pseudo-historical farrago in the manner of Dumas and Hugo, at times seems dangerously and reprehensibly close to the truth.
Eco has said, a little snottily, that he wants to appeal even to those who have the bad taste "to take Don Brown seriously". Would it bother him if these credulous readers missed his postmodern irony and took The Prague Cemetery a little too seriously? History is a nightmare, and Simonini's enfevered babbling won't help us to awaken from it.
Prague Cemetery does a good job weaving plots of secret societies working against one another---gathering our 99% of WE THE CITIZENS into so many different sects we have no power and end up killing one another while the same global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS install the players called 99% POPULIST LEADERS. Garibaldi fighting to bring ITALY to one Republic same as Napoleon bring FRANCE to one Republic same as LINCOLN and our US CIVIL WAR bringing north and south to one Republic. All this was the same goal of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE formulated in 1800s. ECO makes sure to create disillusion in our 99% WE THE PEOPLE of what the AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT I AM MAN LIBERALISM as DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC brought to our Western European and US citizens.
It is not hard to see from all the lists of SECRET SOCIETIES Eco is good at identifying working in Italy and France made it impossible for these two 'republics' to actually have freedom, liberty, justice, equal opportunity government.
WHILE ECO IN PRAGUE CEMETERY WANTS US TO BELIEVE ALL THE INTRIGUE OF SECRET SOCIETIES WAS TIED TO A REPUBLIC -----THEY WERE ALWAYS TIED TO GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
NAPOLEON AS GARIBALDI WERE SIMPLY TEMPORARY BEOWULFS ------NOT KINGS OR POPULIST LEADERS AT ALL.
The goal of REPUBLIC for the people did not fail our 99% WE THE PEOPLE----it was the expansion of global banking 1% OLD WORLD SECRET SOCIETIES tied to DARK AGES designed to undermine our populist REPUBLICS.
This article is long and boring but please glance through to see there was never anything POPULIST or REPUBLICAN tied to NAPOLEON who saw himself as CAROLINGIAN descendant
How Napoleon became ‘King of Italy’
Author(s) : HICKS Peter
Napoleon’s period as chief magistrate in Italy began in January 1802 when the thirty-member commission charged with finding a president for the newly created Italian republic finally managed to persuade Napoleon to play that role. But Napoleon was an absentee president, with vice-president Francesco Melzi (and the latter’s man in Paris,)(1) much to the disquiet of the other European powers, particularly Austria, with her ancestral designs on northern Italy. But with the proclamation of Empire in France, in May 1804, it was clear to politicians of the time, both French and Italian, that Italy could no longer remain as a republic. And so, on 17 March 1805, almost a year after the proclamation of Empire in France (and after two false starts), the Italian republic became the Kingdom of Italy – a particularly misleading expression, since the territory included in this realm was not the peninsular as a whole but merely Lombardy and the Emilia Romagna – with Napoleon as its king. The formal, ceremonial result of this political decision was the coronation in Milan. When he took the Iron Crown of the Lombards, Napoleon once again underlined his Carolingian credentials (and dared anyone else to take the kingdom from him). (2)
What was Napoleon’s attitude towards northern Italy at this time?
The remark made by Napoleon in the autumn of 1801 is rich with inferences: “I go to Lyons. The Cisalpine people have asked me to prevent the debate and agitation which would surely result if they gave themselves a constitution. I thought it good to agree to this and to help in the formation of a state whose independence was bought with French blood”. (3) These three sentences reveal the broad lines of what remained Napoleon’s policy guidelines regarding Italy. First, Bonaparte did not trust the Italians to govern themselves; second, he very definitely wanted to have a say in the redaction of the constitution of the new republic; and third, Italy belonged to France and more specifically to Napoleon, since it was he alone who had conquered it. In the end, this threefold concern was to dissolve into a decision to become ‘King of Italy’ in the spring of 1805. This paper aims to consider how far this decision to become king was a long-term goal, how far Italian politicians wanted Napoleon to be king, and also how serious Napoleon was in offering the crown to his elder brother Joseph in the December of 1804.
Italian desires – independence by the back door
In the period when Napoleon was elevated to the imperial status on 18 May 1804, Italian administrators and government officials were naturally concerned as to the future state of the Italian Republic. Could it remain a republic when the head of state was an emperor? Given that the status quo could not continue, what were the conditions and consequences of the metamorphosis? A key source of information is the correspondence between the Italian government representative in Paris, Ferdinando Marescalchi, and the vice-president of Italy, Francesco Melzi. (4) Marescalchi had already written to Melzi on 1 May, 1804 informing him of the debate in the Tribunat regarding the establishment of a hereditary empire, (5) noting that this ‘accession would be of importance for the whole of Europe and particularly for us [Italians] who recognise the same man as head of our government’. (6) Having had a long interview with the Napoleon on 7 May, Marescalchi wrote an open letter dated 9 May to the government of the Italian Republic (the Consulta), (7) informing them that: “the First Consul did not think that the title ‘President’ was compatible with his new dignity; although it was possible that he could omit it and completely forget about it”, an attitude which Marescalchi however thought dangerous for Italian prestige and prosperity. The Italian minister also remarked to the Consulta that he had reminded the First Consul that the Italian government had envisaged the elevation to the imperial dignity in Lyons two years earlier and had demanded of Napoleon his intentions.
Marescalchi went on to quote Napoleon’s words regarding Italian fears as to its future. “‘No one,’ Napoleon said, ‘is in a better position to judge than you [i.e., Marescalchi]. Write to the vice-president [Melzi] and say that above all you must follow the general desire, or at least that of the majority. What is about to happen in France will certainly make it possible to see how people will react in your Republic. After that, the vice-president must consider the question. Then the Consulta must do the same. And then they should express their desire. Regardless of this event, I can see that people were convinced that the [Italian] Constitution needed reforming. You need a guarantee, and it is right that I should give you one. Do the Italians wish to form a Nation? Let them have one. The important matter is to find ‘the good’ and the perception of that good. Decide what that good may be. Write to them and tell them that I have no other plan than to contribute to their happiness and to support as much as possible the desire that they will have expressed to me’. He repeated these sentiments several times with that benignity and real concern which he has always shown for us. I insisted that he tell us at least what was his preferential solution. But he gave no indication of a direction. I also asked him which demonstrations could be offered to him on the occasion of this event, with the greatest hope that they be accepted, and on this subject he replied that had not yet formed a clear idea.” Marescalchi added that he would not add his own opinions because: “I have too close a view of the Hero to have any other feeling for him than of the admiration, respect and gratitude which he inspires in all those around him.’
But on the same day Marescalchi wrote a private letter to Melzi expressing himself more freely. (8) He reveals that the commandant of the Italian troops at the Boulogne camp, General Pino had sent to the Italian representative (and to others) an ‘Address’ to be sent to the First Consul dated 13 Floréal, An XII (3 May): It read: ‘The Republic of Italy is the work of your hands, General. You should complete that work. Let the Emperor of France become King of Italy.’ Marescalchi goes on in his letter to Melzi remarking that luckily no one had connected Pino’s enthusiastic outburst – the latter was a renowned hothead – with Marescalchi’s and Melzi’s own manoeuvres in the same direction.
Marescalchi correctly recognised that the affair was of great importance – indeed so important that it made him tremble. He noted that regardless of any change in the system of government of France, “our state will always be precarious, and confidence in our future will always diminish if we are to take an opposite direction.” He went on: “The Consul has said (and correctly so): ‘that any project suggested by him would always contain the original sin that it had been suggested by him and thus seen as an act of arbitrary judgement, which would damage the rights of Nations. That we must begin by finding out what the penchant of the Nation itself might be. But experience has already proved all too well that all those projects enacted according to this fundamental principle bring about poor results. You could consult the Electoral Colleges, but if you did not present a motion, what result could there be? A host of contradictory opinions would be expressed, and perhaps none of them would be any good. And even if there were a good one, people would accuse it of being the result of intrigue or influence. What is about to happen in France will perhaps provide us with the easiest and safest solution. You must look to see which natural sentiment arises with respect to an event of this sort. We will be able to see more clearly if we can give the people a clear of idea of it; so that they can see the effects, consider them, compare them, judge them, in short so that they can appropriate them for themselves. We will then see how they are disposed, whether they prefer the principles introduced recently or another system which corrects them and comprises advantages more specific to their position, their interests and their customs…’ Tell me what you think. Consult with many people, discover the desires of those who are most enlightened, or with other interested parts of the state. With your support, these ideas could achieve the critical mass we have vainly sought for in the past. Once you have presented these ideas to the Consul and he has judged them suitable… all that will remain will be to bring over the others and to decide on a mode of execution. This is the plan the First Consul thinks is best…”
Marescalchi then went on to record Napoleon’s consideration regarding the complete annexation of Italy. “He [Napoleon] spoke in detail about the advantages, but came to no conclusion whatsoever as to whether these advantages would be sufficient to outweigh the loss of the hope of one day being a self-contained, independent Nation, the loss of their own magistrates, and the huge and painful efforts the government would have to make us accept complete amalgamation. He admitted that the example of Piedmont would certainly not be a reason for confidence in this respect. And finally he weighed up the obstacle of the lack of consent of the other Powers, already greatly afraid at such a colossal aggrandizement.
He seemed to think that a complete independence ought to be more agreeable to us. However since we lacked everything required in this respect, he judged that if we wished to continue with the Republic, even with a modified constitution, we were not mature enough to be able to avoid falling into the traps which our enemies would ceaselessly lay for us or to avoid being exposed to all the evils of internal dissension which would have brought about not only our [Melzi’s and Marescalchi’s] ruin but also that of our institution. If we preferred a monarchical state or a mixed government, he could not imagine which prince could be chosen, and even if one could be found, France would then have to be in agreement.
Here arose the idea of turning our eyes towards someone from his family. But even this solution was not exempt from difficulties, in his opinion. The first and greatest difficulty for him was that you [Melzi] should not be distanced from a position which you have so nobly occupied and to which you were called by the general will. The other is that, of those in his family, one would perhaps refuse [i.e., Joseph, ed.], another did not yet have the necessary experience [i.e., Louis, ed.] and standing. The conclusion of this was that which I outlined in the open letter.” (9)
Marescalchi then went on to lay out his own opinions on the matter: “It must be the case that, despite the obstacles created by the different hypotheses, the First Consul favours one solution which can more easily be accommodated to the rest of the political edifice which he is erecting here and which will be complete in a few days time, without fear that it will be attacked or that it will fall down; a solution which, to put it frankly, must appeal more to him than to the others, and which at the same time could offer to us a way of getting what we have up to now desired in vain. I may be wrong, but I can almost see it. I certainly did not dare to suggest it to the Consul, but to you I can expound the problem such as it appears to me. […] We must set the premise that […] with an emperor in France, the idea of a Republic becomes for us a chimera and almost ridiculous. […] The best thing we can do is to take advantage of the situation so as to establish a constitutional monarchy or mixed government, where authority is suitably limited. Starting from this principle, I think that we should see this occasion as our best chance for emancipating ourselves and founding a government – the solution which at other times you thought best for us.
Having said this, Bonaparte will probably deserve our eternal gratitude and we could not, without doing ourselves a disservice, refuse him. But, even if we were to imagine excessive generosity on his part such that he might renounce this right, I do not think that it would ever be prudent or advantageous to ourselves to provoke that generosity, or even to agree to it. As a result, I could not advise this request nor propose any other head than him, as long he deigned to be it. As for the title, it could be one or the other, it is of no importance, provided it was worthy of him.
We must make our independence in the future our dearest goal; (10) and this is the moment for setting that in motion. I shall ask him then, whether under his auspices from now on, or choosing someone from his family – whichever he thinks most suitable for us – 1) that the order of succession be fixed such that after Bonaparte, the emperor of the French may never be at the same time King of the Lombards, or of Lombardy or of Italy. 2) that once our independence has been consecrated inviolably, we should make a treaty directly with France based on the principles of reciprocal equity and common utility, one which establishes the rate of current contributions on a less onerous basis, and by which it was fixed that once Bonaparte’s descendants and the new dynasty should come to power, we would be exempt for ever and as a result that there would no longer be French troops on our territory.”
Marescalchi ended as follows: “regardless of everything, I shall end by saying that you had ordered me to discover what fate was reserved for us, and I can confirm that it still depends upon us. You asked me to speak openly, and I have done it. As for the first part of what I have written, it is the truth. As for the second, it is what I feel. If I am wrong, do not blame me.”
The interesting feature of Marescalchi’s note is that it shows Napoleon considering in detail the whole question: he had considered annexation but had ruled it out; that he was not a priori against Italian independence, but that time and support will be required; that he was concerned that the people be in agreement with the change of political system and constitution; that a ruler had to be found, even from within his family. The new emperor gives the impression of being the very model of moderation and liberality. There is also however a subtext to Napoleon’s remarks. The reference to annexation could be viewed as an indirect threat. The reference to Melzi’s position a vice-president could also be read as implying that Napoleon could depose him at will. We are also forced to conclude (despite Marescalchi’s impression that the Emperor did indeed have a plan) that Napoleon had not yet come to fixed conclusions. These Italian negotiations came not only right in the middle of the discussions in corridors and horse-trading over the proclamation of Empire in France, a declaration which would already have worried international opinion, but also at the climax of the Moreau-Cadoudal trial. Napoleon’s exhortations to the Italians that they should consult bought him time for reflection. In theory Napoleon was positive towards the initiative, but Marescalchi’s second point regarding the lessening of the burden of the military tribute was to prove a more than significant stumbling block.
The Italian Republic’s desire or voto
Melzi’s reply to Marescalchi was dated 21 May. He informed his minister that the Consulta would send two documents to Paris. One, a decree ordering the building of a monument to Napoleon as emperor. And a second, a statement of desire (voto in Italian, voeu in French) offering to Napoleon the quality of King of Italy or Lombardy (as he wished). That document was dated 28 May, 1804. Article two enjoined the emperor to take the title ‘king’ (although of what was not specified, since it was left up to Napoleon to decide what he liked best). Article three imposed that after Napoleon, now head of the Italian Republic (sic) could reside permanently outside the country. Article four noted that kingship of Italy was incompatible with emperorship of France. Article nine noted that details concerning the majority of the king, the regency, the rights and duties of the royal family etc. would be regulated by a constitutional act written by the Italian Electoral Colleges. Article ten underlined that Italy should be ‘politically independent’ and ‘democratic’. Article eleven required France to act as guarantor for the Italian Republic and to bring into the agreement the Emperor of Germany and the other friendly power as described by the Treaty of Lunéville. Article twelve allowed a treaty of mutual offence and defence, but formally refused all dependence and payment of tributes. (11)
All that Marescalchi had mentioned to Melzi is here. For the Italians, the accession of Napoleon or any other member of his family was a step towards independence and freedom from the heavy tribute and troops stationed on Italian territory. Napoleon gave his approval to the ‘voto‘ in a dispatch dated the 29 May and asked the Italians to pursue their reflection. In July, Marescalchi presented the whole project for the constitution. The key part of the document was that it aimed to divide the organs of government into different sections entitled the ‘Grand Conservatore’ (‘Great Conservator’), the ‘Supremo Magistrato Conservatore’ (‘Supreme Magistracy of Preservation’), the Legislative Body, the National Accountancy and the Courts. The emperor wrote to Melzi on 23 June expressing his approval of the project and the direction of the ‘voto‘. (12) On 11 July 1804, however, Marescalchi reported to Melzi, that ‘there were many things in the document which did not please him’. (13) After this there was radio silence. Napoleon left on his imperial journey to Belgium and the banks of the Rhine (18 July to 12 October). Melzi was probably correct in his declaration to the Austrian agent in Milan, Baron Moll, on 9 July 1804 when he noted: “I think that Napoleon has not yet made up his mind, that he is listening, and that he is leaning towards declaring himself hereditary king of our country…” (14)
Return to the negotiating table
As part of his imperial progress, the emperor had meditated before the tomb of Charlemagne in Aachen, preparing for his own consecration and coronation as the new Charlemagne. He had also come to certain conclusions regarding the fate of Italy. On 11 July, Melzi had written to Napoleon asking him to lower the military tribute paid by the Italian republic. (15) Napoleon was against and wrote a stinging missive to Melzi on 28 August intentionally taking Melzi’s demands that Italy pay a lower military tribute as a threat that the Italians might willingly return to Austrian hegemony. (16) Melzi was (it is true) in frequent touch with the Austrian agent, Baron Moll – even using code words in their correspondence to refer to sensitive subjects such as Napoleon, Italy, Francis, etc – but the threat seems far-fetched. And so, in Mainz on 2 October, Napoleon summoned Marescalchi, gave him a fiery reception and demanded that the Italian Consulta come to Paris the following month. “What do these men from Milan want?” he thundered, “They should watch out! If they want to go back on their word they risk being transformed into French departments. They will be my outposts, they will suffer war and pay for it. Which prince do they have in Italy whom they could put at their head? It is of no interest to me to be king of Italy; it is they who must pronounce the will of the people. Have them send me a deputation of some individuals from the Electoral Colleges, the Courts, the Legislative Body, the Legislative Council and the Consulta di Stato. And Melzi had better be there! He must head the delegation and direct the deliberations so that everything goes according to the rules.” (17) The delegation duly arrived in Paris, not only to attend the coronation but also to negotiate the new constitution. After spending the whole month of December in Paris visiting the coronation celebrations without having received a summons, the delegation was finally called to a solemn audience on 30 December (in theory to grant them their leave from the coronation celebrations). Here Napoleon suddenly and aggressively addressed them in a long monologue. He informed the Italians that he himself was Italy’s salvation, that Italy could no longer remain a Republic or indeed become independent as such, and that she could certainly not become a constitutional monarchy under an Austrian prince. The choice was between “me or a prince from my family”. He then dismissed the Italian enjoining them to summon the Consulta, to use the voto already written as a basis for the new document, and to return the new constitution in eight days. (18) Since, as Thierry Lentz has pointed out, Napoleon was clearly aware that to take the crown of Italy himself would be a casus belli for Austria, the French emperor turned to the old plan (considered by the Italians back in May 1804), of handing the throne to his elder brother Joseph. Suggestions by Talleyrand encouraged him in the same direction. It was hoped that the ‘gentle’ Bonaparte, the diplomat of Lunéville, would not ruffle Austrian feathers quite so much.
Joseph, king of Italy?
In November 1804, Napoleon was in full (private) discussions regarding the hereditary nature of the Empire and his desire to have Josephine crowned Empress. Roederer gives a remarkable account of the stinging interview which he [Roederer] had with Napoleon (dated 4 November, 1804) where the Emperor upbraided him for having placed Joseph too high in status in the establishment of the imperial heredity (should Napoleon die). Napoleon is supposed to have remarked: “What does Joseph want? He is putting himself in opposition to me, he is acting as a rallying point for my enemies. […] Joseph dares to tell that this coronation [of Joséphine] is contrary to his interests. […] this is to hit me where it hurts. They [the rest of the Bonaparte clan, ed.] say that I wish to give Italy to Eugène. Good god, I’m not mad! I think I am quite capable of governing Italy; and the state of Venice too. Italy brings me twenty million. If I gave her away, they would make a thousand little schemes so as to only give me fifteen.” (19) The important feature here is that the context is familial. In Napoleon’s opinion, given the impending coronation of Josephine (and thus the elevation of her children), Joseph is concerned that Louis’s children (descended from an Empress) would rank higher than his. (20) This is particularly interesting with respect to Napoleon’s offer of the Italian crown to Joseph shortly after this interview with Roederer. As Melzi perspicaciously noted (in code) to the Austrian agent Baron Moll on 11 December, 1804: “there is no doubt that if Fumagalli [i.e., Napoleon, ed.] is reduced to conceding preference on this contract to Pietro [i.e., giving the crown of Italy to Joseph, ed.] in light of the events of these days, he will be reduced to cutting off all relations with him.” (21) [Via the Paris police, Napoleon was very probably aware that Melzi had been communicating with the Austrians during his time in Paris.] In the context of the previous interview, it would appear that Napoleon’s offer of the Italian crown to Joseph had a double purpose (and advantage): of distancing his brother and of offering a sop to Austria. Initially Joseph accepted, with an indemnity of 200,000 francs. And Napoleon wrote encouragingly to Francis on New Year’s Day 1805 claiming that he had handed the throne of Italy to Joseph thereby obviated his rights to it.
“In concert with the government of the Italian Republic, I have ceded all my rights to this country – and which have been mine since the Consulta of Lyons – to my brother Joseph. I have proclaimed him hereditary king of this country, with a clause of renunciation to the crown of France […] such that the two crowns may never be united on the same head.. I have sacrificed my personal grandeur and weakened my power; but I shall be fully recompensed if I have done something which your majesty finds agreeable.” (22)
But after the initial agreement, further careful negotiation between Napoleon’s men (Talleyrand and Cambaceres) and Joseph’s (Roederer and Miot de Melito) took place. The final position agreed was that the two crowns would be disassociated until Napoleon’s death. If the emperor died childless, Joseph would succeed him in France and Louis would replace Joseph on the Italian throne. However, when on 25 January, Cambaceres came to present Joseph, ‘as a model’, the text of renunciation which Philip V had accepted to sign after the peace of Utrecht in 1713 in order to keep the throne of Spain, Joseph refused to sign away his rights to the imperial throne of France. Carlo Zaghi however in his long note claimed that that Joseph’s refusal derived less from disappointment in hereditary terms than from the fact that Napoleon would not give Joseph complete independence in Italy and would not free him from the heavy military tribute about which Melzi had complained. (23)
Louis, king of Italy?
On Joseph’s refusal, Napoleon turned to Louis and his offspring. A document was elaborated whereby Napoleon would take the crown as protector until the majority of Louis’s son, who would reign in Milan as Napoleon II. (24) Louis was so aggressively against the plan Napoleon is said to have thrown him out of his office. (25) The negotiation had lasted merely three days (27-30 January, 1805). So faced with potential embarrassment on a European scale, Napoleon cut the Gordian knot and decided to take the crown himself. He called a ‘conseil extraordinaire de cabinet’ for 5 February, where he announced to the nineteen people present (amongst whom, Melzi and five Italian deputies, Joseph, Cambacarer, Champagny, Fouché, Murat and Sieyès) that he would take the crown. The fate of Italy had been decided.
We are left to conclude that Napoleon was entirely serious when he proposed Joseph, following Italian wishes (after all, Marescalchi was one of Joseph’s ‘party’), as king of Italy. This not only would have deflected Austrian ire but removed Joseph from Paris (and the imperial succession). Joseph refused not only because accepting the Italian crown would not only cut out of the imperial succession but also because he would be left with no room to manoeuvre his new kingdom. But Napoleon had suspected that Joseph would refuse the humiliating conditions. So he had three fall back positions, Louis, Eugène or himself. But as we have seen in the interview with Roederer, Napoleon did not want to give Eugène that crown. He was never particularly convinced by the Louis solution (as Napoleon noted to Marescalchi in the summer of 1804). Paul Schroeder is however wrong to describe the offer to Joseph as a ‘little comedy’. (26) The proposal was entirely serious, but it was merely one of many possible solutions. And perhaps in the end, the ultimate solution was the best. For regardless of Austrian displeasure, it had the advantage of re-affirming on the European stage Napoleon’s identity as the new Charlemagne.
Eco does a great job creating an ANTI-HERO of SIMONINI-----being a great big OPPORTUNIST----SELF-CENTERED GOLD DIGGER-----wrapped in a FAKE persona of morality. Simonini the great forger-----the great conspirator ----from young man with compromised values to an adult creating reasons for killing as ENDS JUSTIFY MEANS.
The entire time SIMONINI grows into a full-blown sociopath---he is painted as being disgusted with the hedonism surrounding him. Wrapped in a RELIGIOUS CLOAK----becoming the worst of civil offenders.
SIMONINI as a character created in 2010 MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD is made a WINNER while all around him are victims. This is of course FICTION designed to encourage acts of MERCENARY alliance leading on to believe that idealist revolutionaries always fail and become those MERCENARY revolutionaries working for OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
Eco does a great job creating characters as BOMB-MAKERS-----willing to sell their talent to highest bidder being set-up by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS as well as being used as 5% freemason civil unrest VIOLENCE---paid by far-right to create violence and riots. Indeed, even our STUDENTS are brought into plots of RIOTS AND VIOLENCE.
ECO'S PRAGUE CEMETERY DOES INDEED CONTAIN REAL HISTORY ----IT IS THE FICTION THAT KILLS OUR 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
While CONTINUOUS WARS these several decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA have killed a few billion citizens in southeast Asia---Arabia---Africa----Latin America-----the same GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS as Eco says love using war to kill their own people. So, here we have yet again an attempt to make our 99% of REAL Catholic citizens hate our 99% of REAL Jewish citizens as WW3 has goals of war in Western and Eastern Europe----US and Canada.
'Simone Simonini '
It is OBVIOUS after these few decades of ROBBER BARON sacking and looting of US, UK, Western Europe by CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA as one tag team-----there is no hatred ---there is a partnership in OLD WORLD KINGS
'The Protocols are a gross and clumsy fabrication, ending with the Jews’ declaration: “Ours is an ambition that knows no limits, a voracious greed, a desire for ruthless revenge, an intense hatred.”�'
REAL left social progressive LIBERALS have always educated against all these FAKE NEWS, FAKE DATA that has been used by secret societies for thousands of years to make it appear there is no pathway for our 99% WE THE PEOPLE to win freedom, liberty, justice, and a REAL POPULIST REPUBLIC.
This is why we discuss OFTEN who those global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS are----how today's US CONGRESS is filled with 5% freemason/greek players related to those MEDIEVAL KINGS and royal families. Yes, these 5% players are both FREEMASONS AND JESUITS-----but both work for global banking 1% KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH.
'A typical conversation, repeated in countless variations, goes like this: “Has someone drugged me? Boullan? …Or the Jesuits? Or the Freemasons?…The Jews! That’s who it must have been'.
When we look at ECO'S PRAGUE CEMETERY we see POPULIST LEADERS who are players ---and we see our 99% WE THE PEOPLE wanting the goals of REPUBLIC----being led by FAKE POPULIST LEADERS back in revolutionary Europe SAME AS TODAY IN UNITED STATES.
This is a Jewish review of PRAGUE CEMETERY------we are told there was an outcry in 2010 when this was released from Jewish leaders-----but not the global banking 1% TRIBE OF JUDAH of course
The Algemeiner, a global news destination published online and in print, serves as an independent media voice covering the Middle East, Israel and matters of Jewish interest around the world'.
What are OLD-SCHOOL freemasons fighting against OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS get washed out by all this FAKE freemasonry pretending to be helping our 99% of workers when they work to enslave them for global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
November 5, 2012 7:15 pm
The Prague Cemetery, by Umberto Eco (REVIEW)
by Edward Alexander
The Prague Cemetery, by Umberto Eco.
The Prague Cemetery, by Umberto Eco, trans. Richard Dixon (HoughtonMifflinHarcourt, 2011).
The center of this novel is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a catastrophically influential fabricated account of the minutes of a meeting (which never took place) in Prague’s ancient cemetery of “learned Elders of Zion” organizing Jewish bankers and trade unionists, rabbis and atheists, capitalists and communists, to conspire in perfect harmony to eradicate Christianity, steal the wealth of gentiles, and take over the world.
Concocted by order of the Paris branch of the Czarist secret police between 1899 and 1902 to disseminate the “secret protocols” of the World Zionist Congress that had been held in Basel in 1897, it was published in 1905 and, after the mass slaughter of World War I and the Russian Revolution, became the deadliest document in the history of antisemitism. “When this book becomes the common heritage of all people,” wrote Hitler in Mein Kampf, “the Jewish peril can then be considered as stamped out.”
The Protocols are a gross and clumsy fabrication, ending with the Jews’ declaration: “Ours is an ambition that knows no limits, a voracious greed, a desire for ruthless revenge, an intense hatred.” This monument to stupidity’s influence in world affairs was exposed as “forgery” in 1921, yet became a perennial bestseller in Europe and then the Arab world. Henry Ford printed excerpts in his Dearborn newspaper and distributed 500,000 copies free of charge. Originally a favorite of right-wing politicians eager to blame Jews for secularism, democracy, communism, psychoanalysis, and pornography, Protocols ideology, outside of Islam, is now an obsession of “progressives,” including Jewish ones. Writers in Tikkun, for example, warn of “conspirators” who run our government on behalf of “Jewish interests,” and they invoke “the industrial sized grain of truth in the Protocols.” Noam Chomsky alleges that the only reason antisemitism is now an “issue” is that “privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control.” Thomas Friedman charges that any congressional support for Benjamin Netanyahu is “bought and paid for by the Israeli lobby.”
But unless you begin reading Prague Cemetery at p. 439, where a four-page appendix entitled “Useless Learned Explanations” clues you in to the book’s organization and plot, you may not discover the centrality of this poisonous document until Chapter Twelve, “A Night in Prague,” starting at p. 191. Eco’s appendix provides the crucial information that “the only fictitious character in this story is the protagonist, Simone Simonini,” a retired army officer whose grandfather had the dubious distinction of inserting the Jews into earlier (French) works of conspiracy-mongering that blamed shadowy schemers—Jesuits and Freemasons in particular– for undermining legitimate governments.
Grandpa Simonini also provided the protagonist with his guiding principle in life: odi ergo sum (I hate therefore I am.) All other important characters, Eco tells us, “actually existed, and said and did what they are described as saying and doing in this novel.” Among them are Alfred Dreyfus and Dr. Froide, who, intrigued by the split personality Simonini shares with a priest named Abbe Della Piccola, persuades him to write his life story. Eco has not invented the characters and their doings—what novelist could be so wildly imaginative as to invent the incredible phantasmagoria of “real” European Jew-hatred?—but imagined their inner lives, as they imagined Prague’s cemetery, “the sinister moonlit center of the universal conspiracy.”
If you don’t start at the back of this book, you may find yourself wandering aimlessly , often (but not always) enjoyably, through chapter after chapter (brilliantly illustrated) about Garibaldi, Mazzini, Italian nationalism, Freemasons, Jesuits, devil worship, the Franco-Prussian War, the Paris Commune (1871), voodoo, black masses, the occult, the sewage systems of late 19th century Europe, the Dreyfus Affair (also dependent upon a Simonini forgery, “the cataclysmic results of his single hour’s work as scribe”), and menus from (so it seems) half the restaurants in Turin and Paris. (Isn’t the most dehumanized and disgusting sinner in Dante’s Hell the Glutton, perhaps an ancestor of Simonini, named Ciacco?)
This is a historical novel written by a man who, drunk on history and forgetting that exclusion is as much a function of intellect as inclusion, has produced what Henry James called “a loose, baggy monster” of a novel. James applied that derisive term to such nineteenth-century masters as Tolstoy, but War and Peace, by comparison with The Prague Cemetery , is as tightly constructed as a Shakespearean sonnet. Eco’s intention is admirable: to sound the alarm alerting us to the madness of Europe’s most effective and enduring political ideology. After a brief period of post-war contrition ( the Holocaust had, so to speak, given antisemitism a bad name) Europe, the real “dark” continent, is once again wallowing in its filth.
THANKS TO TAG TEAM PARTNERS-----GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH.
Eco’s protagonist, whose diary determines the perspective from which the entire story is told, is a lunatic, forger, international spy, stool pigeon, misogynist, glutton, Jew-hater, and murderer). His antagonists are no better than he is; rhetorically, they compete mainly in claiming to outdo him in Jew-hatred. Some take the position that “when in doubt, blame the Jews”; others say “when not in doubt, blame the Jews too.” A typical conversation, repeated in countless variations, goes like this: “Has someone drugged me? Boullan? …Or the Jesuits? Or the Freemasons?…The Jews! That’s who it must have been. “ Or this: “Who are the capitalists? The Jews, the rulers of our time….Who are the Jews?…They’re Protestants, Freemasons.” But are Protestants Jews? “Jew and Protestant are the same…all learn to read the will of God from the same book as the Jews.” Jews are also, of course, “behind the Freemasons, and the Freemasons had sided with the Commune, and the Communards had shot an archbishop. The Jews had to be involved in some way. They killed children, so killing archbishops was hardly a problem.” Collectively, Simonini’s antagonists, like himself, are no better than the sweepings of a Greyhound bus station. American Jews often fear that “in the warmest of hearts, there is always a cold spot for the Jews”; but the hearts of Eco’s representative Europeans can be warmed only by hatred of the Jews.
Nor is it only the political view of Jews that is a farrago of laughable contradictions, all of them packaged, in the book’s conclusion, into the Protocols. “All Jews are musicians. Pianists, violinists, violoncellists—they’re all Jews.” On the other hand, “the Jews were alien to music.” Gentiles recognize “Jewish inferiority from the fact that they write in the opposite way, unlike normal people,” yet Jews are also intellectually superior, “anything but stupid.”. (This last antisemitic fantasy may be more lethal than the blood libel because Jews themselves believe it.)
Given all the unrebutted antisemitic allegations filling the book, it’s not surprising that its publishers thought it prudent to have it blurbed by Cynthia Ozick, America’s most articulate scourge of the “new” antisemitism. She calls Eco a Zola posing as the devil and describes The Prague Cemetery as “a satanically dangerous novel, as are all ironic tales, especially if they should fall into the hands of a naÃ¯ve reader. So naÃ¯ve readers, country bumpkins, gullible gapers, keep away! This magnificently sly, scarifying, circuitous history … is meant solely for the wise, the intrepid, and…the righteous.” If you don’t belong to that select trio, steer clear of this book.
We discussed in detail PRE-WEIMAR GERMANY and HITLER'S rise just so our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE could see the tag team of global banking 1% OLD WORLD KNIGHTS OF MALTA---TRIBE OF JUDAH in removing all REAL left university academics----media ----trade unionists and placing as leaders in all these industries 5% freemason/Greek players as leaders----being Catholic or Jewish as in US with EISENHOWER AVIATION ACT-----and global MITRE CORPORATION. The conspiracy comes from ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS---being Western and Eastern European/UK---and Asian---and Arabic of course pretending to be PROTESTANT, CATHOLIC, JEWISH, MUSLIM, HINDI-BUDDHIST/SEIK.
The conspiracy is global banking 1% NOT RELIGIOUS.
The center of this novel is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a catastrophically influential fabricated account of the minutes of a meeting (which never took place) in Prague’s ancient cemetery of “learned Elders of Zion” organizing Jewish bankers and trade unionists, rabbis and atheists, capitalists and communists, to conspire in perfect harmony to eradicate Christianity, steal the wealth of gentiles, and take over the world.
Whose trying to eradicate CHRISTIANITY? OLD WORLD CATHOLIC KINGS AND QUEENS NERO/CATO/SENECA. Who kills countless Christian children? OLD WORLD KNIGHTS OF MALTA. Who stages the conditions of war and the worst atrocities aimed at our 99% REAL JEWISH CITIZENS? TRIBE OF JUDAH.
What ECO, CONSTANTINE, AND JK RAWLINGS all do in each of these novels is recreate a DARK AGES filled with superstitions----belief in DARK ARTS vs WHITE ARTS-------and the idea that what were ALL-AMERICAN super-heroes SUPERMAN, BATMAN, SPIDERMAN are now WIZARDS WITH WANDS.
'Simonini is fictional, but the relentless creativity of his hatred is not. He will scavenge any book in any language for another puzzle piece'.
Sadly, our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens allowed last century all these OLD WORLD secret societies to take control of our communities and public commons. Whether FREEMASONRY/GREEK---whether ancient regime OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS secret societies---THIS was what causes a POPULIST REPUBLIC to fail.
SIMONINI becomes that hired mercenary working for any global banking 1% OLD WORLD KING who will pay him while wrapping himself in MORALITY.
Umberto Eco’s 'The Prague Cemetery' Brings to Life Ancient Hate
Umberto Eco dives deep into the weird, twisted story of 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' and risks raising old hates anew. Daniel Levin reviews.
11.12.11 1:19 AM ET
Image courtesy of Umberto Eco“Beware of faking,” Umberto Eco warned in his 1988 novel, Foucault’s Pendulum, “people will believe you.”
Unless he forgot his own advice, Mr. Eco should have expected the storm of controversy surrounding the release of his new novel, The Prague Cemetery. After all, the central character offers up a 444-page anti-Semitic variety show, ranting against “the Jew” in every dark alleyway of 19th-century Europe. Unsurprisingly, the Chief Rabbi of Rome had a few questions for Eco. So did the Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano, whose scathing review, went so far as to say readers may be persuaded by the book’s anti-Jewish vitriol.
Thinking this book isn’t the perfect holiday gift? Not so fast.
Because The Prague Cemetery uses its despicable cast of forgers, scavengers, and anti-Semites to help Eco chase down the origin of the deadliest hoax in modern history.
The hoax was a so-called “historical” document, an apparent transcription of old rabbis (“The Elders of Zion”) secretly meeting at midnight in a cemetery in Prague to discuss their plans for worldwide domination via finance, politics, and medicine.
The document, known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, surfaced in Russia in 1905 and was quickly proven a blatant forgery. But it didn’t matter. Henry Ford funded the printing of 500,000 copies in the United States. The German translation was an instant bestseller. By 1936, Adolf Hitler called The Protocols his “warrant for genocide.”
But if The Protocols was a historical forgery, who wrote it?
Enter Umberto Eco’s latest malevolent creation, Captain Simone Simonini: a middle-aged 19th century forger, a raging anti-Semite, and an amateur chef. The kind of man who interrupts a rant to remind us Savoy cabbage is best cooked with roasted meat, four eggs, parmesan cheese, nutmeg, and sprig of rosemary.
But his most expert dish is hate.
Captain Simonini hates everyone. The French are “lazy, swindling, resentful.” Italians are “better with poison than medicine,” and Germans “produce on average twice the feces of a Frenchman.”
But above all, Captain Simonini hates Jews. He dreams about them, theorizes about them, talks about them with every fellow ragtag con man he encounters. Not that he’s sure if he’s ever met one. As forging documents against Jews becomes more lucrative, he laments “there was so much I didn’t know about the object of my repugnance.”
Simonini is a small-time forger who wants to hit it big. What conspiracy could unite the rising Marxists looking for a capitalist target, the Russian occultists looking for a mystical dark force, the French shopkeeper mired in debt, and even young priests guarding Christian morals? Ah, the Jew.
“Danger has to have one face,” Simonini instructs us. And here’s where it helps that this bastard is a good chef. He uses a dash of conspiracy theory from the French satirist Maurice Joly (but Joly’s allegations targeted the church, so he changed Jesuits to Jews), a pinch from the insane German postal worker Hermann Goedsche (have the Jews meet in a creepy cemetery), and a heaping spoonful of hatred from Eduard Drumont (worldwide domination must be their goal).
But the most interesting part of The Prague Cemetery is not why one lunatic wrote The Protocols. It’s why a whole continent believed him. This is the book’s richest and most relevant theme.
“You don’t love someone your whole life,” one anti-Semite assures another. “But you can hate someone your whole life. Hatred warms the heart.”
For Eco, the strange truth behind Europe’s credulity is not intellectual but sensual. This is the erotic, intimate appeal of anti-Semitism that Eco portrays. The sumptuous appeal of its lies, the grandeur of its scope doesn’t need to make sense. It’s an addiction, numbing the complexities of one’s own life. Like all the wine guzzled in dark bars throughout this novel, anti-Semitism feels nourishing, but it is a sad, corrosive illusion. And like alcohol, the anti-Semite’s resistance builds. The theories must be intensified, generation to generation, to catch the same buzz.
In the end, The Prague Cemetery is the portrait of Simonini’s fall, the dismantling of a hate-addict. A man whose hatred so deeply creased his soul that it split in two, creating a psychosis in which Simonini believes that someone else—a man styling himself as a priest--is writing in his diary and sleeping in his bed. Unfortunately, Eco’s use of these alternate perspectives fractures the story and smothers the sort of suspense that most American thriller readers crave.
In his introduction, Eco says the novel may appeal even to readers “who know nothing about nineteenth-century literature, and might even have taken Dan Brown seriously.” That potshot against Mr. Brown’s readers is unfair. Truth is, they demand a narrative with greater cohesion and swifter pace than is delivered here. Eco could have used a trick or two from his evil chef, Simone Simonini. You want us to keep reading? Then make it taste so good we can’t stop. Many American readers—and this I guarantee—will have indigestion by page 75.
Which is a shame because for all its difficulties, The Prague Cemetery is an important novel. The book’s implicit question is terrifying: are the same social frustrations at work today to revive The Protocols's anti-Semitism? Just like the start of the last century, Europeans are mired in debt, Russians are nostalgic for their former greatness, the church is losing ground, and Arab nations are struggling to craft a coherent picture of their future. Wouldn’t a single, clean target once again be the refreshing cool glass of water to all these nationalities stumbling through a desert of self-doubt?
Egypt has answered the question. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was aired as a TV miniseries watched by millions, accompanied by a new Arabic translation of the text. The forward began, “Hitler was not the first world leader who tried to defend himself against the Jewish conspiracy.” A Reuters survey found that when asked who was responsible for September 11, 7 percent of those polled, including Americans, answered “Israel.”
Simonini is fictional, but the relentless creativity of his hatred is not. He will scavenge any book in any language for another puzzle piece. So the question arises: Will The Prague Cemetery’s own book-length recitation of age-old lies and stereotypes about Jews provide ready-made anti-Semites with a larger arsenal of imagery and rumor? With a million copies already sold, some have assuredly fallen into the wrong hands. Does Eco stay up at night wondering if any of those wrong hands belong to a future Simonini?
He should. We all should.
And maybe that’s the queasy feeling Eco wants us to have. Because if Foucault’s Pendulum suggests it’s a great crime to find a conspiracy where there is none, The Prague Cemetery presents a higher truth: the greater crime is to stand idly by as one is revived from its grave.
Without re-reading long-published HARRY POTTER novels we seem to remember the mystery of who HARRY POTTER'S father was tied him to being of EASTERN EUROPEAN family no doubt being a GLOBAL BANKING 1% FREEMASON STAR for OLD WORLD EASTERN EUROPEAN KINGS AND QUEENS.
Our US and Western European children have been brought up on HARRY POTTER NOVELS tied to all those 3000BC DARK AGES superstitions---DARK ARTS VS WHITE MAGIC----seeing a POTTER as a GOOD WIZARD and his family tied to EASTERN EUROPE of course because global banking is FLIPPING THE EARTH'S ECONOMIC AXIS FROM WESTERN HEMISPHERE TO EASTERN HEMISPHERE.
The plots of ECO and JK RAWLINGS are the same. No doubt there are SOCIOPATHS in what CONSTANTINE'S VERITAS DECEPTION calls THE INSTITUTION-----but as we shout---THE INSTITUTION whether called ILLUMINATI/DAVOS SWITZERLAND WORLD ECONOMIC CARTEL-----or WORLD BANK/UNITED NATIONS----are the same PEOPLE.
The history of HITLER or SECOND REPUBLIC FRANCE and the soaring of TAKING THE VEILS OFF-----SADISM/SATANISM/OCCULTISM is mostly a FEAR FACTOR.
After a few decades of HARRY POTTER our 99% WE THE PEOPLE once children reading these stories are primed to believe the more SERIOUS nature of ECO'S SATANISTS/OCCULTISTS right inside our own communities as MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES tries to bring civil unrest civil war.
JK RAWLINGS' HARRY POTTER same as ECO'S PRAGUE CEMETERY...... in selling the ideas of dark arts vs white arts. Our 99% HARRY POTTER children reading fantasy grow up to read PRAGUE CEMETERY as adults.......
Like father, like son: examining Harry Potter characters and their dads
Which characters are a chip off the ol’ block, and which have serious daddy issues?
We see a lot of father-son relationships in the Harry Potter books: Draco and Lucius are practically clones, and we can see a little of Arthur Weasley in all of his red-headed children. But some characters’ paternal dealings are a little more complicated, and some completely non-existent. Let’s see how those fathers, or lack of them, shaped key characters.
Dudley looked a lot like Uncle Vernon. He had a large, pink face, not much neck, small, watery blue eyes and thick, blond hair that lay smoothly on his thick, fat head.
Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone
There are some characters we just know were totally shaped by their fathers. Then there are some who are virtually made from the same cookie cutter. Just look at Vernon and Dudley Dursley.
If ever there was a father and son so closely linked in looks, personality and, er, mass, this is them. Albus Dumbledore reviewed Vernon and Petunia’s parenting skills as ‘appalling damage’ when he gazed upon Dudley. After following neatly in his father’s misguided footsteps, bullying Harry to the delight of his dad, Dudley threw a curveball in Deathly Hallows by actually having an original thought of his own.
Upon their final, cringingly awkward goodbyes, Dudley announced suddenly that he didn’t think Harry was a ‘waste of space’(!) and even shook Harry’s hand as thanks for saving him from the Dementors a few years earlier. Interestingly, he only did this when his father had briefly left the room…
Then we meet poor Draco. And yes, we’re saying ‘poor Draco’ tentatively here. When we meet the younger Malfoy, he’s already a sneering bully, having been twisted and moulded by his very proud family. Ingrained with the same ambitious and snotty attitudes of his parents from the day he was born, particularly from Lucius Malfoy it seems, Draco appears as a miniature version of his dad – and proud of it. How many times can you tally up Draco starting a sentence with ‘my father’?
Draco, torn between the adoring love of his mother and the brutal harshness of his father, never grew a spine or a view that was uniquely his own and ultimately became a parrot of his father’s views. As his father got more and more embroiled in his Death Eater services to Lord Voldemort, however, we discovered that Draco didn’t have the same cold subservience of Lucius. He may have looked and acted exactly the same, but seemed to have retained a scrap of compassion – he couldn’t kill Dumbledore. And he hesitated in identifying a captured Harry. As much as Draco wanted to emulate his dad, it ended up being a case of style over substance.
Harry saw Draco’s face up close, now, right beside his father’s. They were extraordinarily alike, except that while his father looked beside himself with excitement, Draco’s expression was full of reluctance, even fear.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Although Harry’s late father cannot be with him during his Hogwarts years, he acts as a constant ethereal presence – always there, from Harry’s similar appearance, to his first fight against Voldemort, to their final goodbyes projected out of the Resurrection Stone. Although the constant feedback to Harry is that he has his ‘mother’s eyes’, Harry is so similar to James that even Sirius seems to have a hard time forgetting he doesn’t have his ‘old best friend back’.
Harry also seems to have picked up James’s Quidditch skills, the same unkempt hair, the same disregard for rules. However, the Lily in Harry makes James’s son a lot softer around the edges. Where James seemed to delight in tormenting the poor, bedraggled younger Snape, or ‘Snivellus’ as he’d call him, Harry forgives Snape’s cruelty when he learns the truth about his former professor’s life. This shows that Harry had learned from the mistakes of his dad.
Then there’s that same adventurous spirit, innate bravery and determination. James may have had his faults, but he was brave to the core and sacrificed his life for his wife and son. Harry didn’t think twice about sacrificing himself to Voldemort to end the war and save the people he loved. Harry is not just his dad’s mirror image, but seems to have something at his core that James had too. Just look at their matching Patronuses.
‘You think the dead we have loved ever truly leave us? You think that we don’t recall them more clearly than ever in times of great trouble? Your father is alive in you, Harry, and shows himself most plainly when you have need of him. How else could you produce that particular Patronus? Prongs rode again last night.’
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
So how about a father and son that have more than a few distractions between them? While Harry, Draco and Dudley are only-children, Ron’s dad Arthur has a bit more on his hands than most. As such, Ron is more of an amalgamation of all his family, with the sense of humour of Fred and George, the determination of Ginny, but certainly the kindness and loyalty of his father. But there are a few little things. Both Ron and Arthur aren’t exactly high achievers: Ron’s average Hogwarts marks remind us of Arthur’s dead-end job at the Ministry. But what they lack in ambition and wealth, they make up for in their good hearts, loyalty and warm nature. And we definitely notice certain similarities when Hermione reprimands Ron in the same sort of way Molly reprimands Arthur.
Mr Weasley was slumped in a kitchen chair with his glasses off and his eyes closed. He was a thin man, going bald, but the little hair he had was as red as any of his children’s.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Then there are those characters who didn’t really have dads at all. We don’t know much about Tobias, Severus Snape’s Muggle dad, but from the little we do know, they didn't sound like they were exactly close.
The broken home from which Snape seems to have come from explains a lot, and may have contributed to his cruel, snide personality in later years. Although he’s proud enough to use his mother’s maiden name as a pseudonym, Snape is very much a self-made man, and has very much carved a lonely path.
‘How are things at your house?’ Lily asked. A little crease appeared between his eyes.
‘Fine,’ he said.
‘They’re not arguing any more?’
‘Oh, yes, they’re arguing,’ said Snape. He picked up a fistful of leaves and began tearing them apart, apparently unaware of what he was doing. ‘But it won’t be that long and I’ll be gone.’
‘Doesn’t your dad like magic?’
‘He doesn’t like anything, much,’ said Snape.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Finally, there is Voldemort. A man so torn by his lineage that he becomes the most vitriolic force imaginable. Tom Riddle, his father, wasn’t necessarily an evil man, in fact, we didn’t really know the guy. After all, he was trapped under Merope’s magic for the majority of their relationship.
Once Merope ‘released’ him, however, Tom scarpered and Merope died after giving birth to their son. It’s fair to say Voldemort may have a couple of abandonment issues as a result. Voldemort is so consumed with jealousy and anger and selfish greed that he stays stuck in the mould he was cast in as a child. He never gives thought to his impact on others or to anything beyond his own ambitions, and he grows up loathing sharing his absent father’s name.
‘You stand, Harry Potter, upon the remains of my late father,’ he hissed softly. ‘A Muggle and a fool … very like your dear mother. But they both had their uses, did they not? Your mother died to defend you as a child … and I killed my father, and see how useful he has proved himself, in death ...’
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
The AGE OF REASON did indeed bring religious skepticism---this is when all questions over existence of a GOD----the value of religion ----HUMANISTS vs BELIEVERS did indeed work to end SUPERSTITION. Through scientific development we understood all that DARK ARTS and WHITE ARTS was not magic----most was illusion-----some was PLACEBO affect in mind over matter. Know who is behind all this return of MYSTICISM/SUPERSTITION/DARK ARTS VS WHITE ARTS?
These very same AGE OF REASON HUMANISTS AS NIHILISTS.
Age of Reason was not filled with ANTI-GOD HUMANISTS. Age of Reason was filled with REAL SCIENTIFIC GENIUS looking for TRUTH. The TRUTH as of today------there is no more proof against a GOD--in fact, intelligent design makes more of a case that there is a higher 'being'. AGE OF REASON not reasonable when global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS-----a SHIP OF FOOLS----begins corrupting the goals of WHAT IS TRUTH.
God Gave Us Reason, Not Religion is a thought provoking book by the founder and director of the WUD, Bob Johnson. It covers belief in God beyond a reasonable doubt plus much more. To learn more click the link below!
These are today's STEM ----SCIENCE IS RELIGION folks driving the MARCH TO ONE WORLD ONE ENERGY/TECHNOLOGY GRID------where we are to suspend REAL REASON for BLIND AMBITION. These are as well those global banking 5% freemason/players working for OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS-----the EMPIRE ALICE SAYS----WE DON'T CARE PLAYERS.
Our several century's ago AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT I AM MAN and its philosophies corrupted today just as that several century's ago AGE OF REASON.
Below is simply a partial post of an article ---please GOOGLE to remind ourselves what our OLD SCHOOL REAL FREEMASON geniuses felt was behind SEARCHING FOR TRUTH.
This article of course brought to us by a global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS' FREEMASONRY SOCIETY-----the opposite of our OLD SCHOOL populist freemasonry.
Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason
Below is Thomas Paine's outstanding book on God, Deism, Nature, Christianity, the Bible, Judaism, etc., The Age of Reason. It is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand Deism, Judaism and Christianity as well as for anyone interested in objective and honest Bible study. With this important book, Thomas Paine took Deism out of the intellectual parlors and brought it directly to the people!
If you'd like to own all of Thomas Paine's writings on God, Deism and theology you can order The Age of Reason, The Complete Edition by clicking here.
To read and/or download The Age of Reason in PDF please click here. (To read the book in PDF you need to have Adobe Reader on your computer. To download Adobe Reader for free, please click here.)
THE AGE OF REASON
by Thomas Paine
TO MY FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
I PUT the following work under your protection. It contains my
opinions upon Religion. You will do me the justice to remember, that I
have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own
opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who
denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his
present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing
The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason.
I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall.
Your affectionate friend and fellow-citizen,
Luxembourg, 8th Pluvoise,
Second Year of the French Republic, one and indivisible.
January 27, O. S. 1794.
IT has been my intention, for several years past, to publish my
thoughts upon religion. I am well aware of the difficulties that
attend the subject, and from that consideration, had reserved it to
a more advanced period of life. I intended it to be the last
offering I should make to my fellow-citizens of all nations, and
that at a time when the purity of the motive that induced me to it,
could not admit of a question, even by those who might disapprove
The circumstance that has now taken place in France of the total
abolition of the whole national order of priesthood, and of everything
appertaining to compulsive systems of religion, and compulsive
articles of faith, has not only precipitated my intention, but
rendered a work of this kind exceedingly necessary, lest in the
general wreck of superstition, of false systems of government, and
false theology, we lose sight of morality, of humanity, and of the
theology that is true.
As several of my colleagues and others of my fellow-citizens of
France have given me the example of making their voluntary and
individual profession of faith, I also will make mine; and I do this
with all that sincerity and frankness with which the mind of man
communicates with itself.
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious
duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make
our fellow-creatures happy.
But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other
things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work,
declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by
the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the
Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian
or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to
terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe
otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine.
But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally
faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in
disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not
It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so
express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man
has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to
subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he
has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?
Soon after I had published the pamphlet Common Sense, in
America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the
system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system
of religion. The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever
it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so
effectually prohibited by pains and penalties, every discussion upon
established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that
until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and priestcraft would be detected; and man would return to the pure, unmixed and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more.
Every national church or religion has established itself by
pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain
individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus
Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet, as
if the way to God was not open to every man alike.
Each of those churches show certain books, which they call
revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God
was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that
their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say,
that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from
Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for
my own part, I disbelieve them all.
As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I
proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the
word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such
a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case,
that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth,
and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is
revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and
consequently they are not obliged to believe it.
It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a
revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in
writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first
communication- after this, it is only an account of something which
that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may
find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to
believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me,
and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.
When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two
tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not
obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it
than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than
some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal
evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural
*It is, however, necessary to except the declaration which says
that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children; it is
contrary to every principle of moral justice.
When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes too near the same kind of
hearsay evidence and second-hand authority as the former. I did not
see the angel myself, and, therefore, I have a right not to believe
When also I am told that a woman called the Virgin Mary, said,
or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a
man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told
him so, I have a right to believe them or not; such a circumstance
required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it; but
we have not even this- for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such
matter themselves; it is only reported by others that they said
so- it is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not choose to rest my belief
upon such evidence.
It is, however, not difficult to account for the credit that was
given to the story of Jesus Christ being the son of God. He was born
when the heathen mythology had still some fashion and repute in the
world, and that mythology had prepared the people for the belief of
such a story. Almost all the extraordinary men that lived under the
heathen mythology were reputed to be the sons of some of their gods.
It was not a new thing, at that time, to believe a man to have been
celestially begotten; the intercourse of gods with women was then a
matter of familiar opinion. Their Jupiter, according to their
accounts, had cohabited with hundreds: the story, therefore, had
nothing in it either new, wonderful, or obscene; it was conformable to
the opinions that then prevailed among the people called Gentiles,
or Mythologists, and it was those people only that believed it. The
Jews who had kept strictly to the belief of one God, and no more,
and who had always rejected the heathen mythology, never credited
It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the
Christian church sprung out of the tail of the heathen mythology. A
direct incorporation took place in the first instance, by making the
reputed founder to be celestially begotten. The trinity of gods that
then followed was no other than a reduction of the former plurality,
which was about twenty or thirty thousand: the statue of Mary
succeeded the statue of Diana of Ephesus; the deification of heroes
changed into the canonization of saints; the Mythologists had gods for
everything; the Christian Mythologists had saints for everything;
the church became as crowded with one, as the Pantheon had been with the other, and Rome was the place of both. The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient Mythologists,
accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet
remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud.
Nothing that is here said can apply, even with the most distant
disrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous
and an amiable man. The morality that he preached and practised was of the most benevolent kind; and though similar systems of morality had been preached by Confucius, and by some of the Greek philosophers, many years before; by the Quakers since; and by many good men in all ages, it has not been exceeded by any.
Jesus Christ wrote no account of himself, of his birth, parentage,
or any thing else; not a line of what is called the New Testament is
of his own writing. The history of him is altogether the work of other
people; and as to the account given of his resurrection and ascension,
it was the necessary counterpart to the story of his birth. His
historians having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner,
were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first
part of the story must have fallen to the ground.
The wretched contrivance with which this latter part is told
exceeds every thing that went before it. The first part, that of the
miraculous conception, was not a thing that admitted of publicity; and
therefore the tellers of this part of the story had this advantage,
that though they might not be credited, they could not be detected.
They could not be expected to prove it, because it was not one of
those things that admitted of proof, and it was impossible that the
person of whom it was told could prove it himself.
But the resurrection of a dead person from the grave, and his
ascension through the air, is a thing very different as to the
evidence it admits of, to the invisible conception of a child in the
womb. The resurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken
place, admitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the
ascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon-day, to all Jerusalem at
least. A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that
the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal;
and as the public visibility of this last related act was the only
evidence that could give sanction to the former part, the whole of
it falls to the ground, because that evidence never was given. Instead
of this, a small number of persons, not more than eight or nine, are
introduced as proxies for the whole world, to say they saw it, and all
the rest of the world are called upon to believe it. But it appears
that Thomas did not believe the resurrection, and, as they say,
would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration
himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for
me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.
It is in vain to attempt to palliate or disguise this matter.
The story, so far as relates to the supernatural part, has every
mark of fraud and imposition stamped upon the face of it. Who were the authors of it is as impossible for us now to know, as it is for us
to be assured that the books in which the account is related were
written by the persons whose names they bear; the best surviving
evidence we now have respecting that affair is the Jews. They are
regularly descended from the people who lived in the times this
resurrection and ascension is said to have happened, and they say,
it is not true. It has long appeared to me a strange inconsistency
to cite the Jews as a proof of the truth of the story. It is just
the same as if a man were to say, I will prove the truth of what I
have told you by producing the people who say it is false.
That such a person as Jesus Christ existed, and that he was
crucified, which was the mode of execution at that day, are historical
relations strictly within the limits of probability. He preached
most excellent morality and the equality of man; but he preached
also against the corruptions and avarice of the Jewish priests, and
this brought upon him the hatred and vengeance of the whole order of
priesthood. The accusation which those priests brought against him was that of sedition and conspiracy against the Roman government, to which the Jews were then subject and tributary; and it is not improbable that the Roman government might have some secret apprehensions of the effects of his doctrine, as well as the Jewish priests; neither is it improbable that Jesus Christ had in contemplation the delivery of the Jewish nation from the bondage of the Romans. Between the two, however, this virtuous reformer and revolutionist lost his life.
It is upon this plain narrative of facts, together with another
case I am going to mention, that the Christian Mythologists, calling
themselves the Christian Church, have erected their fable, which,
for absurdity and extravagance, is not exceeded by anything that is to
be found in the mythology of the ancients.
Whether global banking 1% create FADS through these three novels ----brought to HOLLYWOOD MOVIES and stage ----or they use a CONSTANTINE VERITAS DECEPTION to create the idea we have 5% freemason/Greek players graduated from the same ROBBER BARON global hedge fund universities now acting as BORN-AGAIN CHRISTIANS-----fighting against Eco's and Rawlings' forces of DARK MAGIC------this is all FAKE NEWS------it is exactly as Eco describes in his PRAGUE CEMETERY-----a bunch of global banking 5% freemason/Greek players sent out to pretend yet again they are 99% POPULIST leaders.
REAL left social progressives NEVER use the term VERITAS -----because it is tied to the institutions behind Eco's secret societies filling communities with FAKE NEWS---FAKE DATA. So, PROJECT VERITAS-----as the novel VERITAS DECEPTION are both global banking 5% freemason/Greek players making sure our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE do not have REAL INFORMATION. I BREAK THE RULES EVERYDAY ----same as Eco's character tied to OLD WORLD KNIGHTS OF MALTA secret service saying WE CANNOT UPHOLD RULE OF LAW UNLESS WE BREAK RULE OF LAW.
Of course CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA US GAO -----same criminality, corruption, and coverup-----
Deep State Unmasked: U.S. GAO Auditor Admits “I Break Rules Every Day”
Published on Sep 20, 2018
Project Veritas has released the next in a series of undercover reports which unmask the Deep State. This report features a Government Accountability Office (GAO) employee and self-proclaimed Communist actively engaged in potentially illegal political activity. Natarajan Subramanian is a government auditor for the GAO and a member of the Metro DC Democratic Socialists of America (Metro DC DSA). Metro DC DSA is a socialist group that works to advance progressive issues in the Metropolitan DC area. Subramanian's political activism may directly violate federal statutes as well as the "Yellow Book" rules which apply specifically to government auditors.
THE INSTITUTION being tied to ONE SATANIC occultist who has filled our US CONGRESS with POD PEOPLE? Who uses VERITAS ---meaning TRUTH most often? Well, there is the OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS INSTITUTIONS like HARVARD/OXFORD/CATHOLIC FREEMASONRY all of which only release FAKE NEWS, FAKE DATA, CULTURAL ARTS to advance FADS to MOVE FORWARD ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE.
The Veritas Deception Book Trailer
Published on Jun 7, 2016
Trailer for the thiller - The Veritas Deception
As we stated earlier----LORD VOLDEMORT is of course LORD BALTIMORE one of our US and UK my sweet lords representing WESTERN ROMAN OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS duking it out with a HARRY POTTER whose father is tied with EASTERN OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS. Of course all that is today's WESTERN HEMISPHERE -----is now being painted as evil and corrupted----and HARRY and his FATHER tied to Eastern European KINGS AND QUEENS are the good guys.
As CONSTANTINE of Veritas Deception would say------THE INSTITUTION controlled by CROSSE has been busy with all that KILLING OF HUMAN CONSCIENCE-----or as Eco would say in PRAGUE CEMETERY it is all those MASONS AND JEWS PARTNERED AGAINST THE GOOD OLD WORLD NERO/CATO/SENECA KINGS AND QUEENS.
The Best Of Lord Voldemort
Published on Feb 6, 2012
'George Calvert went up to Trinity College at Oxford University, matriculating in 1593/94, where he studied foreign languages and received a bachelor's degree in 1597. As the oath of allegiance was compulsory after the age of sixteen, he would almost certainly have pledged conformity while at Oxford. The same pattern of conformity, whether pretended or sincere, continued through Calvert's early life. After Oxford, he moved in 1598 to London, where he studied municipal law at Lincoln's Inn for three years.... He was created Baron Baltimore in the Irish peerage upon his resignation. Baltimore Manor was located in County Longford, Ireland'.
Our global banking 5% GBLT players creating same FAKE NEWS media outlets.
A Blog for Gay Conservatives, Gamers, Inquisitive Free Thinkers, and Anybody Looking for a Fresh Perspective'
Posted on April 26, 2017 by cgaymer Analysis, Politics
The KKK and Antifa: They are The Same Goddamn Thing
So recently in the latest display of ignorance and cognitive dissonance from the left, the bigots have once again donned their masks to terrorize people who think differently from them. I speak of course about the ironically named “Antifa” or Anti-Fascists. They combat Fascism (anything other people believe that they don’t agree with) with righteous violent backlash (Fascist attempts to silence dissenting opinion with violence and criminal acts). HI-larious right? Well not really, since they attack people they know will not fight back, IE young women, the elderly, college students.
What is really funny is that this is the Democratic Parties new KKK. Yes indeed, they have once again in the face of total loss decided to resort once again to using small violent groups to terrorize the people responsible for their downfall. In 1865 the people they targeted were African-Americans out of bitterness for the Democrats loss in the Civil War. Now in 2017, their targets are Libertarians, Republicans, and a few far-right extremists (though Antifa seems to be afraid to engage them when they are in large groups) all of whom are responsible for the Democrats loss in the 2016 election. What is funny is how a lot of people haven’t made the connection about why Antifa is so similar to the Klan. Then again these are the same people who think they aren’t fascists even though they are the ones who use violence to silence people they disagree with. It is sad really.
But Anyway, here is the good ole compare and contrast on these two shithead groups. Read all of this to your Ultra-Liberal friends and see what piss poor excuse they use to explain this stuff away.
Hiding Their Faces
Antifa protester. Image from an Antifa terrorist site itsgoingdown.org
Both of these groups are known for Hiding their faces. In my opinion, this is motivated by two things, they are aware their actions are socially unacceptable and criminal in their nature, and they are both groups of extremist cowards.
Ku Klux Klan members. Image from dailymail.co.uk
The KKK as we all know are well-known for their white hoods, however, Antifa commits their criminal acts of fascism wearing black face masks and scarves. Not a lot of difference really other than the fact the Antifa uniform is trashy street clothing they can easily explain away if cops show up at their door.
Setting Fires and Other Terrorist Acts
Antifa Terrorist at Berkeley setting fire to a Trump supporters sign promoting free speech
Both the KKK and Antifa resort to violence and terrorist acts in order to intimidate people. For example, during the Berkley riots, Antifa was setting fire to private property in the streets. And again in the image to the left, we see an Antifa burning an opposing protestor’s sign after assaulting him to take it. Indeed arson, vandalism, assault, and disruption are what Antifa uses to spread their hate and intimidate the people that speak out against it. The people they hate by the way is anybody who doesn’t agree with their extremist left-wing ideology.
A clan member burning a cross.
This is Exactly what the KKK did as well. The Ku Klux Klan was well-known for intimidating people who disagreed with them. It is well known they would resort to cross burning. They also firebombed churches, vandalized businesses, made bomb threats and committed lynchings. To be honest I expect very soon that we will be hearing about Antifa doing the exact same thing. After all, they are the new clan.
Both Are Reactions to Democrats Losing Power
A political Cartoon from the 1800’s. It made the remark that the KKK was just the militant arm of the Confederacy/Democratic Party under a new label. Image from hubstatic.com
The KKK was first founded as a militant wing of the Democratic Party in reaction to the Democrats bitterness and anger over losing the Civil War. It was made up of former confederate soldiers, loyalists to the Democratic Party and they directed their anger and hatred at African-Americans. It was a real shot in the chops for them that African-Americans now had their freedom thanks to the 13th Amendment and equal rights thanks to the 14th Amendment. Many Democrats these days like to pretend the Republicans are responsible for the Clan but this is totally untrue, most powerful Clan members held high seats of power in the Democratic Party whereas only 2 Republican Politicians belonged to the clan and only got elected by hiding their affiliation. Another fun fact is that David Duke, a well-known political figure, and outspoken Clansmen, was a registered Democrat till 1989.
Antifa Terrorists on the morning of Trumps Inauguration. Over 200 people were arrested however the federal government has been slow to take action as a whole. Image from patdollard.net
Antifa took center stage after the defeat of the Democrats presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, and their loss of a majority in the Senate, all while there is a Seat up for grabs on the Supreme Court. Angry that all the violence and attempts to rig the election for Hillary failed, Antifa appeared to take the next natural step for Democrats by getting more violent and attacking people they don’t agree with. Aside from the attacks at Berkley, there was also plenty of assault and property destruction during the inauguration and there were attacks on peaceful demonstrators at the March4Trump in Berkeley. This is quite in line with the clan and their methods, in fact in some ways more brazen. Pretty soon it will escalate if nothing is done, mark my word.
Both groups have a supremacist ideology they use to justify their violence. The KKK was quite simplistic about theirs, they believed whites were a superior race. They felt that they had a right and duty to attack African-Americans and “put them in their place.” The idea of racial equality was poison to them and they vehemently fought the repeal of Jim Crow, desegregation, and the Civil Rights Act. So pretty much all of that is an indication of severe mental illness as well as a lack of empathy for other human beings.
An Antifa poster. It promotes violence against people they label fascists. Image from http://i2.kym-cdn.com
Antifa is very similar. They have the delusion that anything they do not agree with is fascist. They believe as a result they have a right to silence these people with violence and somehow still believe that they themselves aren’t the fascists even though they practice fascism. They will attack anybody remotely right of left, including Libertarians and Republicans. They convince themselves that anybody they do not agree with is a white supremacist or Nazi, even if it happens to be a gay immigrant jew who is primarily attracted to black men. (AKA Milo) Their deluded, monochromatic view of reality is highly problematic and it is startling that many of these people fit into daily life. Despite their claim to fight fascism, Antifa despises the concept of free speech and claim that not everyone has an equal right to free speech. (Coincidentally the people they believe don’t have that right are the people they don’t agree with.)
Both Are Affiliated With DemocratsKKK Grand Dragon and Mentor to Hillary Clinton, Senator Robert Bryd (D-WV). Image from pinimg.com
Yes, both of these are related to and supported by the Democrats, and the members come from their ranks. We all know the Democrats founded the KKK, and even very recently high-ranking people in the party were affiliated with it. Take for example Hillary Clinton’s close friend and mentor Senator Robert Byrd. She even went as far as to call the KKK Grand Dragon the “Heart and Soul” of America. This is not really surprising though coming from the mouth of a woman who called African-American youth “Super Predators” and recently had racist remarks she made via email leaked.
Known left-wing institution ACLU is apparently training Antifa, likely in how to get away with their actions. Image from funnyjunk.com
Antifa’s backers aren’t too different. So far I cannot say for sure whether any politicians of the Democratic Party are part of any Antifa groups, but their near silence is a form of support. They are however getting visible support from known funders of the Democratic Party. For one thing, it seems the ACLU is encouraging and training Antifa, and I can only assume we will see them providing legal support in the future. And known Left Wing financier George Soros has been funding Antifa groups, such scheming makes satire pieces like this one, about a disgruntled Antifa member spilling the beans on how Soros said he would pay him $2000 a week to set up Antifa Groups and organize protests, seem believable when you read it.
So next time someone tries to justify Antifa to you, by all means, I encourage you to point out that they are just the new clan. Who they target doesn’t matter. And if they still don’t realize this you will just have to accept that your acquaintance is extremely mentally ill.