Wombaticus Rex wrote:The conspiracy you're talking about -- and I'm not implying you're remotely wrong about it -- worked because it exploits human nature and the same lines of force that shape our history.
I'm reminded of something that happened many years ago. My kids were still very young, and I had a friend over one evening, with her own toddlers. They got into my bedroom, which was sort of off-limits because of all the potential hazards (electric cords, sharp corners, etc.) and were crawling all over the place, including under the bed, while others were jumping on top of it. My friend was frantically trying to catch them, but by the time she got one out of the room and was working on the next, the first one had gleefully come back inside. She got fed up and yelled at me, "Why are you just standing there? Help me!"
I simply turned off the light, and we watched as they promptly moved towards the door and left the room, then we shut the door behind them.
Sure, these were babies, but all humans can be manipulated, to some extent. People who are awake, and especially infants, don't enjoy being in darkness and, given a choice, will gravitate towards the light of their own will. I used common sense, and my ability to reach the light switch, but there are experts whose business it is to learn what causes people to do certain things and not others. Think about all the studies that have been done to discover what makes people more likely to make impulse purchases, to eat their meal more quickly, to feel uplifted, to be willing to lie, to commit violent acts, to conform, to defy, etc., etc. Especially since WWII, there has been an avalanche of corporate, government and military-funded experimentation and analysis of the human psyche individually and
en masse in all its variations, and its likely response to every kind of stimuli.
Occult Means Hidden wrote:...it's a tragic dialectic that fails right out of the gate. As I've said, the reality of weaponized migration is a complete non factor. The factor is, if we call them weapons, how will we come to view refugees/migrant in the future? As people needing help or as a threat to be neutralized? Classifying them as weapons dehumanizes them. The PTB motives be damned. Further, lots of assertion on what is a true leftist, but no understanding that leftism has driven borderless/migrant/refugee acceptance since the very beginning. The saving grace of this analysis is a better understanding of Zionism, by applying it to Israel's establishment and its protection despite criminal violations - whereas the OP conflates Zionism with a bigger and nonsensical agenda.
I couldn't disagree more. The more aware people are of the methods used to manipulate them, and of the manipulators' true purpose, the less susceptible they become to such tactics. Denying the reality of how we are being manipulated serves to make it more effective. It does us no good, and in fact is very harmful, to deny the well-documented and sordid history of how masses of people can be, and have been deliberately weaponized against each other, especially by persuading both "sides" that their own survival depends on destruction of the "other". In fact, such a strategy is so commonplace that it's a cliche: divide and rule. I'm amazed that RI members sitting in former colonies built on genocide of the conquered natives by immigrant settlers, such as America and Australia, are so indignant (and shocked, shocked!) at the very idea that masses of people can be weaponized, and that this is far from new.
Also, you're falsely presuming that only
they are being manipulated. By bombing the hell out of
their countries, using terrorist proxies to kill
them, and destroying the civil infrastructure necessary to sustain human life,
they are motivated to leave, while
we are left to make informed choices, free of interference. But that's an outrageously baseless assumption. Whether through the globalized media, economic exploitation, false-flag attacks, the steady erosion of civil rights, the escalating violations of international law and national sovereignty, the corporate consolidation of media and communications, we are all being weaponized against each other, not just refugees, but also the populations in the host countries, and even spectators around the world, whose reactions are predictable and useful.
In Europe, experts are confidently predicting that in future elections, both the Far Left and the Far Right will make enormous gains, and that voters will be increasingly polarized into hostile camps. Some proto-paramilitary militias are emerging (no doubt with plenty of help from generous "allies"), and engaging in violent acts against civilians and civil infrastructure. Although this is still in the very early stages, it should be taken very seriously as a harbinger of things to come, if it's not addressed in time. European countries are being pitted against each other, with levels of rancor and internecine strife that would have been unimaginable only a short time ago. Barriers are being built, not only between member countries, but inside them.
The Schengen Agreement, which allows the free movement of goods, services and people among member countries, has been a major factor in Europe's unexpectedly rapid rise as a global economic and political power, not just by promoting unity and cohesiveness within the EU, but by eliminating the barriers to trade and employment and thereby growing the market for EU products by making them more competitive, and for EU workers, by freely allowing labor and investment to move where they are needed. I say 'unexpected', because the very idea that the EU could soon rival the US as a global economic or political power was contemptuously dismissed as recently as a decade ago, by the influential high priests of US hegemony in a unipolar world. By 2014, it became clear that they were very wrong.
The EU's economy — measured in terms of the goods and services it produces (GDP) — is now bigger than the US's: EU GDP in 2014:
€13,920,541 million
Trade
With just 7% of the world’s population, the EU's trade with the rest of the world accounts for around 20% of global exports and imports.
Around two-thirds of EU countries’ total trade is done with other EU countries.
Trade has been hit by the global recession, but the EU remains the world’s largest player accounting for 16.4% of global imports in 2011. The EU is followed by the United States with 15.5% of all imports, and China with 11.9%. The EU was also the biggest exporter, accounting for 15.4% of all exports – compared with 13.4% for China and the 10.5% for the United States.
Link
The EU, with its domestic market of nearly half a billion consumers with a relatively high standard of living, is now also the world's largest donor of international aid and the world's largest source of foreign investment, making it not only a huge global economic power, but potentially a political power with global influence to rival that of the US.
As the EU prospered economically, led by Germany and France, and began to chafe under its political subservience to the US, a number of prominent "realists" including Zbigniew Bzrezinski suggested that the US accommodate itself to the reality of an emerging multi-polar world.
But the very idea is anathema to to the so-called "neocons". Their core dogma is that the US must, at all cost, continue to monopolize global military power and enjoy absolute freedom to wield it without any constraints, including international law or any military deterrent. (To understand more about how "neocons" view the world and especially Europe, I strongly recommend reading Robert Kagan's seminal 2002 essay in favor of the US maintaining its supremacy as uncontested global military thug,
"Power and Weakness).
Still, there was no problem as long as Western Europe, Russia and China remained militarily contained or showed no sign of questioning the US' global right to bully, and as long as Europe was content to focus on economic advancement only. The reason for the "neocons" complacency was the knowledge that Europe's power-house economies, like Asia's, have a fatal Achilles' Heel: they could be shut down at will by whoever monopolizes their access to oil and gas. As long as Russia was tame and under control, Iran was shackled by sanctions, and the US reigned supreme in the rest of the Middle East, that was fine. Also, with the much longed-for
cauldronization of the Arab countries proceeding on schedule, and the US turning its sights on Asia and Africa and eager to reduce its direct presence in the Middle East, the "neocons" were confident that soon that monopoly would be in the hands of the Zionist state. Things were going very well.
But the recent emergence of Russia as a serious military power, led by Putin, both capable and willing to exercise that power even against the wishes of the US empire, especially in the Middle East, is freaking out the "neocons". Even worse, the prospect of any possible rapprochement between a united, prosperous EU led by Germany and a militarily powerful Russia is making them literally panic, especially in the Middle East arena, where the Zionist plan has lately encountered unexpected setbacks. Russia's allies China and Iran are also starting to show alarming signs of interest in flexing their military muscles (although these are still very, very, tentative) in Asia and Africa and the Middle East. Albeit still in the early embryonic stage, there are undeniable indications that a strategic, economic and even military block is possible, one that will no longer passively accept the US'
diktats.
Over the past two years or so, we've witnessed Russia, and to a lesser extent Germany, France and Italy as they've stepped out of line and acted in their own national interest, when these have clashed with those of the American overlords. Even worse, by doing so, they've thrown serious wrenches in the Zionist plan for the Middle East, which in turn could thwart the Zionists' dream of becoming a new global economic, military and political empire. It's therefore not surprising to watch as these European countries are severely punished for their insufferable insubordination, and to nip this dangerous development in the bud.
