Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
April 30, 2019

There is already talk of re-building Notre Dame, but the question is, as what? We’ll get back to that, but before we do, there is already talk of using the new technology of additive manufacturing or 3D printing to rebuild the cathedral, a process which, incidentally, could conceivably restore the structure more or less to its pre-fire state, according to this article shared by M.W.:

Can Notre-Dame rise from the ashes with 3D printing?

Speaking to FRANCE 24, Eric Geboers, co-founder of Concr3de, said, “As the extent of the damage is becoming clear, it is time to think about how to rebuild this sacred monument that has seen so much history. We propose a strategy to rebuild Notre-Dame in a modern way that maintains the soul and layered history of the building.

“Why not reuse what is left? What if we take the remains of Notre-Dame and use them to build her up again? What if we take the stone that has seen so much history and use that to maintain the soul of the building?”

Rebuilding with the remnants

Concr3de suggests combining old materials with new technologies. They will collect the ash, dust and damaged stone remnants in the nave of the cathedral and turn that into a 3D printable powder. “This powder will have the yellowish grey colour of Parisian stone and will be mixed with the charred remains of the wood. We can use this powder and directly 3D print the destroyed parts of Notre-Dame.

“The ash and limestone that remain would probably make up about half of the required materials. Then we would bind them together. But we would not use any plastics or resins. It would be a much more natural and pure procedure than that.”

“It is impossible to say at this stage exactly how long the work would take, but it would certainly be finished within five years,” said Geboers. “Working with our technique is at least five times faster than cutting stone.

“Of course it will take a lot of work but it is possible. With one large printer, you can produce two cubic metres of material in a day.”

OK, that makes sense, especially if, as Geboers states, one wants to preserve the “soul” of the cathedral, which would seem to imply a restoration of its traditional art-work.

Unfortunately, it would appear that the little popinjay Emanuel Macron’s globaloneyist multi-cultural stupidity and hubris knows no bounds, for what he has in mind for the structure is of the same order as his “there’s no such thing as French culture” statement that he made at the Verdun memorial, surrounded by the graves of thousands of his countrymen who died in that battle to preserve precisely the culture that Macron said didn’t exist. Many people spotted these articles and passed them along:

CHRISLAM RISING: French President Macron Says The Roman Catholic Notre Dame Cathedral In Paris Should Be Rebuilt With Muslim Minarets To ‘Reflect Diversity’ Of France

Macron says Notre Dame should be rebuilt consistent with the modern, diverse France – and architects suggest a glass roof, steel spire and minaret

Now, in case you missed it, the proposals for Notre Dame include (1) turning the top part of it into a greenhouse, and (2) replacing the spire or steeple with a minaret:

Macron’s initial promise to restore the magnificent cathedral to its former glory has been shoved aside. Now he says it will be rebuilt “consistent with our modern, diverse nation”, and at the same time the French Government has announced an international competition to redesign the Notre Dame spire.
After the announcement designers haven’t missed the opportunity to respond with their ideas, proposing that it should not be faithfully restored, but rebuilt with “contemporary” features such as a glass roof, steel spire, or even a minaret.
The Telegraph published an article claiming it would be a “travesty” to restore Notre Dame, while Rolling Stone quoted a Harvard architecture historian as saying that the burning of a building “so overburdened with meaning… feels like an act of liberation.”
Lord Norman Foster, arguably Britain’s most famous modern architect, has unveiled a design topping the ancient cathedral with a glass and steel canopy with a featureless glass and steel spire, which he describes as “a work of art about light” which would be “contemporary and very spiritual and capture the confident spirit of the time”.
Perhaps most controversial is a proposal in Domus, the architecture magazine, by Tom Wilkinson, for the fallen spire to be replaced with an Islamic minaret, to memorialize Algerians who protested the French government in the 1960s.
“These victims of the state could be memorialized by replacing the spire with – why not? – a graceful minaret”, Wilkinson insisted.
Yes, by all means, let us rebuild Notre Dame as a multicultural hothouse dedicated to the bland and glittering generalities of globaloneyism such as “the confident spirit of the time” as a “work of art about light.” Forget all that Christ and Mary stuff; that’s so yesterday. Let us rebuild it as a temple to plants and a shrine to yet another glittering abstraction called “diversity” and “inclusion”, and just so everyone feels “included” let us top the whole thing with a minaret (and for good measure, hire a mouezzin to sing the Angelus and call to mass call to prayer). For good measure, we can fill it with Muslim prayer rugs, and have automated Buddhist prayer wheels circling endlessly in front of a tabernacle for the reserved sacrament, which will have an appropriately ecumenical Masonic compass and square on it, and we can put Jewish menorahs on the high altar so everyone will feel “included.”
How perfectly wonderful this wonderful vision is. Need I remind you that it will be wonderful? You should feel wonderful about it, because it is wonderful.
Seriously, though, wonderful it may be, but not in the way that Mr. Globaloney intends, for no pious Muslim, nor Roman Catholic, nor Jew would be at home in such a monstrosity, nor want to be near it. Such an agenda – such a twisted vision – requires all of them to commit a kind of apostasy which the “planners” rub their faces in.
The long and short of it is that such plans are not a restoration at all; they are a deliberate mutilation and desecration of a tradition, and let it be noted, the core tradition of this civilization. It is thus a deliberate mutilation of the civilization itself. It is the continuation of what the fire itself was unable to complete.
And that should tell us something about the current “leadership” of the West: they care nothing – absolutely nothing – for the central core of this culture and civilization (or for that matter, the core of the cultures they want to “include”). In fact, they hate it, and will stop at nothing to mar it, mutilate it, desecrate it, and in the process, mar, mutilate, and desecrate the other cultures they’ve brought into this one in the name of “diversity” and “inclusion,” for what they plan to do to Notre Dame today, they can do to the Grand Mosque at Mecca, to the Dome of the Rock, to Lhasa Asa, to Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow tomorrow (you know, the one that Stalin dynamited to make room for some ridiculous Soviet “temple” to the “new man”). The Russians, at least, had the right idea: they rebuilt the cathedral, on its original location, in its original form, and put it to its original use.
But the western leadership, Mr. Globaloney and his allies, Ms. Diversity and Ms. Inclusion, are about nothing; they are about nihilism. Nothing more, nothing less; just nothing.
OK, rant over.
See you on …  oh, by the way, if you think for a moment that that business in the second article about the creation of “Chrislam” and the Vatican saying that Islam is part of “the plan of salvation” is made up, think again, for that little quotation is lifted straight from one of the documents of the Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes. And the idea of the “merger” of Christianity and Islam has been detailed by Jeff Sharlett’s two eye-opening books, C Street and The Family.
As I’ve said before, they’re following a template, an interpretation, and “the fulfillment is the deception.”
OK, now my rant is over.
See you on the flip side…

Read More At:

About The Author:

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.