Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby backtoiam » Mon Mar 14, 2016 10:01 pm

<snip>

Germany says NEIN to migrants as far right demolishes Merkel in regional polls

Exit poll results in three out of 16 German states foretell a wipeout in next year's general election as the hard-right capitalised on public disquiet and altered the political landscape forever.

Baden-Württemberg - solidly middle class and home to blue chip companies like Porsche and Daimler - was won by the Green Party after Merkel's CDU lost nearly 11 per cent support since the last vote there in 2011.

And the Alternative for Germany - AfD anti-immigrant pary - garnered 12.5 percent of the votes, propelling a party that her supporters call "Nazis in pinstripes" into the local parliament.

Their success was even more prominent in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt where it scored a massive 23 percent.

Supporters of Germany's new anti-immigration party celebrated on Sunday after the Alternative for Germany (AfD) surged into three state assemblies with scores that would have been unthinkable only a year ago.

AfD leader Andre Poggenburg, called Angela Merkel “the worst Chancellor is German history” as he celebrated his success.

He said: “What an amazing evening. We fought like lions for your land.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/652 ... gee-policy
"A mind stretched by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions." Oliver Wendell Holmes
backtoiam
 
Posts: 2101
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:22 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby American Dream » Mon Mar 14, 2016 10:13 pm

American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby AlicetheKurious » Tue Mar 15, 2016 6:31 am

backtoiam wrote:<snip>

Germany says NEIN to migrants as far right demolishes Merkel in regional polls

Exit poll results in three out of 16 German states foretell a wipeout in next year's general election as the hard-right capitalised on public disquiet and altered the political landscape forever.


Bullshit. The global propaganda campaign of hysterical headlines and hot air about how the far right is set to "demolish" Merkel in the elections has been proven wrong by the actual results. But that's not for lack of trying.

There's a lot of misleading, weaselly language manipulation in the so-called "respectable" global and German media, too: in the second paragraph of the article below (a compilation from global wire services), Merkel's party's projected dip by 10 percentage points is compared to the total support for the far right party Alternative for Germany, which amounts to 11 and 18 percent respectively, in two out of the three regions. Even in the third region, where they did best, they got 24% of the vote, but still lost to Merkel's Christian Democrats, who got 29%. The far left Green Party got 17%.

In other words, Merkel's party won in one of the regions, and lost to a center-left and to a hard-left party in the other two. How does this jibe with the headline of the article you posted, backtoiam?

More importantly, German governments are usually formed via coalitions. Merkel's Christian Democrats, the center-left Social Democrats and the far left Green Party (each of which won in one of the three regions where the elections were held) are all viable coalition partners with each other, but the far right Alternative for Germany Party is a pariah among the other three, and will therefore be locked out of any coalition. But that's not what the headlines would lead you to believe.

I've reorganized this article so that the original part appears first, and the two updates in chronological order:

German State Elections Results 2016: Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats Brace For Refugee Crisis Backlash
BY JESS MCHUGH @MCHUGHJESS ON 03/13/16 AT 10:37 AM


Original Story:

Germans took to vote in three regions Sunday in state elections that will serve as one of the first tests of Chancellor Angela Merkel's leadership in an ongoing refugee crisis. Polls predicted that her Christian Democratic Union would see significant losses among the 12 million voters participating, as the Alternative for Germany party picked up votes on its anti-immigrant stance.

German television channel ZDF showed support for the Christian Democrats in their traditional stronghold of Baden-Wuerttemberg dipping by 10 percentage points to 29 percent, and Alternative for Germany saw 11 percent support, Agence-France Presse reported Sunday. Alternative for Germany saw as much as 18 percent support in Saxony-Anhalt.

More than 1 million people sought asylum in Germany in 2015, with tens of thousands more arrivals predicted for 2016. The vast majority of asylum-seekers are bona fide refugees, according to the United Nations, meaning they are people fleeing violence and persecution. Nearly half of all refugees in Europe are Syrian, as an ongoing violent conflict has left hundreds of thousands dead and millions of people displaced in the country.

Merkel announced an open door policy in late August 2015, saying there was no limit to the number of refugees Germany would welcome. While many citizens at first lauded the policy, greeting newly arrived asylum-seekers with candy and supplies at train stations, the mood toward refugees began to sober throughout the year, as the nation faced increasing obstacles in resettling more than 1 million people.

"These elections are very important ... as they will serve as a litmus test for the government's disputed policy" German political scientist Jens Walther told AFP.

A highly publicized incident New Years Eve in Cologne further turned public opinion against the refugee population in Germany. A group of men, some of whom were asylum-seekers, attempted to rob and sexually assault dozens of women during the festivities, and the incident shocked many people throughout the country.

UPDATED 1:24 p.m. EDT — [/bExit polls from Sunday's state elections in Germany indicated large gains for the anti-immigrant far-right Alternative for Germany party, Deutsche Welle reported. Germans voted for state parliaments in three regions amid ongoing controversy concerning an EU-wide refugee crisis.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) was slated to win 29 percent in the Saxony-Anhalt region, followed by Alternative for Germany, which appeared to win 23 percent, while the Left Party polled at 17 percent.

The Social Democratic Party won 37.5 percent in Rhineland-Palatinate, followed by CDU at 32.5 percent and Alternative for Germany at 11 percent.

The Green Party was slated to hold onto power in the state of Baden-Württemberg with 32 percent, followed by the CDU with 27.5 percent and Alternative for Germany with 12.5 percent.

[b]UPDATED 3:38 p.m. EDT —
Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union performed poorly in state elections Sunday, according to projections from the Associated Press. The party lost to the center-left Social Democratic Party in two of the three voting states, while the far-right, anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany Party made gains, posing a challenge to coalition-building.

Alternative for Germany won 14 percent in Baden-Wuerttemberg, 12 percent in Rhineland-Palatinate and an astonishing 24 percent in Saxony-Anhalt.

"We are seeing above all in these elections that voters are turning away in large numbers from the big established parties and voting for our party," Alternative for Germany leader Frauke Petry said, according to AP. [http://www.ibtimes.com/german-state-elections-results-2016-angela-merkels-christian-democrats-brace-refugee-2335502]Link[/url]


If you ask me, these results show that so far, at least, the massive campaign to whip up of xenophobia and Islamophobia via media and other provocations among German voters is failing. Just look at this disgusting example:

EU is on 'verge of COLLAPSE': George Soros attacks 'muddling' Brussels for migrant crisis

THE European Union is on the "verge of collapse" because of leaders' bungling management of the ongoing migrant crisis, one of the world's richest men has warned today.

By NICK GUTTERIDGE
PUBLISHED: 05:29, Thu, Jan 21, 2016 | UPDATED: 16:12, Thu, Jan 21, 2016


Billionaire philanthropist George Soros accused Brussels chiefs of trying to "muddle through" the current refugee chaos, saying their confused response is the equivalent to "kicking a ball uphill so that it keeps rolling back down".

The Hungarian financier, who is one of the world's 30 richest men, predicted that the EU will not survive much longer unless the German people accept their "responsibility" to take in unlimited numbers of migrants from the Middle East.

The comments are likely to cause anger in Germany, which is reeling from a series of depraved refugee sex attacks after taking in more than 1.1 million people in the last year alone.

Angela Merkel's much-criticised open door immigration policy has been savaged in the aftermath of the Cologne attacks, but Mr Soros insisted she is the only one to have shown leadership in response to the unstoppable flow of people crossing into the continent.

He told the New York Review of Books: "There is plenty to be nervous about. As she [Merkel] correctly predicted, the EU is on the verge of collapse. The Greek crisis taught the European authorities the art of muddling through one crisis after another.

"This practice is popularly known as kicking the can down the road, although it would be more accurate to describe it as kicking a ball uphill so that it keeps rolling back down.

"Merkel correctly foresaw the potential of the migration crisis to destroy the European Union. What was a prediction has become the reality. The European Union badly needs fixing.

"This is a fact but it is not irreversible. And the people who can stop Merkel's dire prediction from coming true are actually the German people.

"Now it's time for Germans to decide. Do they want to accept the responsibilities and the liabilities involved in being the dominant power in Europe?"


The billionaire banker's comments came amid confusion and chaos over Europe's response to the migrant crisis, which shows no sign of abating.

A much-vaunted relocation scheme has been plunged into chaos by member states refusing to take on their responsibilities, whilst the Schengen free-movement zone is close to collapse after Austria pulled out, with other countries threatening to follow suit.

This week Finland's finance minister, Alex Stubb, said that the whole principle of the EU would be under dire threat if the Schengen agreement implodes.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos he told CNBC that Germany's open door policy on migrants was, "humane, that was probably the right thing to do at the time". Link


Imagine if you're a regular German citizen, reading the article above, and then the one below:

‘We can’t arrest them’: German police officer speaks out on refugees
Published time: 12 Jan, 2016 13:01

A German police officer told media that law enforcement cannot efficiently tackle crime among refugees without being accused of excessive violence or racism, while many dangerous incidents are played down or kept secret to maintain desirable statistics.]


The federal police officer, referred to as Bernd K., has shared his experiences with Bild newspaper, having worked for six months at Munich train station and also in the “refugee hotspots” of Passau and Freilassing in Bavaria.

“At first, mostly families with children – who looked educated and spoke English – were coming here,” the officer told. “Meanwhile, 95 percent of refugees are now single men.”

People do not know what happens in reality, even when it comes to violence or physical abuse, as the general picture looks softened, he continued.

“One asylum seeker wanted to cut his fellow’s throat. But the crime scene report included only severe injuries rather than murder attempt. This looks better for the statistics” Bernd K. explained. In his view, the crime rate among refugees far exceeds that of the local population:

“For the last couple of months, I had only one criminal charge against a German, the rest [of suspects] were only refugees.”


Referring to abuse and harassment against women, similar to those that took place in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, the officer said such cases are widespread in Bavaria as well.

“At the train station, women are sexually harassed and offended on regular basis. When we speak of an entry ban [to the area], they would shout on us: ‘You are not my police. You are a racist’.”

However, when a refugee needs to be controlled, the police cannot arrest him even for a while, the officer said, citing “superior orders” prescribing not to use coercive actions. “Our domestic rule is – better to let him run away.”


German law enforcement needs to impose stricter control on perpetrators as well as more police officers and more independence from political agenda, the officer went on.

“Otherwise it will turn into a big bang someday, if it’s not there already,” he concluded.

Vienna’s police chief under fire after advising women not to walk alone at night

Police authorities in Germany and neighboring Austria and Sweden came under fire following an increased number of sexual abuse cases against women by suspects of allegedly “North African” or “Middle Eastern” descent. The situation before and after New Year’s Eve mass assaults nearby Cologne train station and in the city center was at first reported by local police as a “peaceful atmosphere,” prompting the Cologne police chief to resign.

After continuous reports of sexual assaults against women in the Austrian city of Salzburg, Vienna Police Chief Gerhard Purstl told Krone newspaper “Women should in general not go out on the streets at night alone, they should avoid suspicious looking areas” in an interview that spurred a wave of criticism.

Sexual assaults on New Year’s Eve took place in a number of European countries. The largest number of assaults was recorded in Cologne, where 516 criminal cases have been filed with Cologne Police, who said that these included two cases of rape. Link


Germany, the industrial and economic back-bone of the EU is being deliberately CAULDRONIZED using a massive barrage of fear-mongering that targets all sides, whether left, right or center.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby AlicetheKurious » Tue Mar 15, 2016 8:31 am

Occult Means Hidden » Sun Mar 13, 2016 2:18 pm wrote:Political considerations are completely secondary, especially when half the time there is spurious proof of the political mechanizations- Turkey yes, Soros no. Primary considerations are the safety of those who are escaping violence and poverty.


And that safety can only be protected by holding accountable those who are causing violence and poverty and the collapse of countries for fun and profit, not by forcing other countries to accept an endless flood of destitute refugees until they, too, collapse into chaos.

Or do you, too, believe that the war criminals should get off scot-free and reap all the profits from their crimes, and it's up to the plebes to sacrifice their own countries trying to help the victims?

For some odd reason, in sharp contrast to all the headlines about Syria, nobody seems to care about the shattered victims of the "Christian" South Sudan regime -- maybe that's because this truly monstrous regime happens to be a very close ally of both the US and Israel. Or do you have another explanation?

U.S.-backed South Sudan government accused of horrific war crimes
By Brett Wilkins Mar 11, 2016

Geneva -
A new United Nations report accuses U.S.-backed South Sudanese forces of committing widespread and horrific war crimes against innocent civilians, including torture, rape of women and children and murder.

The UN report, published Friday, accuses South Sudan's government of implementing a "scorched earth" policy of mass rape, pillage and killing of innocent people in 2015. Most civilian casualties were the result of deliberate targeting by the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) and allied militias, not "collateral damage" during combat.
"The report contains harrowing accounts of civilians suspected of supporting the opposition, including children and the disabled, killed by being burned alive, suffocated in containers, shot, hanged from trees or cut to pieces," the office of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said in a press statement announcing the report's release.

Al-Hussein called the ongoing conflict in South Sudan "one of the most horrendous human rights situations in the world, with massive use of rape as an instrument of terror and weapon of war—yet it has been more or less off the international radar."

SPLA forces and allied militias were permitted to rape women in lieu of wages, with UN investigators recording more than 1,300 reported rapes between April and September 15 in Unity State alone. One woman reported being raped by five soldiers in front of her children; another woman recounted how she was tied to a tree and forced to watch 10 soldiers rape her 15-year-old daughter.

“If you looked young or good-looking, about 10 men would rape the woman; the older women were raped by about seven to nine men,” said one witness.
In another reported incident, soldiers argued over whether to rape a 6-year-old girl. Instead, they shot the child. The report also states that even women and girls taking refuge in UN-protected camps are at risk when they venture outside to collect food or firewood.

“The scale and types of sexual violence—primarily by government SPLA forces and affiliated militia—are described in searing, devastating detail, as is the almost casual, yet calculated, attitude of those slaughtering civilians and destroying property and livelihoods,” said al-Hussein. “However, the quantity of rapes and gang-rapes described in the report must only be a snapshot of the real total.”

In one of the latest reported outrages, more than 60 men and boys were deliberately suffocated to death in a baking hot shipping container by government forces in a Catholic church compound in Leer last October.

“Witnesses described hearing the detainees crying and screaming in distress and banging on the walls of the shipping container, which they said had no windows or other form of ventilation,” a report from the human rights group Amnesty International said.

South Sudan's government rejected the UN report's findings.

“We condemn in the strongest terms possible any crimes committed against civilians,” Ateny Wek Ateny, a spokesman for President Salva Kiir, told the Guardian. “The government takes it very seriously and we are investigating to find who has committed these heinous crimes and as soon as we get those who are responsible for committing human rights violations, we will bring them to book.”

Ateny said the atrocities may have been committed by militia fighters wearing SPLA uniforms and insisted that government troops operated under “strict rules of engagement” and did not target civilians. However, while the UN report found that all sides in South Sudan's conflict have committed atrocities, government and allied forces were said to be most responsible last year.

The United States backed predominantly Christian South Sudan's independence from Sudan, which is almost entirely Muslim, in 2011, providing billions of dollars in economic and military assistance to the government of President Salva Kiir despite widespread reports of human rights violations, including the use of child soldiers.

However, in three of the past four years—there was a suspension of military aid and training in 2014—the Obama administration has granted "national interest" waivers from the Child Soldiers Prevention Act (CSPA), which bans military aid to countries whose armed forces conscript, employ or enslave children, so that the US could continue training and equipping the SPLA. South Sudan is slated to receive more than $161 million in US military aid this year.

The UN estimates that at least 50,000 people have been killed and another 2.2 million displaced
since the current armed conflict erupted in December 2013 when President Kiir, an ethnic Dinka, accused his former vice president, Riek Machar, an ethnic Nuer, of plotting a coup. The fighting, which has mostly been waged along ethnic lines, has pushed swathes of the country of 11.3 million inhabitants to the brink of famine and has devastated the oil-rich nation's already weak economy.

There is some hope for peace in South Sudan, as a deal signed between the warring factions last August could bear fruit after Kiir issued a February decree reappointing Machar to the vice presidency. It is uncertain, however, whether Machar will accept the appointment.

Link


George Soros spearheaded the campaign to "liberate" (separate) "Christian" South Sudan from "Muslim" Sudan, and his success was gushingly celebrated in the same global media which is now oh-so-silent about the house of horrors it has turned out to be -- a very predictable outcome, given Soros' record.
"If you're not careful the newspapers will have you hating the oppressed and loving the people doing the oppressing." - Malcolm X
User avatar
AlicetheKurious
 
Posts: 5348
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:20 am
Location: Egypt
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby kool maudit » Tue Mar 15, 2016 8:55 am






So the discussion should come down to "look these people in the eye and tell me you don't like them"?

The dialectic of the pet shop window.

It's hardly rigorous. The stuff we get from Alice is a lot better. The margin of betterness is quite large.
kool maudit
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby kool maudit » Tue Mar 15, 2016 8:59 am

That said, I am not going to bug you every time you post. There is an audience for all sorts of angles and narratives. I have registered my thoughts in a few representative threads and I suspect this point of difference has created what epiphenomena it will create. RI can handle that.
kool maudit
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby jakell » Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:24 am

kool maudit » Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:55 pm wrote:


So the discussion should come down to "look these people in the eye and tell me you don't like them"?

The dialectic of the pet shop window.

It's hardly rigorous. The stuff we get from Alice is a lot better. The margin of betterness is quite large.


This sort of goes without saying. We know that emotional spasms tend to drown this out in the wider world but when it happens in more refined spaces then it becomes a thornier problem.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:47 am

President Vladimir Putin: An Enigma
Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism's War on Europe (Part 10 of an 11 Part Series)

by Gearóid Ó Colmáin / March 15th, 2016

Winston Churchill once described the Soviet Union as a ‘puzzle wrapped inside an enigma’. The same could be said for Russian President Vladimir Putin today. From the intricate and sometimes unpredictable diplomatic maneuvers of his foreign policy to his contradictory and sometimes ambiguous pronouncements on the legacy of the USSR, enigmatic is perhaps one of the most apposite words to describe him. This enigma is particularly evident in his approach to the politics of the Middle East and Israel in particular.

A further complication in the notion of a contemporary Russian bourgeois state representing some form of ‘anti-imperialist’ resistance is the Kremlin’s Middle East policy. In spite of Russia’s support for the Syrian Arab Republic against Zionist-led aggression, Vladimir Putin has openly and repeatedly expressed his support for Israel.

This has led to conflicts with many actors in Russia’s foreign policy elite who are said to be more pro-Palestinian. It is likely that Putin’s support for the existence of the Jewish state goes back to the USSR’s initial support for the creation of Israel in 1948, where the Soviet government believed a socially orientated, Soviet friendly, inclusive state in Palestine would be in the USSR’s best interests, also perhaps divesting the Soviet hierarchy of the problem of Jewish ‘over-representation’, the source of much suspicion and hatred among Russia’s ethnic slaves, many of whom believed communism was a ‘Jewish conspiracy’.

Putin’s pro-Israeli stance is said to have been copper fastened through his alleged close relationship with former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Before falling ill, Sharon made the following astonishing statement in front of a visibly irate Benjamin Netanyahu:

That we cannot continue holding under occupation… and it is occupation, you might not like this word, but it’s really an occupation – to hold 3.5 million Palestinians under occupation, is, in my opinion, a very bad thing. It cannot continue for ever. Do you want to remain, for ever, in Jenin, in Nablus, in Ramallah, in Bethlehem, for ever?

While Putin’s ambiguous relationship with Israel contradicts the Kremlin’s policy of supporting the Syrian Arab Republic’s resistance to Zionist genocide, there may be deeper, more complex and hitherto undisclosed reasons for this ostensibly contradictory policy. Still, class antagonism in contemporary Russia is further aggravated among Russians by the widespread perception that an ethnic minority holds the levers of economic power in the country. A recent study by Lenta.Ru website revealed that almost a quarter of Russian oligarchs are Jewish.

While the report was criticized for ethnicizing class conflict, it nevertheless attests to the deep ambiguity of Russia’s relationship to Zionism, given the fact that so many Jewish oligarchs in Russia hold Israeli passports.

The massive concentration of wealth in the hands of a few Jewish oligarchs in Russia contrasts markedly with the relative poverty of so many Jews in the Zionist colony in Palestine.

This shows once again that the only salvation for Jews, as Marx argued, is the abandonment of Judaism, or rather in this case Zionism, and the embrace of communism. The Zionist entity is not only an enemy of all non-Jews, it is forcing millions of its own ‘chosen people’ to live in relative poverty, proving once again, contrary to Talmudists, the Marxist thesis that the real problem in the world is not race but class struggle and exploitation of man by man..

I have already mentioned the facinorous influence of the Chabad Loubavitch sect in promoting Jewish supremacy and talmudic dictatorship. During the 1930s the Loubavitch sect was expelled from the USSR as it was considered a racist and fascist movement. However, since the rise of Gorbachev in the 1980s, the Chabad Loubavitch movement has gained considerable influence in Russia. In fact, under President Putin, Berel Lazar, the leader of the Russian Chabad Loubavitch movement, was made Chief Rabbi of Russia. Lazar has also been given many honours and decorations by the Russian state, this in spite of the fact that he belongs to a sect that openly promotes the idea among Jews that they are a master race and that all other races are sub-human. However, the Russian state has thus far managed to bring the Zionist movement under state control. This contrasts markedly with the Zionist movement in the United States and Europe, where national parliaments have become ‘Israeli occupied territories’.

Anti-communist lies about religion

Putin has done much to restore Russian pride and patriotism. But the Russian president has repeatedly perpetuated lies about Russia’s communist past that harm all Russians and dishonours the heroic achievements of the Red Army in liberating Europe and the world from fascism. For example, during his visit to Poland in 2010, the Russian president made an official apology for the so-called Katyn Massacre of Polish soldiers by the Red Army in Soviet occupied Poland during the Second World War.

This is a big lie, one which is fueling neo-Nazi gangs today in Zionist occupied Ukraine. Russian and American historians have proven that the crime was carried out by Nazis and blamed on the USSR.

The perpetuation of anti-communist lies and myths constitute the only obstacles between Russia’s emergence as the world’s leading super-power and mediocrity. It seems there is a deep tension in the attitude of Putin and his generation, misinformed for years by Soviet revisionism, regarding this issue. In spite of trading Russian pride for politically correct anti-Soviet lies with the purpose of gaining diplomatic advantages, Putin has, on the contrary, actively supported the highlighting of the achievements of the USSR in Russian school history books. This is a highly positive development.

Putin openly proclaims his Orthodox Faith. This has given him much credibility among those who value the cultural and spiritual importance of Russian Orthodox Christianity in shaping Russian identity. However, the Russian President has falsely claimed that the USSR persecuted Orthodox Christians. Article 124 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution states:

In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

There were many well researched books published in the 1930s debunkingclaims by the pro-Fascist press in the West on the persecution of religious orders in the Soviet Union.

In fact, some religious authorities who were critical of the Soviet System were awarded the highest honours of the state. For example, the Russian Orthodox priest and surgeon Archbishop Luka Voyno Yasnetsky was awarded the Stalin Prize in 1946 for his achievements in medicine. If religious personalities in the USSR were ‘persecuted’, it was due to their political counter-revolutionary activities in violation of Soviet law, and not their legally constituted right to worship nor their freedom of expression and assembly guaranteed by article 125 of the Soviet Constitution of 1936.

And, it must be said that Soviet Law was far more progressive than laws in capitalist countries. For example, the USSR became the first country in history to abolish the death penalty in 1946. The law was only later abrogated due to the capitalist decision to declare a ‘Cold War’ on the USSR.

Putin’s Orthodox piety was severely tarnished when the obscene wealth of Patriarch Kirill was discovered by Russian media. The Patriarch is not only wealthy. He is allegedly a billionaire who appears in photos with watches worth over 30,000 Euro, more money than most working class Russians can ever hope to earn in a year. How can someone with such a disgusting lust for money and luxury be considered a ‘spiritual’ leader?

The question of immigration

I have already shown that views on race, nationality and identity in the context of immigration differ in former popular democracies and the former USSR. The Soviet Union and the Eastern Block were not subject to political correctness or ‘Cultural Marxism’ that prevailed in the bourgeois democracies of the West. This forthright, non-complex view of identity was recently expressed by Czech president Milos Zeman when he pointed out that the Czechoslovak Republic had no problem welcoming and assimilating refuges from war-torn Vietnam in accordance with the country’s anti-racist and internationalist policy.

Notwithstanding Zeman’s Islamophobia, he makes a crucial point about the importance of understanding the historical position of ‘social-democracy’ vis-a-vis immigration, a position obscured by political correctness and the racist demagoguery of the far right.

Zeman has described the current mass movement of migrants to Europe as a conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood to wage war on Europe’s national cultures.

One should clarify here, that national cultures in the Marxist-Leninist definition are usually composed of many races. Stalin, in his essay ‘Marxism and The National Question’ defined the nation thus:

A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

There are no doubt elements of this Weltanshauung in the Russian government’s approach to the question of immigration and national identity. In a recent press conference with Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban, Putin was asked if he shared Orban’s view of migration and national identity. The Russian president replied that their views were quite similar.

In 2012, Putin said the following about immigration:

The melting pot of assimilation is highly volatile – pushed to its limits by the ever-increasing migration flow. In politics this has found reflection in a “multiculturalism” which denies integration through assimilation. Although it makes the “minorities right to be distinct” absolute, it does little to balance this with public, behavioural or cultural commitments to the population and society as a whole. Closed ethnic-religious communities that form in many countries refuse not only to assimilate but even to adapt.

There are neighbourhoods and whole towns where generations of new arrivals live on benefits and do not speak the language of the country in which they live. The growth of xenophobia among the population and harsh attempts to protect their interests, jobs and social benefits from “immigrant rivals” is the response seen in this behavioural model. People, shocked by what they perceive as aggressive pressure on their traditions or way of life, feel a genuine fear of losing their national identity.

Here we see expression of a bourgeois, patriotic view of immigration, which prioritises social cohesion over the anarchy of the market, whose vulture capitalists promote infinite mass immigration in order to drive down the price of labour. Yet Marxists in the West tend to support the self same policies of these oligarchs when it comes to immigration, calling for ‘open borders’. This petty bourgeois Marxism tends to emphasise the merits of multiculturalism rather than what Marx and Engels described as a form of class warfare whereby the ruling class crushes national organised labour through the influx of desperately poor migrants. Engels in his book The Condition of the Working Class in England describes how the immigration of brutalised Irish paupers to England sabotaged English working class militancy and was a key component of class divide and rule. The difference between Engels’ view of this problem, however, and the racist views of Carlyle whom he quotes, is that Engels’ shows the class function of immigration and the necessity for workers to understand that the ruling class and not the migrants are to blame.

In 1870 Marx wrote:

Introducing into the local labour market foreign labour lowers wages and alonside that the material, moral and cultural position of the indigenous working class.

If one reads the minutes of the General Council of the First International 1866-1888, one of the problems discussed was the importation by the bosses of Belgian workers into England who were prepared to work for lower rates. Here we can read that the ‘General Council committed itself to use its influence to prevent the importation of any more Belgian workers at reduced prices.’ Marx repeatedly warned about, and denounced the weaponization of, foreign workers against domestic labour. Marx also pointed out that foreign workers resident in the country would suffer most from coercive engineered migration. When tailors in Britain formed unions in 1865, the capitalists immediately attempted to crush the unions by importing cheap labour from Germany. Denouncing this policy Marx wrote:

No one would suffer more than the German workers themselves, who constitute in Great Britain a larger number than the workers of all the other Continental nations. And the newly-imported workers, being completely helpless in a strange land, would soon sink to the level of pariahs.

Marx described these migrants as ‘obedient mercenaries of capital in its struggle against labour’. It was important, he insisted, to explain this policy of weaponising migration to both domestic and migrant workers, so that either migrants would be discouraged from coming or would demand equal wages to indigenous workers upon arrival in their country of settlement.1

Liberal leftists and Trotskyite ‘Marxists’ approach the problem of migration through bourgeois categories. They, therefore, frenziedly accuse anyone who disagrees with their phony ‘internationalism’ as ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’, playing into the hands of international finance capitalists and oligarchs such as George Soros and the Zionist mafia. This superficial and spurious utopianism has nothing to do with scientific socialist thought, which requires concrete, historical and dialectical analysis of all phenomena. It is therefore correct for a Marxist to concur on the question of immigration with some of the views of bourgeois, patriotic leaders such as Vladimir Putin and Victor Orban. Protecting nation states from coercive engineered migration is in the interest of workers everywhere.

Putin’s position on immigration is also an example of the country’s resistance to Zionist oligarch’s such as George Soros, who are promoting ‘open borders’ for their ‘open markets’.

The problem of Nazism and historiography

Putin has repeatedly warned about the recrudescence of Nazi ideology in Eastern Europe, which is spreading with the full complicity of the European Union and the United States. The Nazis who took power in Kiev in the US backed Putsch of 2014 are a case in point. Nazi commemoration ceremonies are now commonplace in the Baltic States, while Bosniak Waffen SS Hamzar Division parades have taken place in the predominantly Muslim populated Sanzhak region of Serbia.

The rise of neo-Nazism in Eastern Europe and the EU’s complicity in promoting and abetting anti-Russian jingoism is well documented and represents a grave threat to the national security of the Russian Federation. No country suffered more during the Second World War than the USSR. Over 27 million soviet citizens died. Many of them were Jews. However, the Russian government’s attempt to ban questioning of any aspect of the Nazi persecution of Jews during the Second World War is bad policy and will only fuel neo-Nazism rather than contain it. It is also a further indication that Russia is, to a certain extent ,under the pervasive influence of Zionism. All historical facts are open to question and revision. Historical ‘truth’ should be argued among historians,not subject to juridical decrees.

Conclusion: Aggressive and defensive empires

My criticism in this series of articles of the Russian and Chinese governments in no way implies that such countries are to be considered on the same par with NATO. While both countries are defending their imperial interests, neither Russia nor China are responsible for the current fomentation of international terrorism and war, which are products of NATO and the Western Zionist axis. It is therefore coherent to support Russia and China in their defense of world order and international law when the choice is between that and total destruction of the planet under NATO hegemony.

While a unipolar world is the worst of all scenarios, a multipolar world will not prevent war in the long term either. World War I broke out in a world divided between several empires. While the Western imperial alliance is plagued by internal dissensions such as the rivalry between the United States and Europe and inter-European rivalry between Germany, France and the United Kingdom, the oriental imperial alliance is also fraught with internal rivalries and contradictions.

But there is another, equally important difference between the oriental and occidental imperial blocks; namely, the predominance of Zionism in shaping the foreign policy of the latter.

Marxists would therefore be wrong to put Russia and China on an equal footing with NATO. In all of the wars we have seen since the dissolution of the USSR, NATO and not Russia or China has been the aggressor. An instructive historical example of how Russian imperialism could be conceptualised today is provided by an article written by Josef Stalin in 1934. In the article Stalin criticises Frederich Engels exaggerated condemnation of Tzarist Russian imperialism thus:

Characterising the predatory policy of Russian Tsarism and correctly showing the abominable nature of this policy, Engels explained it not so much by the “need” of the military-feudal-mercantile upper circles of Russia for outlets to the sea, sea-ports, for extending foreign trade and dominating strategic points, as by the circumstance that there stood at the head of Russia’s foreign policy, an all-powerful and very talented band of foreign adventurers, who succeeded everywhere and in everything, who, in wonderful fashion managed to overcome each and every obstacle in the way of their adventurist purpose, who deceived with astonishing cleverness, all the Governments of Europe, and finally brought it about that Russia became a most powerful state, from the point of military strength.

Against Engels, Stalin correctly pointed out that the struggle for colonies by Britain, France and European powers, coupled with capitalism’s drive for new markets, were the principal causes of the First World War. The Soviet leader showed that Engels’ exaggeration of Russian imperialism was used as the justification by Social Democrats in Germany for their chauvinist pro-war policy. Such an analysis is relevant to our attitude to the imperialist wars of today.

While one must not overlook the fact that Russia is an imperial power with ambiguous links to the Zionist entity, we must never overlook the fact that it is the foreign policy establishment of the NATO countries who are, to paraphrase Engels, operating like a ‘secret Jesuit order’ against the security of mankind. In this sense, we must fully support Russia’s intervention in Syria as a legitimate act of self-defense perfectly in accordance with international law and the maintenance of stability, as stability, rule of law and peace are in the best interests of Russian, Syrian and all the world’s workers.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:15 am


The Morally Bankrupt EU-Turkey Refugee Deal Aids and Abets Human Rights Violations
03/09/2016 01:03 pm ET |

Behlül Özkan
Assistant professor at Marmara University; Author

ASSOCIATED PRESS
ISTANBUL -- Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is taking advantage of the refugee crisis in Europe to obtain the European Union's support for his own authoritarian regime. The 2.5 million refugees in Turkey are the ultimate trump card for Erdogan. He's the one calling the shots.

A meeting in October between Erdogan and the presidents of the European Council and the European Commission resulted in a shady deal by which the release of an EU progress report for Turkey -- which contained serious criticisms of Erdogan's party -- would be delayed for Erdogan's sake. The European Commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, even seemed willing to overlook Turkey's diminishing freedom of the press and human rights. Even so, Erdogan acted insulted by the EU's offer of 3 billion euros in financial aid, noting that Greece, during its own crisis, had received 400 billion euros in aid. He then threatened to "open the doors to Greece and Bulgaria" and "put the refugees on buses" into Europe.

All of this may explain why Angela Merkel, the leader of the most powerful country in the EU, has met five times with Turkey's leaders in recent months. On Monday, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, negotiating once more with EU leaders in Brussels about the refugees, succeeded in doubling the EU's offer from 3 billion to 6 billion euros. In addition, the EU may lift visa requirements for Turkish citizens traveling to Europe's Schengen zone. In return, Turkey will allow NATO access to its territorial waters to stem the flow of refugees and will also readmit some of the refugees who have traveled to Europe.

Europe is unwise to trust Erdogan, given his long history of political opportunism.
The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees has expressly stated that the deal struck between Turkey and the EU -- which would send refugees in Europe back to Turkey -- runs counter to international law and the European Convention on Human Rights. Nonetheless, the German minister of the interior, Thomas de Maizière, has defended his government's current policy vis-à-vis Turkey, declaring, "We cannot be the world's arbiter regarding human rights." For the moment, it seems, both Brussels and Ankara are satisfied with the deal. But both sides are aware that Erdogan can always wrest new concessions from the EU by threatening to flood Europe with refugees.

With this deal, the EU also turns a blind eye to Erdogan's increasingly authoritarian rule. Under the current Justice and Development Party, or AKP, government, anyone deemed an enemy of the state -- including journalists, politicians, businessmen and academics -- is fair game for prosecution.

Recently, Cumhuriyet, one of the country's most venerable newspapers, reportedon the AKP's shipments of arms to jihadis in Syria. Erdogan then denounced the paper's editor-in-chief, Can Dundar, and its Ankara bureau chief, Erdem Gul, declaring that those responsible for the story would "pay a heavy price" for it. On Erdogan's orders, Dündar and Gül were arrested and charged with espionage, then held in custody for 92 days until the constitutional court ruled their detention unlawful. Upon their release, the Turkish president expressed his contempt for the rule of law, stating that he was "unwilling to abide by or respect the court's decision."

The AKP government has likewise targeted academics critical of its policies. Since July, clashes in the Southeast between Turkey's security forces and the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, have become more and more deadly. Well over 100civilians have lost their lives, while thousands are eking out a precarious existence amidst weeks-long curfews.

Both sides are aware that Erdogan can always wrest new concessions from the EU by threatening to flood Europe with refugees.
In January, a total of 1,128 Turkish and foreign academics signed a petition calling attention to this humanitarian crisis. Erdogan castigated the academics as "traitors," giving the go-ahead for a judicial inquiry. Those under investigation face potential penalties ranging from six months to two years in prison. At the same time, a motion has been submitted to Parliament to lift immunity for five deputies from the Kurdish People's Democratic Party, the HDP, on the grounds of "being members of a terrorist organization."

The AKP's crackdown on journalists reached a new milestone last week, when the government took over one of Turkey's best-selling newspapers, Zaman, which is known to have ties to the Gülen movement, a Turkish religious and cultural organization. The government also arrested the owners of the Boydak Group, one of Turkey's largest furniture manufacturers, which is likewise affiliated with the Gülenists. The charges were the same in both cases: setting up a terrorist organization in order to overthrow the Turkish state.

As in Stalin's Russia, almost everyone in Turkey whom Erdogan labels a "traitor" is soon tried and put behind bars. However, in eliminating threats to his own rule, Erdogan has been opportunistic rather than capricious. When Erdogan and the AKP came to power in 2002, the biggest obstacles they faced were Turkey's pro-secular judiciary and its military, which had carried out four coups since 1960. Abroad, with his promises of "advanced democracy," Erdogan enjoyed the support of the EU and the U.S.

As in Stalin's Russia, almost everyone in Turkey whom Erdogan labels a 'traitor' is soon tried and put behind bars.
At home, Erdogan had the backing of the Gülen movement, which had long ensconced itself in Turkey's police force and judiciary. He had little trouble clippingthe military's wings through show-trials of hundreds of officers, including dozens of generals. Gülenist assistance also made it easier for Erdogan to replace secular-minded judges in all high-level judicial bodies. Years later, when some Gülenists alleged corruption in Erdogan's government, he instantly reversed course and branded his closest ally a "terrorist organization."

Erdogan has taken a similar approach to the PKK, with which Turkey has been at war for more than 30 years. During a ceasefire that lasted from 2013 to 2015, Erdogan held peace talks with imprisoned PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan; he also turned a blind eye to the PKK's stockpiling of weapons in Turkish cities and refused to let a trigger-happy army carry out anti-PKK operations. When the talks fell through in July 2015, however, Erdogan was transformed overnight from peacemaker to warmonger. From that point forward, anyone who campaigned for peace was considered a "terrorist" in Erdogan's eyes.

Erdogan's political maneuvering has followed a consistent pattern over his 14 years in power: form temporary alliances of convenience, negotiate with opponents when it suits him to do so, then turn on old partners once their purpose has been served. Evidence of Erdogan's mercurial nature can be seen as far back as the 1990s, when he famously declared democracy to be "a means, not an end;"a decade later, he was preaching about "advanced democracy" in order to quash opposition in the military and judiciary. Europe is unwise to trust Erdogan, given his long history of political opportunism.

With this refugee crisis, we are witnessing the decline of another European 'empire,' brought about by its own moral bankruptcy.
At the same time, the EU's own foreign policy record over the past five years has been shameful. Following the Arab Uprisings, it helped overthrow the Muammar Gaddafi regime by bombing Libya, only to leave the country in ruins. In Syria, it allowed Turkey and the Gulf countries to arm the opposition, escalating civil demonstrations into a civil war. Now the EU is making under-the-table deals with Turkey in an attempt to solve the very refugee crisis it helped create.

In caving to blackmail from unscrupulous partners and in refusing to take consistent, moral stances, the EU is betraying its founding principles of democracy and individual liberty. A millennium and a half ago, the Western Roman Empire collapsed due to waves of nomadic incursions. Today, with this refugee crisis, we are witnessing the decline of another European "empire," brought about by its own moral bankruptcy.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:29 am

The Global Refugee Crisis
Humanity's Last Call for a Culture of Sharing and Cooperation
by Rajesh Makwana / March 16th, 2016

The real crisis is not the influx of refugees to Europe, per se, but a toxic combination of destabilising foreign policy agendas, economic austerity and the rise of right-wing nationalism, which is likely to push the world further into social and political chaos in the months ahead.

Razor-wire fences, detention centres, xenophobic rhetoric and political disarray; nothing illustrates the tendency of governments to aggressively pursue nationalistic interests more starkly than their inhumane response to refugees fleeing conflict and war. With record numbers of asylum seekers predicted to reach Europe this year and a morally acceptable humanitarian response nowhere in sight, the immediate problem is more apparent than ever: the abject failure of the international community to share the responsibility, burden and resources needed to safeguard the basic rights of asylum seekers in accordance with international law.

Of immediate concern across the European Union, however, is the mounting pressure that policymakers are under from the far-right and anti-immigration groups, whose influence is skewing the public debate on the divisive issue of how governments should deal with refugees and immigrants. With racial intolerance steadily growing among citizens, the traditionally liberal attitude of European states is fast diminishing and governments are increasingly adopting a cynical interpretation of international refugee law that lacks any sense of justice or compassion.

The 1951 Refugee Convention, which was implemented in response to Europe’s last major refugee crisis during World War II, states that governments need only safeguard the human rights of asylum seekers when they are inside their territory. In violation of the spirit of this landmark human rights legislation, the response from most European governments has been to prevent rather than facilitate the arrival of refugees in order to minimise their legal responsibility towards them. In order to achieve their aim, the EU has even gone so far as making a flawed and legally questionable deal with President Erdogan to intercept migrant families crossing the Aegean Sea and return them to Turkey against their will.

Instead of providing ‘safe and legal routes’ to refugees, a growing number of countries on the migration path from Greece to Western Europe are adopting the Donald Trump solution of building walls, militarising boarders and constructing barbed wire barriers to stop people entering their country. Undocumented refugees (a majority of them women and children) who are trying to pass through Europe’s no-longer borderless Schengen area are at times subjected to humiliation and violence or are detained in rudimentary camps with minimal access to the essentials they need to survive. Unable to travel to their desired destination, tens of thousands of refugees have been bottlenecked in Greece which has become a warehouse for abandoned souls in a country on the brink of its own humanitarian crisis.

Ostensibly, the extreme reaction of many EU member states to those risking their lives to escape armed conflict is tantamount to officially sanctioned racial discrimination. Unsurprisingly, this unwarranted government response has been welcomed by nationalist parties who are now polling favourably among voters in the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Poland. The same is true in Hungary, where the government has even agreed Nazi-era demands to confiscate cash and jewellery from refugees to fund their anti-humanitarian efforts.

There can be little doubt that the European response to refugees has been discriminatory, morally objectionable and politically dangerous. It’s also self-defeating since curtailing civil liberties and discarding long-held social values has the potential to destabilise Europe far more than simply providing the assistance guaranteed to refugees under the UN convention. Albeit unwittingly, the reactionary attitude of governments also plays directly into the hands of Islamic State and other jihadi groups whose broader intentions include inciting Islamophobia, provoking instability and conflict within western countries, and recruiting support for terrorism in the Middle East and across Europe.

Dispelling nationalist myths of the far-right

With the public increasingly divided about how governments should respond to the influx of people escaping violent conflict, it’s crucial that the pervasive myths peddled by right-wing extremists are exposed for what they are: bigotry, hyperbole and outright lies designed to exacerbate fear and discord within society.

Forced migration is a global phenomenon and, compared with other continents, Europe is not being subjected to the ‘invasion of refugees’ widely portrayed in the mainstream media. Of the world’s 60 million refugees, nine out of ten are not seeking asylum in the EU, and the vast majority remain displaced within their own countries. Most of those that do settle in Europe will return to their country of origin when they are no longer at risk (as happened at the end of the Balkan Wars of the 1990s when 70% of refugees who had fled to Germany returned to Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Albania and Slovenia).

The real emergency is taking place outside of Europe, where there is a desperate need for more assistance from the international community. For example, Turkey is now home to over 3 million refugees; Jordan hosts 2.7 million refugees – a staggering 41 percent of its population; and Lebanon has 1.5 million Syrian refugees who make up a third of its population. Unsurprisingly, social and economic systems are under severe strain in these and the other countries that host the majority of global refugees – especially since they are mainly based in developing countries with soaring unemployment rates, inadequate welfare systems and high levels of social unrest. In stark comparison (and with the notable exception of Germany), the 28 relatively prosperous EU member states have collectively pledged to resettle a mere 160,000 of the one million refugees that entered Europe in 2015. Not only does this amount to less than 0.25% of their combined population, governments have only relocated a few hundred so far.

The spurious claim that there are insufficient resources available to share with those seeking asylum in the EU or that asylum seekers will ‘take our homes, our jobs and our welfare services’ is little more than a justification for racial discrimination. Aside from the overriding moral and legal obligation for states to provide emergency assistance to anyone fleeing war or persecution, the economic rationale for resettling asylum seekers throughout Europe (and globally) is sound: in countries experiencing declining birth rates and aging populations – as is the case across the EU as a whole – migration levels need to be significantly increased in order to continue financing systems of state welfare.

The facts are incontrovertible: evidence from OECD countries demonstrates that immigrant households contribute $2,800 more to the economy in taxes alone than they receive in public provision. In the UK, non-European immigrants contributed £5 billion ($7.15 billion) in taxes between 2000 and 2011. They are also less likely to receive state benefits than the rest of the population, more likely to start businesses, and less likely to commit serious crimes than natives. Overall, economists at the European Commission calculate that the influx of people from conflict zones will have a positive effect on employment rates and long-term public finances in the most affected countries.

A common agenda to end austerity

If migrant families contribute significantly to society and many European countries with low birth rates actually need them in greater numbers, why are governments and a growing sector of the population so reluctant to honour international commitments and assist refugees in need? The widely held belief that public resources are too scarce to share with asylum seekers is most likely born of fear and insecurity in an age of economic austerity, when many European citizens are struggling to make ends meet.

Just as the number of people forcibly displaced from developing countries begins to surge, economic conditions in most European countries have made it politically unfeasible to provide incoming refugees with shelter and basic welfare. Voluntary and compulsory austerity measures adopted by governments after spending trillions of dollars bailing out the banks in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis have resulted in deep spending cuts to essential public services such as health care, education and pensions schemes. The resulting economic crisis has led to rising unemployment, social discontent, growing levels of inequality and public services that are being stretched to breaking point.

The same neoliberal ideology that underpins austerity in Europe is also responsible for creating widespread economic insecurity across the Global South and facilitating an exodus of so-called ‘economic migrants’, many of who are also making their way to Europe. Economic austerity has been central to the ‘development’ policies foisted on to low-income countries for decades by the IMF and World Bank in exchange for loans and international aid. They constitute a modern form of economic colonialism that in many cases has decimated essential public services, thwarted poverty reduction programmes and increased the likelihood of social unrest, sectarian violence and civil war. By prioritising international loan repayments over the basic welfare of citizens, these neoliberal policies are directly responsible for creating a steady flow of ‘refugees from globalisation’ who are in search of basic economic security in an increasingly unequal world.

Instead of pointing the finger of blame at governments for mismanaging the economy, public anger across Europe is being wrongly directed at a far easier target: refugees from foreign lands who have become society’s collective scapegoats at a time of grinding austerity. It’s high time that people in both ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ countries recognise that their hardship stems from a parallel set of neoliberal policies that have prioritised market forces above social needs. By emphasising this mutual cause and promoting solidarity between people and nations, citizens can begin overturning prejudiced attitudes and supporting progressive agendas geared towards safeguarding the common good of all humanity.

From a culture of war to conflict resolution

It’s also clear that any significant change in the substance and direction of economic policy must go hand-in-hand with a dramatic shift away from aggressive foreign policy agendas that are overtly based on securing national interests at all costs – such as appropriating the planet’s increasingly scarce natural resources. Indeed, it will remain impossible to address the root causes of the refugee crisis until the UK, US, France and other NATO countries fully accept that their misguided foreign policies are largely responsible for the current predicament.

Not only are many western powers responsible for selling arms to abusive regimes in the Middle East, their wider foreign policy objectives and military ambitions have displaced large swathes of the world’s population, particularly as a consequence of the illegal occupation of Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and the ill-conceived invasion of Libya. The connection between the military interventions of recent years, the perpetuation of terrorism and the plight of refugees across the Middle East and North Africa has been succinctly explained by Professor Noam Chomsky:

The US-UK invasion of Iraq … dealt a nearly lethal blow to a country that had already been devastated by a massive military attack twenty years earlier followed by virtually genocidal US-UK sanctions. The invasion displaced millions of people, many of whom fled and were absorbed in the neighboring countries, poor countries that are left to deal somehow with the detritus of our crimes. One outgrowth of the invasion is the ISIS/Daesh monstrosity, which is contributing to the horrifying Syrian catastrophe. Again, the neighboring countries have been absorbing the flow of refugees. The second sledgehammer blow destroyed Libya, now a chaos of warring groups, an ISIS base, a rich source of jihadis and weapons from West Africa to the Middle East, and a funnel for flow of refugees from Africa.

After this series of blundered invasions by the US and NATO forces, which continue to destabilise an entire region, one might think that militarily powerful nations would finally accept the need for a very different foreign policy framework. No longer can governments ignore the imperative to engender trust between nations and replace the prevailing culture of war with one of peace and nonviolent means of conflict resolution. In the immediate future, the priority for states must be to deescalate emerging cold war tensions and diffuse what is essentially a proxy war in the Middle East being played out in Syria. Yet this remains a huge challenge at a time when military intervention is still favoured over compromise and diplomacy, even when common sense and experience tells us that this outdated approach only exacerbates violent conflict and causes further geopolitical instability.

Sharing the burden, responsibility and resources

Given the deplorably inadequate response from most EU governments to the global exodus of refugees thus far, the stage is set for a rapid escalation of the crisis in 2016 and beyond. Some ten million refugees are expected to make their way to Europe in 2016 alone, and this figure is likely to rise substantially with population growth in developing countries over the coming decades. But it’s climate change that will bring the real emergency, with far higher migration levels accompanied by floods, droughts and sudden hikes in global food prices.

Although largely overlooked by politicians and the mainstream media, the number of people fleeing conflict is already dwarfed by ‘environmental refugees’ displaced by severe ecological conditions – whose numbers could rise to 200 million by 2050. It’s clear that unless nations collectively pursue a radically different approach to managing forced displacement, international discord and social tensions will continue to mount and millions of additional refugees will be condemned to oversized and inhumane camps on the outer edges of civilisation.

The fundamentals of an effective and morally acceptable response to the crisis are already articulated in the Refugee Convention, which sets out the core responsibilities that states have towards those seeking asylum – even though governments have interpreted the treaty erroneously and failed to implement it effectively. In the short term, it’s evident that governments must mobilise the resources needed to provide urgent humanitarian assistance to those escaping war, regardless of where in the world they have been displaced. Like the Marshall Plan that was initiated after the Second World War, a globally coordinated emergency response to the refugee crisis will require a significant redistribution of finance from the world’s richest countries to those most in need – which should be provided on the basis of ‘enlightened self-interest’ if not from a genuine sense of compassion and altruism.

Immediate humanitarian interventions would have to be accompanied by a new and more effective system for administrating the protection of refugees in a way that is commensurate with international refugee law. In simple terms, such a mechanism could be coordinated by a reformed and revitalised UN Refugee Agency (the UNHCR) which would ensure that both the responsibility and resources needed to protect refugees is shared fairly among nations. A mechanism for sharing global responsibility would also mean that states only provide assistance in accordance with their individual capacity and circumstances, which would prevent less developed nations from shouldering the greatest burden of refugees as is currently the case.

Even though the UN’s refugee convention has already been agreed by 145 nations, policymakers in the EU seem incapable and unwilling to demonstrate any real leadership in tackling this or indeed any other pressing transnational issue. Not only does the resulting refugee fiasco demonstrate the extent to which self-interest dominates the political status quo across the European Union, it confirms the suspicion that the union as a whole is increasingly devoid of social conscience and in urgent need of reform.

Thankfully, ordinary citizens are leading the way on this critical issue and putting elected representatives to shame by providing urgent support to refugee families in immediate need of help. In their thousands, volunteers stationed along Europe’s boarders have been welcoming asylum seekers by providing much needed food, shelter and clothing, and have even provided search and rescue services for those who have risked their lives being trafficked into Europe in rubber dinghies. Nowhere is this spirit of compassion and generosity more apparent than on Lesbos and other Greek islands, where residents have been collectively nominated for the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize for their humanitarian efforts.

The selfless actions of these dedicated volunteers should remind the world that people have a responsibility and a natural inclination to serve one another in times of need – regardless of differences in race, religion and nationality. Instead of building militarised borders and ignoring popular calls for a just and humanitarian response to the refugee crisis, governments should take the lead from these people of goodwill and prioritise the needs of the world’s most vulnerable above all other concerns. For European leaders and policymakers in all countries, it’s this instinctively humane response to the refugee crisis – which is based firmly on the principle of sharing – that holds the key to addressing the whole spectrum of interconnected social, economic and environmental challenges in the critical period ahead.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:48 pm

coffin_dodger » 10 Mar 2016 11:57 wrote:Joe H said:
There is a massive difference between Zionism - the Jewish nationalist movement associated with the creation and expansion of Israel, and a Russian hoax blaming every political event in history on a nefarious conspiracy by an evil cabal of Jews.

Whatever his name is is constantly doing this. On the basis of what? His itchy jocks? The stars? the tea leaves in his coffee?

He never provides anything regarding analysis of why this could be the case, never proposes alternative ideas then criticises them, never points out potential flaws in his own writing and alternatives if these flaws prove to much for his main conclusions. He is a polemicist pushing a point of view whatever the facts and accepting that uncritically is foolish. And not what this place used to be about.


Hope you don't mind me barging in.

I watched a newish BBC documentary about Himmler earlier today (Storyville - Himmler, The Decent One) - and I really, really don't want to see any real form of Fascism or Nazism rear it's ugly head again in what remains of my lifetime. I'd rather my children, grandchildren etc. avoided it too, to be frank. Fascism and Nazism is a state of mind that scares me rigid. Order; total subservience to State; constant Total War mentality; elimination of 'undesirables'; indoctrination of minors etc

But equally, the other extreme - anti-fascism - scares me too. In many ways, it scares me more than Fascism. Here's why:

Fascism and Nazism are spent forces. They had their turn and are now past. We know them for what they are and they were an awful failure.

Nazism was slyly promoted and implemented back in the mid 1920's to mid 1930's by use of a simple underlying message: "there are some people that live amongst us who are the cause of all of our societal ills". It didn't start out with "Kill them all! Burn their houses! - it started with 'this is the problem'. We all know where it eventually led to.

I'm concerned that Anti-fascism is piggybacking, on the back of Nazism - towards an endstate similar to that which Nazi Germany found itself consumed by in the early 40's - an overwhelming desire and need to rid itself of 'the problem'.

The ridiculing of opponents from both ends of the spectrum (from the Nazis in the late 1920's/30's in Germany, from the Anti-Fascists now) is almost identical. For instance - "Whatever his name is is constantly doing this" clearly shows that your contempt for this person is so strong that you will not even identify this person as a person.

Here's what I see, daily, posted on this forum by AD:

Anyone who doesn't like any one of - or all - Jewish people is problematic
Anyone who doesn't like any one of - or all - Muslim people is problematic
Anyone who doesn't like any one of - or all - gay people is problematic
Anyone who doesn't like any one of - or all - transgender people is problematic
Anyone who doesn't like any one of - or all - black people is problematic
Anyone who likes the idea of a Nation State is problematic
Anyone who is a Christian is problematic
Anyone who doesn't unconditionally welcome refugees is problematic
Anyone who draws a conclusion that Anti-Fascists may be extremists - is problematic
Anyone who is white that doesn't feel the need to self-flagellate is problematic
Anyone who isn't an anti-Fascist is a Fascist or Crypto-Fascist and is problematic.

I've missed some, I'm sure.

Do you see where this is heading?


Sorry I missed this ages ago.

Anti fascism in Australia was pretty much non existent until the islamophobics stood up and started screaming about Sharia law and how we have to burn mosques or stop them being built. Sure there was an anti globalisation movement but it wasn't the same thing. When people started getting attacked in public for being or looking like they were Muslim. When groups like the Q Society, Reclaim Australia and the like started promoting violent demonstrations to prevent mosques being built in communities where muslims lived... when all that happened a bunch of Australians who don't like bigoted shitheads started what you'd call anti fascism movements in Australia.

They don't have any momentum of their own. They aren't really united by any ideology other than the stuff you ignore or walk past is the stuff you implicitly support, silence about violence and racism is ultimately consent about it etc etc.

I do see where you are coming from tho. The day these things have any real power (apart from the temporary power a bunch of people on the street take for themselves) and start behaving ina real authoritarian manner will be the dy they need to be dumped.

i disagree about fascism too. I grew up with people who escaped fascism in South America. In some ways its becoming present in Australia where I live. NSW for example...

I come from a community that worked together to stop fracking and in the process pretty much destroyed a mining company (to the shareholders who lost money - fuck you all) now we are looking elsewhere. Where people reject fracking but don't have the population base to shut down mini8ng operations.

In response our government has made non violent protesting punishable by up to 7 years in prison, and has given police unprecedented powers to stop people exercising their right to protest.

https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/17/nsw-a ... ike-baird/

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne ... parliament

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne ... law-groups

That i more of a threat to us than fascist bully boys right now, but the government is cranking up authoritarian power in support of corporations that are potentiallly gonna destroy our water resources and, when it comes to coal mines, our ability to exist. So that is actual fascism. It hasn't come to killing people yet but that is the ultimate power of the state, no doubt it could, especially when the corporations and their lobby groups describe us as terrorists.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10594
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby tapitsbo » Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:54 pm

The state absolutely kills people for interfering with fracking, some of the groups that sabotage it are awfully resilient however and they're committed to a long struggle in ways noisier political activists aren't.

Now that even you are becoming puzzled by the semantic drift of "fascism", Joe Hillshoist, I think that says a lot.

It's hard for me to think about the reflexive hatred of Muslims that began during the last decade without thinking about the larger context and war-mongering forces that may have shaped it. Or of its mirror the term "Islamophobia" and the curious dissonance it has with other social engineering projects to enshrine or remove the sacredness of various phenomena.
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby backtoiam » Sun Mar 20, 2016 12:01 pm

Image

Eric Zuesse

On Friday, March 18th, a combined effort by George Soros, Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, and Tayyip Erdogan, arranged to get the EU to abandon previously sacrosanct fundamental human rights of refugees, and to transfer $6B+ to Turkey, in return for placing the refugee burden onto Turkey and getting Turkey to cooperate so as to assist the breakup of Syria, which will enable a gas-pipeline and an oil-pipeline to be built through Syria to enable Qatar’s gas and Saudi Arabia’s oil to be pipelined through Syria into the EU, so as to replace Russian oil and gas, which now fuel the EU.

Soros-Obama-Merkel-Erdogan Win Control of Europe
Mar 19, 2016

Image
Here, in my rush translations from the original German-language reports at German Economic News (Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten) are the key reports and headlines:

http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten ... aufnehmen/

Turkey deal: Germany could take majority of refugees

[Translated by Eric Zuesse from] German Economic News | Published:18:03:16 02:56 Clock

The most important consequence of the EU summit is not in the official statement. A plan long discussed, now finalizing: Germany takes the majority of refugees from Turkey, and oil and gas pipelines will replace Russian oil and gas to Europe by Saudi oil and Qatari gas.

Europe’s energy supply should result in future Syria. (Graphic: oilprice.net)

Image

According to Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel, the leaders of the European Union mutually agreed with Turkey to cut Russia out of the EU gas market, cut Qatar [a U.S. ally] in. They agreed in the early hours of Friday on a refugee-&-gas-pipeline package to be approved by the Turkish government.

This agreement will substantially correspond to the Pact of Angela Merkel with Turkish President Erdogan. But it apparently comprises only a small portion of the prepared between Germany, Turkey and the USA.

Gerald Knaus, director of the Soros-funded think tank “European Stability Initiative” (ESI), for many months now has been advising Chancellor Angela Merkel on the refugee crisis. His ESI submitted the plan in October.

The original plan consists of two parts: On the one hand, Germany should, during the coming year, “grant 500,000 Syrian refugees asylum, who are now in Turkey.” Other European countries may participate, but on a voluntary basis. At the same time Turkey will take from Greece “all new migrants.”

Knaus, himself Austrian, told the Viennese daily the press, that “in the background, a more radical idea has already been largely negotiated” which will “probably very soon be announced“: Knaus said that a “coalition of the willing” will take 900 Syrians per day — “no matter how many Syrians come to Greece.” This would be about 300,000 people per year — slightly less than in the original Soros plan.

The reason for Europe’s acquisition of hundreds of thousands of refugees is obvious: The proposed EU summit one-to-one solution would not be enough to relieve Turkey significantly. Moreover, it’s not lawful from the perspective of the Geneva Convention, as human rights organizations have complained since the start of the Soros proposal. The coalition of the willing currently consists of Germany, Portugal and Sweden. Austria has not yet agreed. Presumably Merkel will move some other countries also to participate. Thus, the plan could be presented as a European solution.

From an organizational standpoint, Knaus thinks that consideration in Turkey of the plan will succeed in an agreement being reached. Knaus holds this to be essential. He told the newspaper Die Welt: “The acceptance, by the public, of receiving the refugees is essential. Had we in Europe started earlier with a quota solution, we’d be farther along today. I think that also Sweden and Austria would have been on our side. Unfortunately, the process in the past year fell out of control. We had no idea who is coming into our country. This fueled fears. “

The Soros plan is apparently agreed with the US government. Angela Merkel supported in this way the geopolitical plans of the Americans, who have a special interest in developing their energy policies in the region. They are planning the Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP). Construction of TAP is pushed by the United States. This will run from the Turkish border via Greece, Albania and the Strait of Otranto to Italy. Thus, one of the main refugee routes to Europe, which is particularly overloaded after the closure of the Balkan route, will be cleared for pipelining gas into Europe.

Further destabilization of the TAP region is therefore not in the interests of the United States. They also want to ensure that Europe is supplied via a pipeline that’s under US control, not under Russian control. The US and Russia are fighting for the European energy market.

It is interesting in this context that a competing Russian pipeline through Syrian territory could also result. The surprising retreat of the Russians from Syria might suggest that there could be an agreement between Russia and the US: In this way, the geopolitical interests of both Great Powers could be safeguarded. The relationship between the pipeline projects and the war in Syria has the raw material site Oilprice.net analyzed in order that all parties want to solve the dependence of Saudi oil.

In this connection the role of the Americans is also in the media largely ignored regarding the visiting US diplomat Victoria Nuland in Idomeni. Nuland’s pithy sayings (such as “fuck the EU”) and her role in Ukraine, made her try to become known as a Goodwill Ambassador for Europe; she Thursday visited the refugee camps in the northern Greek Idomeni, reports Kathimerini .

The Turkish news portal Haberler reports what Nuland said in Idomeni: “It needs to be done for these people more. Athens has made a direct request to Washington. In this difficult situation, I’m here, for American-Greek solidarity. We will work together to solve the problem of distribution of refugees within the EU. In addition, we want to help ensure that the deal between the EU and Turkey is fair and transparent. It’s time to better accommodate the migrants. “

On 11 March, Nuland met with representatives of the Greek government in Athens to discuss the full range of bilateral and regional issues, including the request for assistance of Greece to the United States, in solving the migration problem, reported the US State Department .

This context could explain also why Angela Merkel has waited so long to go to the German public with a real plan for the refugee crisis — even though they have long been familiar with the Soros plan and he apparently also laid the basis with the Chancellor for Turkey jointly to launch the proposal at the EU summit: this was to help Merkel not to inflame sentiment in Germany before the state elections. Because the message that Germany could possibly be the only country to take a large number of refugees, would have a serious impact that has led even without this perspective to tectonic shifts in favor of the AFD [anti-immigrant party].

Knaus sees the axis Ankara-Berlin as crucial for geopolitical orientation against Russia. He said in an international interview that Germany made the mistake not to place undue reliance on the EU Commission: “Germany has early understood much. But it made the mistake of relying too much on the implementation by the Commission. Germany would have taken matters into its own hands earlier.”

Knaus sees the role of Germany as partners with Turkey and the USA. Here lies the common interest to host the refugees: “Germany does not expire like other states in an anti-Islam rhetoric. At the same time it sees Ankara, in a delicate geostrategic position between anti-Muslim governments in Europe and a strong Putin. A successful and connected in partnership by Berlin may be worth a lot for Turkey and its approach to Europe.”

This closes the circle for the TAP pipeline: The Americans want to snatch the European energy market away from Russia. In the absence of our own energy policy, Europeans are currently completely dependent on Russia. If both pipelines – quasi in a duopoly of the Americans and the Russians – are built, the energy policy space for the EU would increase significantly.

That led to the present situation, a murderous war that’s driven hundreds of thousands from Syria and Iraq. It had to be, from a geopolitical point of view of the parties — Russia, the US and the EU — regarded as collateral damage.

After all, the Soros plan would in fact lead to the result that the right of asylum would be respected so that immigration to Europe is not completely disordered. What guarantees that the EU gets Turkey to treat the refugees humanely, is completely unclear. It also is unclear whether the acceptance of refugees in Germany can be satisfactorily prepared. It also remains open whether the EU will have, as a result of the apparent cleavage of the project, neither the power to play as a political union, nor a role that goes beyond that of simply a large, attractive market.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/latest-news/so ... ol-europe/
"A mind stretched by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions." Oliver Wendell Holmes
backtoiam
 
Posts: 2101
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:22 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby Occult Means Hidden » Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:08 pm

AlicetheKurious wrote:
Occult Means Hidden » Sun Mar 13, 2016 2:18 pm wrote:Political considerations are completely secondary, especially when half the time there is spurious proof of the political mechanizations- Turkey yes, Soros no. Primary considerations are the safety of those who are escaping violence and poverty.


And that safety can only be protected by holding accountable those who are causing violence and poverty and the collapse of countries for fun and profit, not by forcing other countries to accept an endless flood of destitute refugees until they, too, collapse into chaos.

Or do you, too, believe that the war criminals should get off scot-free and reap all the profits from their crimes, and it's up to the plebes to sacrifice their own countries trying to help the victims?

For some odd reason, in sharp contrast to all the headlines about Syria, nobody seems to care about the shattered victims of the "Christian" South Sudan regime -- maybe that's because this truly monstrous regime happens to be a very close ally of both the US and Israel. Or do you have another explanation?

U.S.-backed South Sudan government accused of horrific war crimes
By Brett Wilkins Mar 11, 2016

Geneva -
A new United Nations report accuses U.S.-backed South Sudanese forces of committing widespread and horrific war crimes against innocent civilians, including torture, rape of women and children and murder.

The UN report, published Friday, accuses South Sudan's government of implementing a "scorched earth" policy of mass rape, pillage and killing of innocent people in 2015. Most civilian casualties were the result of deliberate targeting by the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) and allied militias, not "collateral damage" during combat.
"The report contains harrowing accounts of civilians suspected of supporting the opposition, including children and the disabled, killed by being burned alive, suffocated in containers, shot, hanged from trees or cut to pieces," the office of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said in a press statement announcing the report's release.

Al-Hussein called the ongoing conflict in South Sudan "one of the most horrendous human rights situations in the world, with massive use of rape as an instrument of terror and weapon of war—yet it has been more or less off the international radar."

SPLA forces and allied militias were permitted to rape women in lieu of wages, with UN investigators recording more than 1,300 reported rapes between April and September 15 in Unity State alone. One woman reported being raped by five soldiers in front of her children; another woman recounted how she was tied to a tree and forced to watch 10 soldiers rape her 15-year-old daughter.

“If you looked young or good-looking, about 10 men would rape the woman; the older women were raped by about seven to nine men,” said one witness.
In another reported incident, soldiers argued over whether to rape a 6-year-old girl. Instead, they shot the child. The report also states that even women and girls taking refuge in UN-protected camps are at risk when they venture outside to collect food or firewood.

“The scale and types of sexual violence—primarily by government SPLA forces and affiliated militia—are described in searing, devastating detail, as is the almost casual, yet calculated, attitude of those slaughtering civilians and destroying property and livelihoods,” said al-Hussein. “However, the quantity of rapes and gang-rapes described in the report must only be a snapshot of the real total.”

In one of the latest reported outrages, more than 60 men and boys were deliberately suffocated to death in a baking hot shipping container by government forces in a Catholic church compound in Leer last October.

“Witnesses described hearing the detainees crying and screaming in distress and banging on the walls of the shipping container, which they said had no windows or other form of ventilation,” a report from the human rights group Amnesty International said.

South Sudan's government rejected the UN report's findings.

“We condemn in the strongest terms possible any crimes committed against civilians,” Ateny Wek Ateny, a spokesman for President Salva Kiir, told the Guardian. “The government takes it very seriously and we are investigating to find who has committed these heinous crimes and as soon as we get those who are responsible for committing human rights violations, we will bring them to book.”

Ateny said the atrocities may have been committed by militia fighters wearing SPLA uniforms and insisted that government troops operated under “strict rules of engagement” and did not target civilians. However, while the UN report found that all sides in South Sudan's conflict have committed atrocities, government and allied forces were said to be most responsible last year.

The United States backed predominantly Christian South Sudan's independence from Sudan, which is almost entirely Muslim, in 2011, providing billions of dollars in economic and military assistance to the government of President Salva Kiir despite widespread reports of human rights violations, including the use of child soldiers.

However, in three of the past four years—there was a suspension of military aid and training in 2014—the Obama administration has granted "national interest" waivers from the Child Soldiers Prevention Act (CSPA), which bans military aid to countries whose armed forces conscript, employ or enslave children, so that the US could continue training and equipping the SPLA. South Sudan is slated to receive more than $161 million in US military aid this year.

The UN estimates that at least 50,000 people have been killed and another 2.2 million displaced
since the current armed conflict erupted in December 2013 when President Kiir, an ethnic Dinka, accused his former vice president, Riek Machar, an ethnic Nuer, of plotting a coup. The fighting, which has mostly been waged along ethnic lines, has pushed swathes of the country of 11.3 million inhabitants to the brink of famine and has devastated the oil-rich nation's already weak economy.

There is some hope for peace in South Sudan, as a deal signed between the warring factions last August could bear fruit after Kiir issued a February decree reappointing Machar to the vice presidency. It is uncertain, however, whether Machar will accept the appointment.

Link


George Soros spearheaded the campaign to "liberate" (separate) "Christian" South Sudan from "Muslim" Sudan, and his success was gushingly celebrated in the same global media which is now oh-so-silent about the house of horrors it has turned out to be -- a very predictable outcome, given Soros' record.


There was a real refugee problem in South Sudan and few tried to "liberate" specific Christians except most notably, the staunchly Christian. Soros never launched a campaign for Chrstain liberation. Refugee care, sure.

What are you trying to do? Are you trying to make a point against my point? You haven't. I don't know if this is a translation problem or if you are just a contrarian arguing to argue.
Rage against the ever vicious downward spiral.
Time to get back to basics. [url=http://zmag.org/zmi/readlabor.htm]Worker Control of Industry![/url]
User avatar
Occult Means Hidden
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:34 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Postby seemslikeadream » Mon Mar 21, 2016 1:13 pm


UNDER THE GUISE OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION

Africom’s Covert War in Sudan
by Keith Harmon Snow
Sudan holds important oil reserves in its South, becoming the focus of growing competition for influence between the US and China, the leading recipient of Sudanese oil. The US has responded to China’s growing influence in Africa with the formation of the United States Africa Command, or AFRICOM, in 2008. There are many indications that the Obama administration is poised to take an even more aggressive stance toward Sudan than the previous administration. Taken in this context, the war crimes charges against Sudanese President Bashir would appear to be an intensified push by the US and other imperialist powers for domination of energy-rich parts of the African continent.

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | 11 MARCH 2009

On 4 March 2009 the ICC prosecutors announced that they were at last issuing the long-threatened but first ever indictments against a sitting head of state, Omar al-Bashir, the Arab President of Sudan. Meanwhile, Somali ‘pirates’ off East Africa recently freed a Ukrainian ship with a Panamanian registration, a Ukrainian crew and flag of Belize. The freighter carried tanks, rockets and munitions destined for Darfur, and is owned by an Israeli ‘businessman’ and reputed MOSSAD operative named Vadim Alperin.

It is difficult to make sense of the war in Darfur — especially when people see it as a one-sided “genocide” of Arabs against blacks that is being committed by the Bashir ‘regime’ — but such is the establishment propaganda. The real story is much more expansive, more complex, and it revolves around some relatively unknown but shady characters. What follows is a short and imperfect summary of some of the deeper geopolitical realities behind the struggle for Sudan.

THE POLITICS OF WAR CRIMES

First note that the ICC can now be viewed as a tool of hegemonic U.S. foreign policy, where the weapons deployed by the U.S. and its allies include the accusations of, and indictments for, human rights violations, war crimes and crimes against humanity. To understand this, we can ask why no white man has yet been charged with these or other offenses at the ICC, which now holds five black African “warlords” and seeks to incarcerate and bring to trial another black man, also an Arab, Omar Bashir. Why hasn’t George W. Bush been indicted? Or what about Donald Rumsfeld? Dick Cheney? Henry Kissinger? Ehud Olmert? Tony Blair? Vadim Alperin? John Bredenkamp?

Following on the heels of the announcement that the ICC handed down seven war crimes charges against al-Bashir, a story broadcast over all the Western media system and into every American living room by day’s end, President al-Bashir ordered the expulsion of ten international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) operating in Darfur under the pretense of being purely ‘humanitarian’ organizations.

What has not been reported anywhere in the English press is that the United States of America has just stepped up its ongoing war for control of Sudan and her resources: petroleum, copper, gold, uranium, fertile plantation lands for sugar and gum Arabic (essential to Coke, Pepsi and Ben & Jerry’s ice cream). This war has been playing out on the ground in Darfur through so-called ‘humanitarian’ NGOs, private military companies, ‘peacekeeping’ operations and covert military operations backed by the U.S. and its closest allies.

However, the U.S. war for Sudan has always revolved around ‘humanitarian’ operations — purportedly neutral and presumably concerned only about protecting innocent human lives — that often provide cover for clandestine destabilizing activities and interventions.

Americans need to recognize that the Administration of President Barack Obama has begun to step up the war for control of Sudan in keeping with the permanent warfare agenda of both Republicans and Democrats. The current destabilization of Sudan mirrors the illegal covert guerrilla war carried out in Rwanda — also launched and supplied from Uganda — from October 1990 to July 1994. The Rwandan Defense Forces (then called the Rwandan Patriotic Army) led by Major General Paul Kagame achieved the U.S. objective of a coup d’etat in Rwanda through that campaign, and President Kagame has been a key interlocutor in the covert warfare underway in Darfur, Sudan.

During the Presidency of George W. Bush, the U.S. Government was involved with the intelligence apparatus of the Government of Sudan (GoS). At the same time, other U.S. political and corporate factions were pressing for a declaration of genocide against the GoS. Now, given the shift of power and the appointment of top Clinton officials formerly involved in covert operations in Rwanda, Uganda, Congo and Sudan during the Clinton years, pressure has been applied to heighten the campaign to destabilize the GoS, portrayed as a ‘terrorist’ Arab regime, but an entity operating outside the U.S.-controlled banking system. The former campaign saw overt military action with the U.S. military missile attacks against the Al-Shifa Pharmaceutical factory in Sudan (1998); this was an international war crime by the Clinton Administration and it involved officials now in power.

The complex geopolitical struggle to control Sudan manifests through the flashpoint war for Darfur and it involves such diverse factions as the Lord’s Resistance Army, backed by Khartoum, which is also connected to the wars in the Congo and northern Uganda. Chad is involved, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Germany, the Central African Republic, Libya, France, Israel, China, Taiwan, South Africa and Rwanda. There are U.S. special forces on the ground in the frontline states of Chad, Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, and the big questions are: [1] How many of the killings are being committed by U.S. proxy forces and blamed on al-Bashir and the GoS? And [2] who funds, arms and trains the rebel insurgents

UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVASTATION

Rebels? Insurgents? The drumbeat of western propaganda portrays the conflict as a one-sided affair: a “genocidal counter-insurgency by the GoS” — in the words of Eric Reeves — versus the good Samaritans of the ‘humanitarian’ NGO community . . . and throw in a few (non-descript) rebels.

“Sudan ordered at least 10 humanitarian groups expelled from Darfur on Wednesday after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for the country’s president,” wrote Associated Press reporter Ellen M. Lederer. “Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the action ‘represents a serious setback to lifesaving operations in Darfur’ and urged Sudan to reverse its decision, U.N. deputy spokeswoman Marie Okabe said.”

However, when Ban Ki-moon met with Rwandan strongman Paul Kagame recently, he never called for Kagame’s arrest, no matter the findings of two international courts of law that have issued indictments against top RPA officials. Instead Ban Ki-moon praised Kagame and called for African countries to hunt down and arrest Hutu people purportedly involved in the now specious ‘genocide’ in Rwanda in 1994.

The non-governmental aid groups ordered out of Darfur by President al-Bashir on March 4 were Oxfam, CARE, MSF-Holland, Mercy Corps, Save the Children, the Norwegian Refugee Council, the International Rescue Committee, Action Contre la Faim, Solidarites and CHF International.

Of course, the western media is all over the expulsion of any big ‘humanitarian’ moneymaker from Darfur — the moral outrage is so thick you can almost wipe it. The NGOs and the press that peddles their images of suffering babes complain that hundreds of thousands of innocent refugees will now be subjected to massive unassisted suffering — as opposed to the assisted suffering they previously faced — but never asks with any serious and honest zeal, why and how the displaced persons and refugees came to be displaced or homeless to begin with. Neither do they ask about all the money, intelligence sharing, deal making, and collaboration with private or governmental military agencies.

Large ‘humanitarian’ NGOs (and ‘conservation’ NGOs) operate as de facto multinational corporations revolving around massive private profits and human suffering. In places like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda and Darfur these NGOs also provide infrastructure, logistical and intelligence collaboration that supports U.S. military and government agendas in the region. Most are aligned with big foundations, corporate sponsors and USAID — itself a close and long-time partner for interventions with AFRICOM and the Pentagon.

Refugees and displaced populations are strategic tools of statecraft and foreign policy, just as ‘humanitarian’ NGOs consistently use food as a weapon and populations as human shields. The history of the U.S. covert war in South Sudan is rich with examples of the SPLA and its ‘humanitarian’ partners, especially Christian ‘charities’, committing such war crimes and crimes against humanity.1

CARE International has received funding from Lockheed Martin Corporation, the world’s largest and most secretive producer of weapons of mass destruction, and both CARE and Save the Children are tied up with weapons and extractive industries in other ways. A peek at the board of directors of Save the Children makes it clear why the U.S. media is so devoid of truth about Darfur. Similarly, the International Rescue Committee does not work with refugees, per se, but serves as a policy and pressure group involved in funneling private profits from the west back to the west. The IRC has also been cited for involvement in military operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo and it has deep ties to people like Henry Kissinger.

The AID (read: misery) industry in Sudan was by the mid-1990s the largest so-called ‘humanitarian’ enterprise on the planet, Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS) — a form of managed inequality and a temporary and mobile economy of white privilege, adventurism and, of course, good will (sic). The misery industry shifted its focus from South Sudan to Darfur after a pseudo peace ‘treaty’ was organized to end the decades old war between the SPLA and GoS; the U.S. and Israel backed the SPLA from 1990 onward, and continue to do so at present. The result of more than 12 years of illegal U.S. covert low-intensity warfare in Sudan resulted in the creation of the independent and sovereign state of South Sudan in circa 2005 — a state dominated by Jewish and Christian faith-based interests and western multinational corporations.

Much of the AID infrastructure in Sudan has at one time or another been used as a weapon through the use of human shields, food deliveries to refugee populations inseparable from insurgents, and shipments of weapons by ‘humanitarian’ NGOs. This is both incidental and deliberate policy. Christian ‘relief’ NGOs played a huge role in supporting the covert western insurgency in South Sudan. One notable ‘humanitarian’ NGO involved in weapons deliveries was the Norwegian People’s Aid (known affectionately in the field as the Norwegian People’s Army).

In Darfur, Sudan, the U.S. government agenda is to win control of natural resources and leverage the Arab government into a corner and, at last, establish a more ‘friendly’ government that will suit the corporate interests of the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia and Israel.

Several major think tanks — read: propaganda, lobbying and pressure — behind the destabilization of Sudan include the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy, Center for American Progress, Center for Security Policy, International Rescue Committee and International Crises Group. Individuals from seemingly diverse positions of the political and ideological spectrum run these organizations, which are ultra-nationalist capitalist organizations bent on global military-economic domination.

The former Clinton officials most heavily focused on the destabilization of Sudan include: Susan Rice, Madeleine Albright, Roger Winter, Prudence Bushnell, Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, Anthony Lake and John Prendergast. Carr Center for Human Rights co-founder Samantha Power, now on the Obama National Security Council, has helped to whitewash clandestine U.S. involvement in Sudan.

John Prendergast has continued to peddle disinformation disguised as policy and human rights concerns through the International Crisis Group (ICG), and through its many clone organizations like ENOUGH, ONE and RAISE HOPE FOR CONGO. Prendergast has been a pivotal agent behind the hi-jacking of U.S. public concern and action through the disingenuous (and discredited) SAVE DARFUR movement.

Other notable agents of disinformation on Sudan include Alex de Waal and Smith College Professor Eric Reeves. It is through these and other conduits to the corporate U.S. media that the story of ‘genocide’ in Sudan is cast as an Africa-Arab affair devoid of western interests.

In 1992, human rights researchers Rakiya Omaar and Alex de Waal established the London-based NGO African Rights. In August 1995, African Rights published Rwanda: Death, Despair and Defiance, one of many pivotal ‘human rights’ reports that falsely represented events in Rwanda, set the stage for victor’s justice at the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda, and began the process of dehumanizing millions of Hutu people and protecting the true terrorists: Yoweri Museveni, Paul Kagame, the Rwandan Patriotic Army, and their western backers.

THE MAN FOR A NEW SUDAN

The pivotal intelligence asset working on the ground in Sudan to destabilize and overthrow the Government of Sudan (GoS) is Roger Winter, profiled very disingenuously in the seven-page New York Times Magazine feature story of 15 June 2008.

Interestingly, “The Man For A New Sudan” story, an establishment whitewash of the involvement of the U.S. military-intelligence establishment in Sudan, was written by Eliza Griswold, a ‘Fellow’ with the New America Foundation, a left-leaning think tank and pressure group with a very confused ideological but nationalist-militaristic position. (The NAF is obviously dependent on U.S. foundation funding, and it reveals no apparent policy formulations of substance on the Great Lakes or Horn of Africa, conflicts for which they remain completely silent).

“When Roger Winter’s single-engine Cessna Caravan touched down near the Sudanese town of Abyei on Easter morning, a crowd of desperate men swamped the plane,” Griswold wrote. “Some came running over the rough red airstrip. Others crammed into a microbus that barreled toward the 65-year-old Winter as he climbed down the plane’s silver ladder. Some Sudanese call Winter ‘uncle’; others call him ‘commander’.”

Winter’s special post at the State Department was created specifically for him and his ‘work’ in Sudan. Why do Sudanese people in South Sudan call Roger Winter ‘commander’?

Roger Winter is the primary conduit for the ongoing covert destabilization of Sudan. His operations are run primarily out of Uganda, with the terrorist government of Yoweri Museveni providing support through the Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF) alliance with the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA).

The SPLA is the de facto backbone of the Sudan Liberation Army, one of the main so-called ‘rebel’ factions involved in Darfur; the SPLA provides military and logistics support to Uganda from the Pentagon through unknown channels, but most likely involving the nearby Pentagon client states of Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Chad and Eritrea.

The primary Ugandan agents supporting the U.S. war in Darfur have always been, and remain, Brigadier General James Kazini, a nephew of Ugandan dictator Museveni and the chief of staff of the Ugandan People’s Defense Forces (UPDF); General Salim Saleh, half-brother of Museveni; and President Yoweri Museveni himself.

One of the main protagonists in the Darfur conflict is the current military regime in Rwanda, whose troops have been involved in Darfur under the guise of an ‘independent’ and ‘peacekeeping’ operation under the African Union ‘peacekeeping’ umbrella — backed by NATO and private military companies.

JPEG - 17.4 kb
Little known and widely misunderstood is the role of the United States and its proxies, the UPDF and the RPA, in committing massive crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide during the Rwandan conflagration from 1990 to 1994. Prior to the RPA invasion of Rwanda (from Uganda) in October 1990, the RPA and Rwandan Tutsi Diaspora had publications like Impuruza published in the United States between 1984 and 1994 (when the RPA achieved the coup d’etat against Rwandan President Habyarimana). Tutsi refugees joined Roger Winter, who was at the time the Director of the United States Committee for Refugees, to help fund the publication. The editor, Alexander Kimenyi, is a Rwandan national and a professor at California State University. Like most RPA publications Impuruza circulated clandestinely in Rwanda amongst Hutu and Tutsi elite and it peddled a genocidal ideology against Hutu people.

The Association of Banyarwanda in Diaspora USA, assisted by Roger Winter, organized the International Conference on the Status of Banyarwanda [Tutsi] Refugees in Washington, DC in 1988, and this is where a military solution to the Tutsi problem was chosen. The U.S. Committee for Refugees reportedly provided accommodation and transportation.

THE DEVIL CAME IN A HELIOCOPTER

Roger Winter was one of the primary architects of the RPA guerrilla war, organized from Washington in 1989, that has led to the loss of more than ten or twelve million lives in the Great Lakes of Africa since 1990. Winter acted as a spokesman for the RPF and their allies, and he appeared as a guest on major U.S. television networks such as PBS and CNN. New Yorker writer Philip Gourevitch and Roger Winter made contacts on behalf of the RPA with American media, particularly the Washington Post, New York Times and Time magazine.

Roger Winter moved through Rwanda during the RPA invasion and worked the front lines of the covert war as a key Pentagon and U.S. State Department asset in collaboration with the Kagame-RPA operation of terror. From 1990 to 1994, Winter traveled back and forth from the RPA-controlled zone to Washington D.C., where he briefed and coordinated activities and support with U.S. military, intelligence and government officials.

Roger Winter is intimate with USAID, and is a long-time ally of Susan Rice, former Assistant Secretary of State on African Affairs (1997-2001), Special Assistant to President Clinton (1995-1997), and National Security Council insider (1993-1997). Susan Rice is the Obama Administration’s Ambassador to the United Nations and staunch enemy of Omar al-Bashir.

Roger Winter is also a staunch supporter of U.S. Rep. Donald Payne, one of the leading U.S. Democrats pressing for action to “stop genocide” in Darfur, Sudan. Payne sponsored the Darfur Genocide Accountability Act and was arrested in June 2001, along with John Eibner, director of Christian Solidarity International, for protesting against the GoS.

Christian Solidarity International has a very subversive relationship to ‘peace’ and ‘religion’ in Sudan, and they have been one of the front-runner organizations peddling the accusations of slavery by the al-Bashir government, in particular, a highly contested and controversial issue generally inflated and manipulated by fundamentalist Jewish and Christian NGOs and missionary organizations, like Christian Solidarity International, Samaritan’s Purse, Servant’s Heart, and Freedom Quest International, that operate in Sudan.

“Roger Winter was the chief logistic boss for [RPA] Tutsis as early as mid-1990,” says Ugandan human rights expert Remigius Kintu, “and until their victory in 1994 they were operating from 1,717 Massachusetts Avenue NW in Washington, D.C. Roger Winter told a [name deleted] South Sudanese exile at the time [1994]: ‘I have now stabilized Rwanda and will turn my full attention to Sudan.’ Winter subsequently closed up shop in Rwanda and based himself in Kampala working on Sudan. A few years later, Darfur exploded and with Winter’s manipulations, Rwanda was the first to send troops into that troubled area. From my sources, the Rwanda Defense Forces [working under the African Union umbrella] have killed civilians and brought in their media experts to pile the blame on Sudanese government troops.”

This is exactly what the Kagame and Museveni terror apparatus has done in Uganda, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Much of the terror operations of the UPDF/RPF in Rwanda in the 1990s were covered up by Human Rights Watch experts Alison Des Forges (d. February 2009) and Timothy Longman, Associate Prof. of Africana Studies and Political Science at Vassar College.

Similarly, throughout the long war in south Sudan, and now in Darfur, the atrocities committed by the U.S.-backed factions were/are downplayed, dismissed or ignored, while those committed by competing factions are amplified and spotlighted. Also, following the pattern of UPDF and RPA criminal activities — such as massacres committed under disguise and/or attributed to the ‘enemy’ — for which there is now a long history of documentation, and given the lack of any true independent evaluation, there is no telling who actually committed the massacres always blamed on the GoS or ‘Janjaweed’ militias.

One Sudanese professional from the south told me recently that it was not the Government of Sudan but rather the UPDF and SPLA who were arming the Janjaweed — the so-called Arab militias accused of wanton killing in an Arab-against-Black genocide. (This Arab-on-black genocide has been widely discredited.

Professor Timothy Longman and Alison Des Forges co-produced the fat treatise on ‘genocide’ in Rwanda, Leave None to Tell the Story, published in 1999. Longman and Des Forges produced numerous documents, based on field investigations in Congo (Zaire), Rwanda and Burundi, from 1995 to 2008, touted as independent and unbiased human rights reports but always skewed by hidden interests. Both Longman and Des Forges had relationships with the U.S. Department of State, National Security Council and Pentagon, both were regular consultants with USAID, and they certainly worked with Roger Winter, the Pentagon’s secret weapon in Sudan.

On 25 September 2008, a Ukrainian freighter was seized by ‘pirates’ off the coast of Somalia and was held until a ransom of $3.2 million was paid on 5 February 2009. (Somali fishermen disenfranchised by international dumping of toxic [and possibly nuclear] wastes off Somalia are labeled ‘pirates’ when they fight for their rights and freedoms.) The MV Faina is registered in Belize, owned by a company registered in Panama and piloted by Ukrainians. The MV Faina carried 33 Soviet T-72 battle tanks, grenade-launchers, anti-aircraft guns and ammunition en route to Mombassa, Kenya, the Pentagon’s primary base on the east coast of Africa.

The U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet monitored the Ukrainian ship during the four-month standoff, with the MV Faina pinned down by at least six U.S. and four European warships. The ship’s owner is Israeli national Vadim Alperin (alias Vadim Oltrena Alperin), said to be a MOSSAD agent involved with clandestine activities through offshore front companies and money laundering. The ship was unloaded in Mombassa on February 12, and the weapons are destined for Juba, South Sudan.

There are reports that weaponry also included tank munitions heads sporting deadly depleted uranium and that the final recipients are the Israeli-backed Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) ‘rebels’ in Darfur. Sudan has previously accused Israel of supporting ‘rebels’ in the Darfur war. International arms syndicates and dealers routinely transfer ‘Soviet-era’ arms for international organized crime, including covert military operations involving proxy militias and national governments in Sudan, Uganda, Congo, Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya and Rwanda.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests