Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

[American Dream]

Los Muros de Europa - Spanish produced documentary about the refugee crisis on Lesvos. It includes some interviews in Spanish but a lot of it is in English:




https://vimeo.com/156871197

[tapitsbo]

See, this is truly going somewhere interesting. I have indeed noted that Muslims tend to mostly be critical of so-called Islamist groups, definitely here in Canada this is true. I hear in Europe the Islamists have a greater following.

Maybe. But young European men who have grown up since 9/11 never being accepted in their homes (ie countries of birth) are fairly easy targets? There is little point trying to understand this without realising this whole situation exists because of the consensus reality that 9/11 was exactly like the official story said and ISIS are simply an evil death cult who appeared out of a vacuum for no real reason cept you can't trust arabs - they create death cults when we offered, (gave them even,) democracy. There are a bunch of Aussie kids like that too (tho it isn't the whole story with them.) Not seen as Australian even tho they are uniquely Australian.

Now we might both agree that is frankly bullshit, but its the dominant mythology of our culture, with the possible acceptance that somehow for some reason we might bear some responsibility for ISIS. Not much tho, just a little bit.

Even with that tho most muslims in Australia don't like Fundamentalism. Young marginalised men on the other hand. well doesn't matter what your background, young marginalised men can get pretty ugly and nasty. Its a bit like that programming principle GIGO.

A recent trope of propaganda in the West however is to conflate all Islamic societies as a way of justifying the elites' collaboration with Islamists. You see this in the war in Syria, which I understand is very complicated, but precisely this complicated aspect of it seems to have become a taboo as far as discussion is concerned, because of the Anglo-American and Zionist collaboration with Al-Qaeda, IS, Saudi Arabia, etc. (I realize there is a long history here.) I understand that this situation is much more complicated than for example propaganda from BRICS countries might portray, as well, but the thought-stopping that takes place around these subjects is interesting, at least.

In Australia there is little recognition of collaboration and only a little acceptance of responsibility. just the other day on a national panel show about politics and other shite someone asked: "Why don't we copy israel. ISIS doesn't attack them cos they are scared of the Israeli response." or wtte. So consensus reality here is that ISIS is scared of Israel. Which may ultimately be true (or not). Right now their interests seem to coincide. how long that will last ... who knows. Maybe as long as ISIS exists. There is some debate about the other Al Que?da affiliated groups that appear to be fighting ISIS and Assad - are we arming turrists? Who are they? etc etc. But its basically too hard a discussion for modern Australian public discourse. There is real support for Kurdish people and has been since the before Iraq invasion of 2003.

I dunno. Seeing the unrest throughout the middle east I think the most accurate assessment is this is the end result of Sykes-Picot. That those artificially constructed boundaries are gonna tear themselves apart and release the energy that was trapped in their structure. And its going to get ugly and brutal. But I live in the bush in a backwater country. I'm about as far removed from any actual knowledge about whats happening there as anyone on earth. So what would i know.

In less dramatic situations you have the cognitive dissonance of secular leftists literally defending parallel Islamist sources of authority in the West (this is not all that common but it has happened with defenses of sharia in places like Ontario, or "critical theory" apologists for IS), with the flip side of propaganda which accuses countries like Syria and Iran of "jihadi" aggression (which as best I can tell is rather misleading.)

There is no Sharia Law in Australia, or Britain for that matter and I'd be very surprised if there is in Canada. Christian groups like the Exclusive Brethren exert a much greater (secret) influence on Australian domestic politics. Most of the leftists in Australia defend ordinary muslims from exclusion, racist abuse and even violence but have no time for extremist Muslim leader. The "Grand Mufti" (or some such thing) of Australia came out to criticise the actions of Muslims in Paris during the attacks. Murdoch hacks and right wing racists immediately said he actually didn't do that instead he gave support to the attackers. Thousands maybe millions of Australians believe this despite the fact that checking what the bloke actually said is very easy.

That might be what some people call defending parallel Islamist sources of authority in the West (this is not all that common but it has happened with defenses of sharia in places like Ontario, or "critical theory" apologists for IS). Tho its probably not what you meant. That guy condemned the attacks in Paris repeatedly before he made a statement saying wtte of "terrorism doesn't happen in a vacuum".

To move away from Islam for a moment, it's a bit reminiscent of how many secular North Americans find something like Mormonism, which I think it is fair to say has its own theocratic tendencies, "crazy" yet live in a symbiotic relationship with it since such religious sects are almost necessary to maintain the current system, providing a certain sort of believer that props up government and other institutions.

Of course we can always yawn and go "realpolitik", but others might be interested in the complex justifications and narratives at play in these situations.

I don't really understand what you mean. I don't know much about how secular Americans see Mormonism. But certain elements of Christianity in Australia (the Exclusive Brethren are just one) have a variety of roles in propping up the system as it is. They are invested in the system, often follow Christianity and capitalism as two sides of the same coin and they reinforce orthodoxies and the irrational elements of the states use of power.

Yea well there's a lot to talk about here but I'm pretty sure in Europe most don't believe the 9/11 story, or at least so I've heard. The murky backstory of IS is starting to sink into the collective consciousness too in the West. I think there is a growing awareness in the West that the extremely empty official consensus reality and the belief systems that enable it constitute a "death cult" in itself...

When I say defenses of "Islamist" authority I'm talking about secular leftists defending extreme forms of Islam (inevitably in the vein of IS) as an alternate form of governance in places like Sweden and Canada. Yes this is by no means the norm, and yes it's the sort of thing people love to froth at the mouth about, but it's actually happened, it's not a fantasy as some would suggest. Of course it's possible to empathize with aggrieved people joining Islamist groups (that term is kinda silly but it seems we're using it for convenience) and still be utterly opposed to them acquiring power and legitimacy.

Of course all of this could be part of elaborate psy-ops and social engineering as I suspect the recent turn to things like basically mainstreaming pedophilia may well be. "Shocking" notions being pushed by patsies who have been coached to whip up the mainstream with averse reactions.

I hear you about the casual and often unjustified hatred of ordinary, mainstream Muslims as with San Bernardino (jumping to conclusions with sketchy evidence), etc. I think some will be able to see there's a difference here from what I've brought up.

I'm not saying that people should have a knee-jerk intolerance of religious sects that vary from cultural norms (e.g. Mormonism), but rather that these groups seem to be a great resource to the secular state which people in North America at least increasingly treat as sacred.

Also, it's all well and good to celebrate the end of Sykes-Picot or whatever, but people in the West want an end to their own such arrangements in many cases (like how we're supposed to be down with the Queen in Canada and Australia for example), or more to the point "Russia as enemy"

[Luther Blissett]

Tell me how I'm wrong. It's going to be hard for you, if you're honest.

Sure is. What the fuck are you talking about?

Should be pretty clear if you read the whole thing attentively. I'm assuming you didn't. Or maybe the cognitive dissonance is deafening.

I did read it carefully and would love to reply in-depth, but it would take a lot of time.

In short, I have a suspicion that you and I want for the same things and that this is related to class struggle. I don't go in for hero worship and so the same villains you label as leftist elites are the same targets as those in the class struggle…I just can't imagine identifying with anyone after they've used violence to accrue money and power.

I was at an action-planning meeting and training last night for fighting slumlords and this neofascist group coming to town this weekend. What's so evil about that? People are being physically hurt. As this is my experience, it is very hard for me to see the elite leftist masterplan.

[tapitsbo]

There's nothing at all evil about that, Luther.

There's also nothing evil about taking a long, hard look about the "bazaar of violence" globally and whether it really represents "class struggle" (itself radically transformed by technology as I'm sure you know far better than me the true dimensions of)

[Luther Blissett]

But I think I understand what Fourth Base means about leftism and progressive agendas and how those can be used for evil (especially powermad or capitalistic) purposes - of course. But at the same time I (and I imagine many others) drop them as soon as they're uncovered.

[Sounder]

Luther, you need to continue doing what you do.

The context for religious folk, doctors and many other groups are also compromised, but we all are still obligated to do whatever we can to develop our gifts and talents (to help others) within whatever context we operate.

[FourthBase]

But I think I understand what Fourth Base means about leftism and progressive agendas and how those can be used for evil (especially powermad or capitalistic) purposes - of course. But at the same time I (and I imagine many others) drop them as soon as they're uncovered.

Not used for ill purposes by appropriators, but used in precisely the way they're supposed to be used to advance The Cause by true believers, people more or less just like you, but with earth-changing power. Those people exist. If said not to exist, if said that the world's most powerful leftists are toothless or kayfabe catharsis-simulators or whatever the excuse is that they somehow don't really count as authentic leftists...then that's just self-serving paradigm-protecting bullshit. Leftists are not just plucky local activists on a mission to repair the world. Like in a previous thread, I will ask: Were the KGB leftists? Do they count? Does the French Revolution count as genocidal lunacy, until it's -- right -- dropped, dropped from the scope of what counts for identifying the left because, of course, they weren't really this or that signature thing, or they tellingly betrayed this or that value or ally, so you get to give yourselves punch-buggy shots of ideological immunity when the evil vehicles of leftism occasionally grace your moral radar. Thank god for purity gamesmanship, or you guys might also find yourselves implicated in some deep, deep immoral shit, in the form of precisely the ideological trappings you mistake for The Alibi, The Antidote, The Way, or The Bridge to True Freedom, or the Great Leap Forward, or whatever constitutes pie-in-the-sky leftist optimism here, like The All-Merciful Post-Apocalyptic Reset. Is class struggle real for you, or not? Down with The Man, or not? Because you should recognize swarms of the brown-and-displaced disrupting Western Europe as the same prodigal chickens of your own wishful imagination that you'd always hoped would come home to roost on The Enemy's front lawns? Are you guys really dismayed, or are you suppressing the joy of seeing some of your scene's wishcasting being fulfilled? One day a scenario is seen as Too Good to Be True for pre-revolutionary shit-hitting-fan purposes, and then some years later probably the same people decrying it as a humanitarian disaster choreographed by The Enemy when it actually happens. Can't eat your cake and still not have it, too.

[tapitsbo]

FourthBase an idea I'm getting from what you're saying that I have to agree with is this: people who argue what the state does is irrelevant, because anarchy, or for other reasons, come across as deeply disingenuous when they are themselves deeply embedded in its programs and practices. We can talk about what different governments are doing as they clearly aren't all doing the same things. Who is really putting forwards false equivalencies in these situations?

Forgive me if a lot of the noise around the issues sounds like it comes down to an esoteric message of "never talk about or question what the government/institutions/establishment is doing"

[Joe Hillshoist]

Yea well there's a lot to talk about here but I'm pretty sure in Europe most don't believe the 9/11 story, or at least so I've heard. The murky backstory of IS is starting to sink into the collective consciousness too in the West. I think there is a growing awareness in the West that the extremely empty official consensus reality and the belief systems that enable it constitute a "death cult" in itself...

The official story of 9/11 is the dominant narrative of our culture right now. Whatever we think happened as individuals, throughout the western world there is no mainstream challenge to the official 9/11 story. That is what informs the way the west views the world. if you try to engage in public discourse and reject any aspect of the official story you are immediately marginalised. Even taking the official story at face value and then questioning the Bush Admin's competence and pointing out its failure to prevent it has the same effect.

But the backstory of ISIS does have more traction. (At least in Aust.) No one can argue that without the Iraq invasion ISIS wouldn't exist and that is a useful starting point.

When I say defenses of "Islamist" authority I'm talking about secular leftists defending extreme forms of Islam (inevitably in the vein of IS) as an alternate form of governance in places like Sweden and Canada. Yes this is by no means the norm, and yes it's the sort of thing people love to froth at the mouth about, but it's actually happened, it's not a fantasy as some would suggest. Of course it's possible to empathize with aggrieved people joining Islamist groups (that term is kinda silly but it seems we're using it for convenience) and still be utterly opposed to them acquiring power and legitimacy.

I've never heard anyone suggest that bit in bold and really wouldn't be able to take them seriously if they did. But I don't believe their is a challenge to the state jurisdiction in any of those places. i don't believe the state would surrender its power to a foreign religion that easily. It may accommodate some ideas when those ideas don't clash with it. But thats about it and is fair enough too. People should be able to practice their religions in a way that doesn't violate the law. Child marriage and FGM are illegal in Australia and should remain so. If this stuff happens here its a crime.

Of course all of this could be part of elaborate psy-ops and social engineering as I suspect the recent turn to things like basically mainstreaming pedophilia may well be. "Shocking" notions being pushed by patsies who have been coached to whip up the mainstream with averse reactions.

Right now in Australia pedophilia has never been more mainstream as a topic for discussion and more rejected by the population. We haven't gone down the route of acknowledging ritual abuse in organised networks but the organised institutional abuse networks that are acknowledged now are being seen in a light that makes that next step possible, maybe even probable. 10 years ago acknowledging organised pedophile rings in public was unthinkable.

I hear you about the casual and often unjustified hatred of ordinary, mainstream Muslims as with San Bernardino (jumping to conclusions with sketchy evidence), etc. I think some will be able to see there's a difference here from what I've brought up.

I'm not saying that people should have a knee-jerk intolerance of religious sects that vary from cultural norms (e.g. Mormonism), but rather that these groups seem to be a great resource to the secular state which people in North America at least increasingly treat as sacred.

Also, it's all well and good to celebrate the end of Sykes-Picot or whatever, but people in the West want an end to their own such arrangements in many cases (like how we're supposed to be down with the Queen in Canada and Australia for example), or more to the point "Russia as enemy"

Got to out but I will respond to that. (Especially the bit about the queen.)

[tapitsbo]

As for the part in bold, it doesn't matter if you personally take the people I'm talking about seriously since they're elected officials, university professors, government employees, etc. and they don't need your stamp of approval, you know what I mean? Nobody's forcing anyone to give a shit but it's still fascinating at least to me.

9/11 has been thoroughly questioned in the mainstream media in Europe in a way that hasn't happened in the anglosphere. My entire life I've grown up in Canada around people willing to question 9/11, though, begging the question of who is keeping it out of the mainstream.

Outing of abuse networks is great, being told that sex with children is radikool is not so great. I perceive both trends taking place slowly, myself.

It's interesting chatting with you but you seem to be concerned with a mainstream narrative nobody buys into here. I am interested in the stories used by people who are smart enough to see through jingoistic nonsense, since the propaganda that rubs both you and me the wrong way isn't as influential as the narratives that are given more status...

RI of yesteryear would have loved to trumpet "jihadis are pawns of globalists" and other clunky messaging but now everyone's hushed about how those ideas would chime with the likes of O'Colmain...

[Joe Hillshoist]

As for the part in bold, it doesn't matter if you personally take the people I'm talking about seriously since they're elected officials, university professors, government employees, etc. and they don't need your stamp of approval, you know what I mean? Nobody's forcing anyone to give a shit but it's still fascinating at least to me.



Outing of abuse networks is great, being told that sex with children is radikool is not so great. I perceive both trends taking place slowly, myself.



RI of yesteryear would have loved to trumpet "jihadis are pawns of globalists" and other clunky messaging but now everyone's hushed about how those ideas would chime with the likes of O'Colmain...

O'Colmain is an idiot tho. Its like he's read this site, dumbed down its opinions and used them to argue the power of Marxism and "how could we reject it?" Or at least how cool modern day Russia is. And the real problem with what he says is the jump he makes from whats happening in the middle east to the destruction of Europe. Plus the whole "Jew is using the sand nigger as muscle against you. What ya gonna do about it whitey?" shtick is a bit annoying. Then he chucks all this stuff people are sposed to have said in, but never links to it etc etc.

In what way would flooding Europe with potentially dangerous migrants serve the Anglo-American "Zionist" project?

What good would unrest in Europe serve? he quotes that US general - Barnett as planning to destroy Europes economy despite Barnett repeatedly talking about increasing the power of economies as a way to avoid war. Sure, Barnett is probably thinking about this in the context of maintaining US hegdemoney but if you destroy a massive asset then it doesn't exactly benefit your cause.

"Destroying" Europe to prevent a merger between Germany and Russia? I would have thought that if anything destroying Europe's economy/the EU makes it more likely to merge with Russia. So if anything the weaponising refugees (as horrible as the term is) is something that would suit Russia not the Zinglomerican whatever it is.

If you ignore the nation states and think about this in terms of purely corporate action the same thing applies doesn't it?

Russia behaves like a corporate entity with an army behind it. I can't remember where I first heard modern Russia described as a massive energy concern with the resources of a state at its disposal but it seems reasonable as far as descriptions go. Good luck competing with that.

It's interesting chatting with you but you seem to be concerned with a mainstream narrative nobody buys into here. I am interested in the stories used by people who are smart enough to see through jingoistic nonsense, since the propaganda that rubs both you and me the wrong way isn't as influential as the narratives that are given more status...

9/11 has been thoroughly questioned in the mainstream media in Europe in a way that hasn't happened in the anglosphere. My entire life I've grown up in Canada around people willing to question 9/11, though, begging the question of who is keeping it out of the mainstream.

OK but in what way is that questioning meaningful to the way Europe functions and the policy decisions it and the states that comprise it make? The context of this little discussion is about, well i understood it to be about Islamophobia as a tool of enabling attitudes that suit those in power. Islamophobia is welded to mainstream 9/11 narratives right now. That's why i'm talking about the mainstream view of it, and of ISIS. What we personally think about 9/11 isn't really useful when understanding a mainstream view of Islamophobia is it?

My daughter wants me to play. She also wonders why I'm "talking" to someone on the other side of the Pacific and will I send them some smileys.

Specifically these ones



so

[tapitsbo]

thank you joe : DDDDDDDDDD

I highly doubt even slad buys everything O'Colmain is saying.

But if you have to make such a pretty grotesque caricature and mischaracterization of what we've been talking about here I don't see why I should keep talking to you. Why is it that people like you and Jack need to do this to make your "point" which inevitably is more obfuscation than anything else? You seem pretty persistent for somebody who doesn't "give a shit".

Anyways, Russia isn't powerful enough to project power like that alliance we're talking about here that's supported jihadis. They haven't been behaving as badly, either.

But let's not get into the rest of what you're saying, it doesn't sound too serious

[Joe Hillshoist]

thank you joe : DDDDDDDDDD

I highly doubt even slad buys everything O'Colmain is saying.

But if you have to make such a pretty grotesque caricature and mischaracterization of what we've been talking about here I don't see why I should keep talking to you. Why is it that people like you and Jack need to do this to make your "point" which inevitably is more obfuscation than anything else? You seem pretty persistent for somebody who doesn't "give a shit".

Anyways, Russia isn't powerful enough to project power like that alliance we're talking about here that's supported jihadis. They haven't been behaving as badly, either.

But let's not get into the rest of what you're saying, it doesn't sound too serious

Everything I've said since you said "this is interesting" and asked me about Islamophobia has been in the context of the way Islamophobia happens where I live and I guess in the context of what AD keeps going on about with his antifa stuff. But if you think thats a caricature and mischaracterisation you're mistaken. But then maybe I didn't get what you were saying. I'm well over 9/11, and 9/11 truth. if you read what i've written here over the years you'll see I'm more pissed off about the truth movement's failure to stand up to the bush (and Howard) govts abuse of its power post 9/11 cos it was too busty flogging a dead horse/itself off. But i'll drop it.

I don't think you're right about Russia tho. i think Russia is becoming more powerful,.

Or maybe just the Anglo American Alliance is just a lot less powerful than it was, or more scared of using its power or something.

If this horror in Syria had happened 13 years ago (without the failure of Iraq) Russia wouldn't have got involved. 10 years ago China wouldn't be fortifying the South China Sea and challenging Japan and the Philippines for territorial control the way it is now. I think the US is shit scared of China, just quietly and doesn't feel it really wants a fight with anyone with real strength. That could be because Obama isn't a belligerent jerk like some previous presidents. Or it could be the US realises how useless it is at actually fighting wars for itself (not bombing people from a position of air superiority which is different.)

[seemslikeadream]

Migrant crisis causing ISIS to spread 'like a cancer,' NATO general warns


How the US Helped Create Al Qaeda and ISIS

[American Dream]

https://clandestinenglish.wordpress.com ... by-police/

Eidomeni: migrants destory fence, teargased by police



https://youtu.be/d8iBJmgrq14