Who’s Destroying England?

TruthFact

London attacks and the war against Brexit

NOTE: Watch Paul Watson’s shocking video, The Truth about ‘Refugees’

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
June 4, 2017

“Here’s a great idea, boys. Gather around. We’re going to build, on top of every national government on the European continent, another government, bigger, more bloated, more corrupt, more powerful. Who’ll notice? Who’ll care?”

“Terrific. Love it. But ultimately we’ll need to destroy all those separate countries and rule the whole continent as one entity. We can do that, yes. We’ll open all borders and let in a massive flow of immigrants and erase national identities. Terror attacks will multiply. We’ll put a lid on talking about immigrants as the cause of the terror. Call it hate speech. We’ll train the population of Europe to accept terrorism as part of the glorious future. It makes no logical sense, but so what? No top-down ideology ever made sense. We’ll preach unlimited tolerance and love. We’ll be a de facto Church of sorts. We’ll hypnotize the whole continent…” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

As I was writing this article, multiple terror attacks were launched in London. To say the human destruction “once again raised the question of immigration” would be a vast understatement.

In the run-up to the Brexit vote in 2016, immigration came to the fore as the key issue. But of course, the European Union has a policy of opening borders of all member countries.

The EU wants one continent, no separate countries—and the way to achieve that is by creating a massive flood of migrants. Destroy traditions and cultures that define countries. In the process, accept terrorism as “inevitable.” Don’t talk or write about the actual effects of immigration. That would be “hate speech.” Keep eyes and mouth shut, and march straight ahead into a future of one European continent ruled from above by the EU.

Ever since the UK vote to leave the unelected, terminally corrupt, and rotting edifice known as the European Union, stall tactics and threats have been launched at Brits.

First it was, “It’s going to take a long time to untangle the UK from the EU, it’s very complicated.” Actually, that tactic was predated by Prince Obama traveling to England to warn the population they’d stand at the back of the line in forming separate trade deals with the US, if they left the EU. It’s called interfering in the political affairs of another nation. Now it’s the EU and Queen Merkel beating the UK to the punch by plotting trade deals with India and China, in order to leave the British out in the cold.

But the basic question is, Is Britain a nation? Does it exist? It’s a question citizens are supposed to answer. Not Merkel, Obama, or the EU.

This issue, in case it’s unclear, is all about Globalism. According to that totalitarian political philosophy, of which the EU is a standard bearer, there are no nations. There are only mega-corporations and banks.

As the recently departed guru of the Rockefeller Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski, wrote in 1969, “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

This is not only a political and economic statement, it’s a prescriptive piece of psychological advice: Stop thinking of yourself as a citizen of a country; you’re a global citizen; you exist and function at the pleasure of a new collaborative international order.

And the new order will triumph. Bow your heads and accept it.

Unless people get up on their hind legs and say no, which is what happened in the 2016 Brexit vote.

Defection. Decentralization. Independence.

Hideous words to the ears of Globalists.

Their basic strategy, since the end of World War 2, has been to spin a highly complex network of political and economic relationships, from one end of the world to the other—a labyrinth—from which escape is seen as virtually impossible.

Trade deals like NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT are only part of this system. The EU itself keeps churning out thousands of rules, regulations, and laws.

Build the maze; put national governments and populations in the maze.

Then more or less claim the planet would collapse without the maze.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker just issued a “maze statement” to President Trump after Trump rejected the Globalist Paris Climate (non-) Treaty: “Europe’s duty is to say: it’s not like that. The Americans can’t just leave the climate protection agreement. Mr. Trump believes that [he can] because he doesn’t know the details…We tried to explain that to Mr. Trump in Taormina in clear German sentences. It seems that our attempt failed, but the law is the law, and it must be obeyed. Not everything which is law and not everything in international agreements is fake news, and we have to comply with it.”

Supremely arrogant, Juncker was winging it and writing his own script, because, in fact, the US didn’t sign on to a treaty in Paris. Obama tried to unilaterally bind the US to the climate pact, when a two-third’s vote by the US Senate is actually required for such international agreements. And no Senate vote was taken.

But this is the EU’s preemptive attitude toward defection, decentralization, and independence.

In the case of Brexit, climate change wasn’t the issue. Immigration was. The EU tried its best to chastise England for daring to insist unlimited numbers of migrants might be too many. “You’re in the maze, stay in the maze.”

And there is another vector of attack being launched at England: reminders the nation is evil for its colonial practices, which can never, ever be erased. But the covert leaders in that propaganda effort, the EU and its Globalist bosses, feel entitled in their own attempt to colonize the whole planet. “Your colonizing was bad, ours is good.”

With an annual budget in the vicinity of $100 billion, the EU is intractably corrupt and incompetent. It’s estimated that $5 billion a year is stolen from that budget. As for the other $95 billion, what is it for? Nations can govern themselves. The EU could disappear tomorrow and no one would catch a cold. The entire bloated structure, employing between 30 and 50 thousand people (depending on how far the count is extended) is a vast boondoggle.

It’s astonishing that anyone in the UK would feel a sense of loyalty to the EU.

There is nothing strange about Brexit at all. It’s a natural reaction: One day, a house pet goes outside and wanders off into the woods and never comes back. Who is really surprised?

The “system” called the EU insists that terrorism is somehow a price the British people must pay for entering “a better future for all.” Don’t ask what that future looks like. Don’t think about it. The UK doesn’t have the right to set its own immigration policy.

The chaos and destruction that result from open borders are simply an “adjustment period,” after which things will settle down. A new and better England and Europe will emerge. Diversity will triumph. How? Don’t worry about that, be happy.

You see, diversity is a high-minded principle, and by definition it implies a more humane society. Therefore, there is no counter-evidence. Facts are unimportant.

The latest London attacks are a message to the British people: You may have exited from the EU, but the EU policy on immigration still stands.

No it doesn’t. Britain is free to set its own policy.

To do so, politically correct speech will have to be jettisoned. Facts will have to be widely expressed. Lies will have to be widely exposed.

The EU will need to be named as a driving force in immigration, and the results of migration will need to be laid at its door.

The EU sees immigrant terrorism as its ticket to greater control over Europe.

The London attacks are a challenge thrown in Britain’s face. Bow down and accept; or rebel.

Leaving the EU means LEAVING the EU.

How many times must British citizens witness these attacks and watch police come in after the fact? How long before leaving means LEAVING?

How long before the British people realize that the flood of migrants is not simply “a refugee crisis” created by the US and its allies, whose imperialist policies of Empire and wars in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa, initiate “blowback?”

How long before they see numbers of these “refugees” are just military-age young men who arrive with destruction on their minds?

How long before they see England is riddled with EU agents who are “forwarding a humane immigration policy,” come hell or high water?

One continent, under no liberty and no justice, with suffering and slavery for all.

How long before they leave THAT?

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Advertisements

While Trump Was In Riyadh Dancing & Selling Arms, This Was Happening…


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 31, 2017

Normally I do not use or go to this source, but in this case I make an exception, since it highlights the fundamental problem with the US Empire’s foreign policy: it is ossified, and completely backward looking. Indeed, by tying it to a regressive and backward looking country like Suadi Arabia, Mr. Trump may have committed a strategic error that will affect Americans, Saudis, and for that matter, Arabs elsewhere, for generations to come. My thoughts about the implications of his trip, and the ambiguous long term rationale behind it, were expressed, albeit somewhat clumsily, in last Thursday’s News and Views from the Nefarium.

This piece, however, which was shared by Mr. H.B., highlights the problem: while Mr. Trump was dancing with a few backward Saudi tribesmen, Mr. Xi was hosting a large gathering of nations in Beijing to expand the economic cooperation of the BRICSA bloc, and to work out details of building out China’s New Silk Road project:

https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2017/05/21/world-leaders-gather-beijing-us-sinks-irrelevancy/

Note, the following:

Even countries that are cool on the Chinese initiative, including India and Japan, sent representatives to the summit that carried a bit more clout than the pathetic representation of the United States, Matt Pottinger, a little-known special assistant to Trump and the senior director for East Asia of National Security Council. In fact, the only reason Trump sent anyone to represent the United States at the Beijing gathering was because of a special request made by President Xi during his recent meeting with Trump at the president’s private Mar-a-Lago Club resort in Palm Beach, Florida.

South Korea, which saw relations with China sour over America’s placement of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system in South Korea, sent a delegation to Beijing after a phone call between South Korea’s new liberal president, Moon Jae-in, and President Xi. Moon responded to the phone call by sending a delegation led by his Democratic Party’s veteran legislator to Beijing.

Even North Korea, which rankled South Korea, Japan, and the United States by firing a ballistic missile into waters near Russia, sent a delegation to the Beijing meeting headed by Kim Yong Jae, the North’s Minister of External Economic Relations. The Trump administration, which sent a virtual unknown to Beijing, complained loudly about North Korea’s representation at the Silk Road summit. But Washington’s complaint was conveyed by someone as unknown as Mr. Pottinger, Anna Richey-Allen, a low-level spokesperson for the U.S. State Department’s East Asia Bureau. The reason why the United States is being spoken for by middle-grade bureaucrats is that the nation that still believes it is the world’s only remaining «superpower» is now governed by an administration rife with top-level vacancies, inter-agency squabbling, and amateur league players.

Yes, that’s right: Japan, India, North and South Korea, all sent high level delegations.

So did eastern Europe:

These EU member state leaders included Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydlo, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, Czech President Milos Zeman, and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Moreover, had British Prime Minister Theresa May not been in the middle of a general election campaign, she would have been in Beijing. Nevertheless, she sent British Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond in her place.

As did the following institutions and other countries:

The United Nations Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, was there, along with the President of the World Bank Jim Yong Kim and International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde. Also present in Beijing were the presidents of Turkey, Philippines, Argentina, Chile, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Switzerland, Kenya, Uzbekistan, and Laos, as well as the prime ministers of Vietnam, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Serbia, Malaysia, Mongolia, Fiji, Ethiopia, Cambodia, and Myanmar.

Ministerial delegations from Afghanistan, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brazil, Egypt, Finland, Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Maldives, Romania, Nepal, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Tunisia, Uganda, and the United Arab Emirates were at the Beijing summit. Japan was represented by the senior adviser to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Secretary General of the Liberal Democratic Party, Toshihiro Nikai. France, which was experiencing a change of presidents, sent former Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin.

The Silk Road initiative has projects planned in all the nations whose governments were represented in Beijing, except for the United States and Israel. In addition to the nations represented by their government heads of state and ministers, Silk Road agreements were signed between China and Palestine, Georgia, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Tajikistan, Brunei, Croatia, and East Timor.

But, hey, according to former House Speaker Newt Gangrene…er… Gingrich, the USA can herald the new foreign policy triumph of Mr. Trump selling one hundred billion plus dollars to the (out)house of Saud as a major foreign policy shift and breakthrough.

Have we really lost our collective minds to this degree? Granted the regime of China leaves much much to be desired, as do the regimes of many of the countries represented in Beijing. But they are agreed, it seems – even the Japanese and North and South Koreans, heck, even the Saudis smelled the coffee and sent a delegation – on one thing, and that’s getting something done that will benefit everyone, like building railroads and highways and so on.

While the USSA is selling arms, and the means to manufacture them.

I don’t think for a moment that Mr. Xi is so naive to believe that all of these countries get along with each other, or don’t have competing interests.Nor do I think Mr. Xi is so naive as to believe that a conference this large, with this many in attendance, will really accomplish anything, much less bring everyone together in a group hug and kumbaya moment. We’ve all been to those “required meetings”. They do nothing but waste time, solve or settle little, and accomplish even less. But they do do one thing, and that is they simply get people talking about and thinking about certain things, and then, when enough of a critical mass of thought congeals, about doing and accomplishing them. That, it seems, is part of his – and China’s – cultural and economic strategy: simply generate excitement about accomplishing something and getting it done. Already in the past few months we’ve seen the first freight train from China arrive in London, and return to China. Turn the clock back just ten years, and this would have been unthinkable. Now translate that into highways running from, say, Beijing to Berlin(dwarfing the Kaiser’s old Berlin-to-Baghdad railway), and you get the idea.

Meanwhile, we’re concerned about the peanuts of a mere one hundred billion of arms sales to the Saudis.

And that’s the point: Mr. Xi is offering the world a vision. We may not like Mr. Xi. We may not even like (I certainly don’t) Communism in any form, even the modern “benign” Chinese form (benign if one compares it to Mao, or Stalin). But Mr. Xi is offering a vision nonetheless. (Heck, being a [much out of practice] organist, I find it very interesting that China seems to be on a pipe-organ-building spree and the Chinese appear to be enjoying what, for them, is an [increasingly less] rare instrument. Translation: China is also trying to become a bridge or unifying culture.)

Now compare that to what the USSA is offering (which is what, exactly? Drones? Surveillance? Tanks? Bombs? bad refrigerators? shoddy computer software operating systems? pay for play bottomlessly corrupt politicians? pedophilia?) and you get the idea. We’re fast becoming as irrelevant and unwanted as the Yugo, the latest in Serbo-Croatian technology.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

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

Now That The French Elections Are Over, Who Gets To Play Karl Der…


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 19, 2017

I almost have to laugh at the comic relief the European Union provides us.

It was the utopian fantasy of the post-war era, of the Adenauers and Mendez-Frances and Averill Harrimans and other nomenklaturachniks of the globaloney crowd: bigger and bigger federalism good, national economies, bad. Oh, and let’s not forget, that the whole idea also found major support in the circles around Kaiser Wilhelm II, were articulated in a very inchoate form as a war aim by his Chancellor, Bettmann-Hollweg, in September 1914, and became the subject of detailed planning in the early 1940s by Reichbank president and finance minister Walter Funk, in a Nazi-I.G. Farben fantasia that looks all too much like the current bureaucratic monstrosity and tyranny in Brussels.  The fantasy was born, of course, because Europe had just been through two World Wars, the basic point of which was “the rest of the world has to gang up on Germany, fight it (and themselves) to exhaustion, to prevent it from becoming a world power, which it very much wants to be, and which we very much don’t want it to be.” Even that 1942 Walter Funk Reichsbank-I.G. Farben study on how to make a European Union under the dominance of Germany was a kind of back-handed admission that even the Nazis (or at least, that rare breed of them that were somewhat sane) recognized that the “we’re-having-a-war-and-everyone’s-invited-please-RSVP” approach wasn’t working out quite according to the Meisterplan.  Throw in some Halford MacKinderisms about world islands, heartlands, and the absolute necessity for “the West” (France, Britain, and the USA) to prevent a Russo-German(and Chinese!) alliance – which would dominate the “world island” (Eurasia) and thence the world – stir and simmer over medium heat, and you have all the makings of a NATO stew.

It’s that simmering NATO stew that brings me to today’s thought-provoking op-ed piece at Zero Hedge, which Mr. H.B. discovered and shared:

“Zumutungen!” Buyer’s Remorse In France, Impossible Situation For Germany

The problem, if one reads the quotations of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard cited in the article carefully, is the German economy:

Emmanuel Macron’s lightning conquest of France has put Germany in an awkward spot. French voters have picked an apostle of Europe and an arch-defender of the Franco-German axis. While this is welcomed with jubilation by some in Berlin, it raises thorny questions that others would prefer left unanswered.

He plans Nordic labor reforms, easier collective bargaining rules, and the sort of tax shake-up that German leaders have long demanded. The quid pro quo is that Berlin must agree to eurozone fiscal union, and cut its corrosive current account surplus – now 8.6 percent of GDP and in breach of EU rules.

“If France is not reformed, we will not be able to regain the confidence of the Germans,” Mr. Macron told Ouest-France. “After that, Germany must ask whether its own situation is tenable. It is accumulating surpluses which are neither good for its own economy nor for the eurozone.”

He wants a eurozone finance minister and budget, with joint debt, and a banking union with shared deposit insurance, all legitimized by a new parliament for the currency bloc. It implies a unitary eurozone superstate.

This calls Berlin’s bluff. The German elites often argue that they cannot accept such radical proposals as long as other eurozone states scoff at budget rules and fail to put their house in order.

The Handelsblatt accused Mr. Macron of “Teuton-bashing” over the trade surplus. The German Council of Economic Experts holds defiantly to the national view that trade surpluses are proof of virtue. It sees EMU debt-pooling as a slippery slope towards a “Transferunion”.

And this, of course, is the simmering NATO stew dilemma: NATO, according to the vowel-impaired Mr. Zbigniew Brzezinski in his Grand Chessboard, was as much about containing German power as it was about containing Soviet power. For the German governments from Adenauer to Schmidt, it was as much about allowing Germany to rearm, without having to assume the mantle of pan-European defense, and growing their economy. NATO, on this view, was a cynical “gentleman’s” agreement: everyone knew what the other side was up to, and everyone agreed not to talk about it (think Molotov-Ribbentrop pact here) and pretend like everyone was friends now(think Molotov-Ribbentrop pact again). The same, I suspect, is really what the early Common Market, and now the EU, is all about: for the rest of Europe, as revealed by M. Macron’s remarks, the EU is about contriving a mechanism to contain German economic and manufacturing power and ultimately German sovereignty (You have too much surplus!), while for the Germans, it has always been about the German economic domination of Europe (think Bettmann-Hollweg and Walter Funk) until everyone else (mainly France) gets their spendthrift houses in order; the hidden caveat being that Germany is perfectly happy not to have everyone else get their manufacturing and fiscal houses in order, because Germany can retain its sovereignty and dominate the situation.

And in the background, there lingers that suspicion that there has been a quiet and covert economic war going on between the USA and Germany: heavy fines on German companies, and American troop transfers to Clemenceau’s old cordon sanitaire in Poland and Romania, which we’re told are in response to Russia, but which I suspect are equally targeted at Germany.

It’s about who gets to play Karl der Grosse… er… Charlemagne.

After all the fine verbiage, treaties, globaloney sentiment, and after all the centuries, it is still ultimately about Realpolitik.

There will be now an immense tug-of-war between Paris and Berlin, with Washington and Moscow as the interested parties. Where it goes is anyone’s guess, but there are essentially three broad options: (1) A European super-state, which will still be dominated by Germany both economically and militarily; (2) a “rump” EU, resulting in Germany abandoning the European project should France (and the hidden player, America) press too hard; this will result in massive German rearmament and a vigorous eastward foreign policy with Russia and China (which we’ve seen signs of already); (3) A “rump” EU resulting in France’s abandonment of the European project, leaving the rest to be dominated by Germany.  Of course, there will be several shades and “micropositions” between all of these as well. Add to this the growing discontent in Eastern Europe over the immigration crisis, and one has all the potential makings for a potential massive geopolitical realignment in Europe.

This is one to watch. And one can expect Washington – true to its heritage – to back the weaker continental power (France) against the stronger (Germany) in classic British style. But it must do so delicately, lest it provoke Germany to solve its problems in “the traditional way”, to paraphrase Chancellor Kohl’s comments prior to the crack-up of Czechoslovakia. (Is it just me, or does anyone else have a sinking feeling of deja vu here?)

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

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

‘Undesirable NGOs’ Fund ISIS-linked Refugee Boats to EU

‘Undesirable NGOs’ Fund ISIS-linked Refugee Boats to EU
Source: TheDailyBell.com
April 10, 2017

Investigations by Italian authorities and others have found that NGOs funded by among others George Soros, are actively financing private ships to smuggle tens of thousands of illegal North African refugees into the EU via Southern Italy. The human trafficking is reportedly linked to ISIS smuggling networks. If confirmed by authorities, it could potentially open the NGOs to criminal charges .

Carmelo Zuccaro, the Chief Prosecutor of Catania, Sicily, has testified to a committee of the Italian Parliament in March that an official investigation into the funding of a fleet of modern refugee boats in the Mediterranean by private NGOs is warranted. He cited evidence that the human traffic smugglers in Libya and other North African coastal states, often reportedly linked to ISIS or other criminal bands, were coordinating the traffic into Italy of tens of thousands of illegal refugees. Zuccaro reported evidence that the human traffickers either on land, or on board smaller migrant boats, call the larger NGO-financed rescue vessels directly to arrange transfer of refugees. That implies a very close level of coordination between the human smuggler bands and the NGO-funded fleet of ships.

Zuccaro announced that his office is investigating what he called the “abnormal” amount of funds that allows even small agencies to hire ships. Italian authorities have so far uncovered at least ten private Non-Governmental Organizations involved, among them several NGOs financed by US hedge fund speculator George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

Zuccaro also told Italian press that, “the facilitation of illegal immigration is a punishable offense regardless of the intention.” He said that Italy was also investigating Islamic radicalization occurring in prisons and camps where immigrants are hired, illegally or off the books. European Immigration Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos stated that some 80% of the North African migrants arriving in Italy had no legal right to asylum. Many were reportedly from criminal gangs that sprang up after the 2011 US-backed bombing of Libya and killing of Gaddafi that threw the country into anarchy.

Over the course of the past year as the refugee human trafficking route through Greece has been all but closed down, the route into the EU from North Africa has shifted to southern Italy and to use of modern chartered vessels to carry the thousands of refugees to Sicily and other parts of Southern Italy. In the first two months of 2017 illegal refugee inflows from Libya into southern Italy have risen by as much as 40% over the same period a year earlier.

NGO Human Trafficking

The official EU European Border and Coast Guard Agency, FRONTEX, in its 2017 Risk Analysis report, states that “the Central Mediterranean has become the main route for African migrants to the EU and it is very likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Specifically, 89% of migrants arrived from Libya.”

The FRONTEX report went on to note a dramatic shift in 2016 from 2015. Earlier the major migration flow went from Turkey into Greece and the Balkan states on to Germany and other EU states: “NGO rescue operations (into southern Italy-w.e.) rose significantly to more than 40% of all incidents. Since June 2016, a significant number of boats were intercepted or rescued by NGO vessels without any prior distress call and without official information as to the rescue location.”

Frontex raised the possibility that traffickers were putting migrants out to sea in a prearranged collusion with the private NGO ships that recover them and then bring them to Italy “like taxis.” What the EU agency described is a human smuggling operation, in effect, operations of international criminal organizations including ISIS, being run by ships chartered or owned by various Non-Governmental Organizations among them Soros-financed NGOs.

Italian admiral Enrico Credendino, commander of the EU’s anti-trafficking Operation Sophia, said the NGOs’ ships come close to the Libyan shore to attract migrant boats in the dark. “At night they use large floodlights; the traffickers see them and send the dinghies (carrying migrants) towards the lights,” he stated. Then they are taken aboard the larger NGO ships for the journey to Italy.

Soros NGOs working with ISIS?

If the Italian investigations into the NGO funding of the fleet of charter ships are confirmed, this would suggest that the NGOs, several of them linked to foundations or organizations financied or controlled by George Soros, are colluding illegally with human trafficker bands, in many cases bands controlled by ISIS in Libya.

A 2017 report by Quilliam, a private UK think-tank, claims that ISIS or the Islamic State (IS) is involved in the human trafficking operations into Italy. Their report states: “While some refugees may have to pay smugglers up to $560 for passage towards the Mediterranean coast, IS, capitalising on this route, offer free passage to those willing to join IS…To those reaching the Mediterranean coast, IS offer potential recruits up to $1,000 to join the organisation. ” Not exactly humanitarian.

US human rights investigator and lawyer William Craddick has discovered that several of the NGOs chartering the human smuggling boats ware linked to financial patronage of George Soros

and his Open Society Foundations including avaaz.org of the Soros-funded Moveon.org; Save the Children, and Médicins Sans Frontiéres (MSF) which charters a Mediterranean ship called Aquarius.

International Migration Initiative

Soros’ Open Society Foundations, which also has been reported to receive money from the US Government through the CIA-linked USAID, also funds something it calls the International Migration Initiative, an NGO Soros’ Open Society Foundations set up in 2010. Clearly the idea behind creation of Soros’ IMI was done with an eye to what would soon unfold in Europe as well as the USA refugee crises. The website of the Soros International Migration Initiative openly states that it has a “strategic corridor approach, facilitating coordinated action in countries of origin, transit, and destination.” The same website identifies what it terms three strategic migration corridors: Asia/Middle East, Central America/Mexico, and Eurasia, which centers on Central Asia into Russia. That almost sounds like a geopolitical grand design of someone.

In September 2016 the same George Soros announced he was “donating” $500 million to the European and US refugee cause. He declined to say where and how the money would be used. Was part of that earmarked for financing the fleet of modern NGO ships that bring tens of thousands of refugees from Libya? A relevant question to be sure for the Italian and other investigations.

In August, 2016 DCLeaks, a US website similar to Wikileaks, released 2,576 files predominately related to George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. One memo by the Soros foundation dated May 10, 2016, argued that Europe’s refugee crisis should be accepted as a “new normal,” and that the crisis means, “new opportunities” for Soros’ foundations to influence immigration policies on a global scale.

Soros and the ‘Merkel Plan’

The pawprints of Soros’ foundations are all over the EU refugee crisis that is upending social and economic stability across Europe since August 2015 when German Chancellor Angela Merkel surprised many even in her own party by declaring in a comment since become infamous, “we can do it,” followed by her decision on September 5, 2015 to accept thousands of refugees who had set out to walk from Keleti Station in Budapest to Germany, announcing that all refugees were welcome with open arms, no questions asked, no limit set. More than one million refugees, not only from Syria, flooded into Germany and other EU countries. As domestic opposition mounted against Merkel, in late 2015 Merkel went on a popular German TV talk show where she announced, “I have a plan.”

Indeed she did. It was even named by its architects, “The Merkel Plan.”

The plan was drawn up by a think tank with offices in Berlin, Brussels and Istanbul by the name The European Stability Initiative (ESI). Under that Merkel Plan, in addition to the over 1 million refugees of 2015, in 2016 Germany should, “agree to grant asylum to 500,000 Syrian refugees registered in Turkey over the coming 12 months.”

The Merkel Plan for accepting hundreds of thousands of refugees without question into Germany and other EU states with no number limit, “the new normal,” the term used by Soros’ International Migration Initiative website, was a product of the Soros networks as well. The author of the Merkel Plan and head of the ESI is an Austrian sociologist, Gerald Knaus. Knaus is a member of the George Soros-financed European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), and an Soros’ Open Society Fellow. Knaus’ European Stability Initiative was financed, according to the German Die Zeit, by among others the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Washington-based German Marshall Fund, as well as Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

Rome on brink of War

The recent explosion of illegal refugees into Southern Italy, aided by a fleet of ships chartered by NGOs linked to Soros and others, is no innocent humanitarian good samaritan deed. In December 2016 Virginia Raggi, the Mayor of Rome, said that the city was on the verge of a “war” between migrants and poor Italians. In southern Italy, the Sicilian Cosa Nostra had declared a “war on migrants” in 2016 amid reports that the Italian mafia had begun fighting with North African crime gangs who entered the EU among migrant populations.

The allegations of Soros NGO financing of a fleet of boats to illegally smuggle refugees or other migrants from North Africa into the EU suggested at the very least that the Washington-tied Soros networks were doing more than charity. It suggested that his NGOs were at least indirectly complicit in projects that were destroying the social stability of the EU much as Soros’ NGOs did in Ukraine in 2014 and before.

The impression is difficult to avoid that the entire current mass refugee phenomenon, together with the NATO wars that trigger them in places like Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, is part of a far larger and far more sinister design and that the money of George Soros, the character behind virtually every US State Department and CIA-backed Color Revolution since the 2000 toppling of Slobodan Milosevic in Belgrade, is right in the middle of it.

Little wonder that the foundations and operations of “philanthropist” Soros are increasingly under attack around the world, including in Viktor Orban’s Hungary, Soros’ country of birth.

Read More At: TheDailyBell.com

To The People Of Europe Who Still Believe In Freedom

individuality
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
February 8, 2017

You can say all you want to about the history of Europe, but you also have to say that Europe was the cradle of liberty for the whole world.

The main struggle was held there. And finally, the clear idea of individual freedom emerged.

Then, gradually, in the wake of two World Wars, a new theme took hold. You could call it comfort, or security, peace for all, share and care, the good life.

Under a dominating tax rate, citizens had “services” provided by their governments. Many pleasant services.

Why not? All was well.

Even when these governments were placed under the umbrella of the European Union, most citizens of member countries perceived no real problems—as long as the services continued to flow.

But there was an addendum to the basic contract. The national governments, and their superiors at the EU…they were the Providers, and they could, at their whim, turn the screw and apply new oppressive rules to the citizenry. And they could, if resistance appeared, drop their pose of benevolence and take on the role of Enforcer.

And if they did, where would liberty and individual freedom go?

It would go away.

Escalating floods of migrants entered Europe. This was a turning of the screw. Brought about by “upper management” of the Providers. The crimes and disruptions of these migrants have been well documented in independent media. The people of Europe had no say about the invasion. In fact, it soon became a prosecutable offense to write about it or speak about it in a public forum.

The lords of government would brook no opposition.

The basic liberty—speaking freely—was on the line and under the boot heel.

In fact, for years, a campaign of political correctness in speech had been waged all over Europe. It covered many areas. The EU had been aiding and abetting it.

The “good life” was cracking at the seams. It wasn’t all good anymore.

The Provider was becoming the Enforcer.

Looking back on the change, it was always obvious that it was waiting in the wings. The Providers weren’t messiahs of a socialist utopia. That pretense was merely an intermediate phase in a much larger operation.

Mollify the citizenry for a time, “give them services,” and then when they were lulled into complacency, when they felt safe and secure, when they’d traded liberty for something that looks like liberty, start the chaos.

And clamp down. Assert overt control.

The EU structure was never extreme enough for the overlords. After all, it was a confederation of separate nations. The covert operation was One Nation of Europe, drained of separate traditions, with all former, distinguishing, national characteristics removed. The goal was one continental entity, seeded with enough migrants to eliminate visible differences, and roiled in conflicts.

To make a stew, heat and stir.

Eventually, eliminate the memory that, at one time, individual freedom was birthed in those countries. And one step further: eliminate the knowledge of what individual freedom is.

Bring in immigrants from cultures where authentic freedom, with its attendant responsibilities, means nothing.

The operation is well underway.

The lords of government never wanted utopia. They wanted, and want, submission. They achieved the soft version. Now they’re aiming for the hard.

This is modern European history not taught in schools. Schools would ban even a hint of it.

So the struggle begins again.

It has many faces—some of them ideological, which is to say, embedded in groups for whom national and ethnic identity is the foremost concern.

How long will it take before The Individual, defined by HIS OWN choice and vision, APART FROM SUCH IDENTITY, reemerges?

That was the original battle of the ages: the liberation of each individual.

It wasn’t easy then, and it won’t be easy now.

But it begins in the mind.

And not the group mind.

Not in any group.

In 1859, John Stuart Mill wrote:

“If it were felt that the free development of individuality is one of the leading essentials of well-being…there would be no danger that liberty should be undervalued.”

Escaping from, and dissolving the trap that is…

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The Transhumanist Scrapbook: (Hideous) Method In The EU…

THE TRANSHUMANIST SCRAPBOOK: (HIDEOUS) METHOD IN THE EU PARLIAMENT'S MADNESS
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
January 27, 2017

This story was another one that seemed to have attracted a lot of people’s attention this past week: an EU parliament committee – a completely powerless “legislative” body – has voted to give robots “rights”, along with a kill switch:

EU Parliament Committee Votes To Give Robots Rights (And A Kill Switch)

I’ve blogged previously about the sneaky jurisprudence implied in such efforts, but this one spells it all out plainly; none of my usual high octane speculation is needed:

Foreseeing a rapidly approaching age of autonomous artificial intelligence, a European Parliament committee has voted to legally bestow electronic personhood to robots. The status includes a detailed list of rights, responsibilities, regulations, and a “kill switch.”

The committee voted by 17 votes to two, with two abstentions, to approve a draft report written by Luxembourg MEP Mady Delvaux, who believes “robots, bots, androids and other manifestations of artificial intelligence” will spawn a new industrial revolution. She wants to establish a European Agency to develop rules for how to govern AI behavior. Specifically, Delvaux writes about how increased levels of autonomy in robot entities will make usual manufacturing liability laws insufficient. It will become necessary, the report states, to be able to hold robots and their manufacturers legally responsible for their acts.

Sounding at times like a governmental whisper of Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, the report states, A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.”

The rules will also affect AI developers, who, according to the report, will have to engineer robots in such a way that they can be controlled. This includes a “kill switch,” a mechanism by which rogue robots can be terminated or shut down remotely. (Emphases in the original)

Now, if you’re like me, you’re seeing or sensing a huge danger here, and it makes me wonder if the water supply in Europe is being doped with anti-sanity and anti-reason drugs, for observe the implicit and explicit logical argument here:

(1) humans are persons;

(2) persons have special rights, and with them come special responsibilities (one shudders to think what “rights” mean to a Eurocrat, but we’ll assume the best and move on);

(3) human consciousness and “personhood” can be produced by machines, and artificial intelligence should constitute “electronic personhood” just like corporations are “corporate persons”

(Of course, this is now all getting to be a little fuzzy, and as I’ve said many times, all this corporate personhood stuff is based in a theological confusion of massive proportions. But, hey, relax, because we’re modern trendy predominantly secularized Europeans and we needn’t bother with the niceties of mediaeval metaphysics, even if those niceties have issued in a horribly screwed up notion like “corporations are persons” while “unborn babies are not” but robots are For my part, the silliness of corporate personhood resides in the old adage “I’ll believe corporations are persons when the State of Texas executes one of them.” Heck, forget about murder, I’d settle for manslaughter and a long prison sentence for a few of them, but I digress.

(4) But we need to protect humanity from the possibility that robots might go rogue and do something like found a corporation (a corporate electronic person, presumably) whose corporate charter says that its corporate electronic personhood function is to kill other persons (presumably of either the human biological sort, or the robotic electronic sort). Thus, we need a

(5) “kill switch” to “terminate the program/robot/electronic person”.

Well, in today’s wonderful transhumanist “cashless” world, why not a “kill switch” in your friendly implant when you start having “unacceptable thoughts” like using cash, or questioning the latest “narrative from Brussels.” If it’s good enough for “electronic persons” then one be quite certain that some insane Eurocrat, somewhere, will propose the same thing for human persons by parity of reasoning…

…a parity of reasoning that will not, of course, extend to corporations.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
____________________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

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

Did Bayer AG Do A Sly Deal On Glyphosate With The European Union Commission?

Did Bayer AG do a Sly Deal on Glyphosate with EU Commission?

Source: WilliamEngdahl.com
F. William Engdahl
January 24, 2017

There is growing evidence that the EU Commission’s extraordinary ruling of June 29, 2016 granting the toxic weed-killing agent Glyphosate a reprieve of 18 months until December, 2017 was made in order to allow sufficient time for Bayer AG, the new owner of Monsanto since December time to bring its substitute weed-killer on the market once the merger is complete. The issue is highly controversial not the least owing to a determination from an agency of the Geneva WHO that glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen.” The EU Commission ignored that WHO determination, relied on a fraudullent German government safety assessment and ignored the will of a majority of EU Governments to give glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s world-leading weed-killer, Roundup, an artificial life extension.

Early in 2016, the EU Commission recommended re-approval for another 15-years of the license for the controversial glyphosate toxin, the most widely used weed-killer in the world, the main ingredient in Roundup of Monsanto. The Commission, a decidedly anti-democratic, non-elected body of faceless bureaucrats, declared then that their “yes” decision was based on the determination by the EU’s European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that there was no reason to believe glyphosate is a carcinogen. That all was before the decision by Germany’s Bayer AG to takeover Monsanto.

The snag in that early EU Commission decision to renew for another 15 years glyphosate lies in the fact that the EFSA refused to make open disclosure of the relevant health and safety studies EFSA claimed to rely on. Most alarming in that initial EU decision to renew was the fact that EFSA’s decision went totally against the 2015 determination by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate, was a “probable human carcinogen.” In lay terms that means odds greater than 50% are that it causes human cancers on exposure. Glyphosate presence has been tested in ordinary drinking water or in food crops sprayed with Roundup of other glyphosate-based weed-killers.

German Government Corrupt Science

EFSA based its initial early 2016 glyphosate renewal approval solely on a report by Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), which in turn took its decision from a clearly biased report by Monsanto and other agrochemical industry groups. Using the Monsanto-linked assessment for glyphosate, the German BfR went against the professional and highly-respected WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer, stating, again using Monsanto’s self-interested claim, that glyphosate was “unlikely” to pose a cancer risk. IARC used only data that was in the public domain, but the corrupt German BfR based its report on secret industry studies by Monsanto and other agrichemical firms that it refused to release to IARC or to the public

Public pressure, the objections of several EU states and an EU-wide petition signed by more than one million EU citizens demanding an end to glyphosate use as well as a letter of protest signed by almost one hundred leading scientists to EU Health and Food Safety Commissioner (also known as DG SANTE) Vytenis Andriukaitis, were ignored.

The fact that the member states of the EU were unable to reach a required Qualified Majority vote in favor of renewing glyphosate, allowed the decision, through an EU Commission technical loophole, to fall to the clearly biased Vytenis Andriukaitis.

To little surprise, Andriukaitis ruled to extend. Until now however, the bizarre aspect was that he stated a renewal for only 18 months and not the 15 years requested by Monsanto and approved by him only a few months before.

Bayer Swallows Monsanto

The EU Commission extrordinary ruling flew in the face of the widely-accepted and even EU law that requires decisions based on the “precautionary principle,” namely that when there is the slightest doubt about health risks of a crop or chemocal, err on the side of precaution and ban.

Notably, Andriukaitis’ ruling for limited renewal of glyphosate was made on June 29 just as the boards of the German pesticide giant, Bayer AG and Monsanto were finalizing weeks of discussion of a friendly $66 billion takeover of Monsanto to create the largest agribusiness leviathan on the planet, with an alarming 29 percent of the world’s seeds, most of the market share of GMO patented seeds, and 24 percent of its pesticides and agrichemicals.

To make the situation more alarming for those of us seeking a healthy diet, in 2016 a huge cartelization of world agrichemicals and GMO seed makers took place. In addition to the Bayer swallow of Monsanto, ChemChina, a China state chemical company bought the large Swiss GMO and pesticide company, Syngenta. And the two other US GMO and agrichemical giants, Dow Chemical and DuPont, have also merged in the past twelve months. The Swiss company fended off that offer only to agree later to a takeover by China’s state-owned ChemChina. The effect is that these now three giant behemoth companies control nearly 70 percent of the world’s pesticide market and 80 percent of the U.S. corn-seed market, most all the latter GMO seed.

Bayer Takes Liberty

At this point, since the WHO determination that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen,” glyphosate’s days were clearly numbered. Now once the technical corporate takeover by Bayer of Monsanto is completed, expected towards the end of this year, 2017, just as the renewal for glyphosate expires, Bayer AG plans to push its fast-growing substitute for glyphosate known by the trade name, Liberty and Basta, a so-called systemic Glufosinate weed-killer similar to glyphosate but without (so far) the WHO stigma of carcinogenic.

Moreover, since the Monsanto patent on glyphosate-based Roundup expired, other companies have been flooding the market globally with cheap substitutes. Three Chinese companies — Jiangsu Sevencontinent, Hebei Veyong, and Sichuan Lier — have been aggressively exporting glufosinate since 2015. Production of glufosinate on the other hand is far more limited allowing Bayer AG, minus Roundup, to emerge as the dominant weed-killer giant. Moreover, by offering to sell off its Roundup busiess, the new Bayer AG appears to be making a noble sacrifice in the interest of reducing anti-trust concerns.

There is no aspect of the Bayer AG takeover of Monsanto that is positive for the world. To mention “anti-trust” violations is putting it mildly. Government anti-trust, certainly in the agribusiness sector is a dead letter. True protection of consumer health and safety is a dead letter, certainly in Brussels. How the Trump Presidency and his Agriculture Secretary nominee, former Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue, weigh in on this will be more than interesting to see. After all, Bayer-Monsanto is not “America First,” but a German company.

Read More At: WilliamEngdahl.com
__________________________________________________

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”