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

Is The Game Plan Revealed? Germany Contemplates Conscription, Domestic…

 IS THE GAME PLAN REVEALED? GERMANY CONTEMPLATES CONSCRIPTION, DOMESTIC ...
Source:GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell
August 29, 2016

Many people, including many in Germany and the rest of Europe, shared this article with me, and frankly, I find it both disturbing and darkly revealing:

Germany Debates Putting “Troops On Streets” To Protect Against Terrorism

The opening paragraphs say it all here:

The quiet German militarization continues to escalate.

One day after Germany’s DPA broke the news that the Merkel government is considering “bringing back nationwide conscription in times of crisis”, such as situations in which the country needs to “defend NATO’s external borders”, strongly hinting at the possibility of a future war, which in turn followed this weekend’s shocking announcement that Germans should prepare to stockpile several days of food and water “in case of an attack of catastrophe” as part of the country’s revised “Civil Defense Concept, today NBC reports that “Germany Debates Putting Troops on Streets to Protect Against ISIS.

To be sure, plans to involve soldiers in counterterrorism operations. and the suggestion troops could also be used to beef up security in public places, have proved controversial in a country only seven decades “removed from totalitarian rule that’s still grappling with guilt from the Nazi era.” However, Wolfgang Bosbach, a lawmaker from Merkel’s CDU party, dismissed an such concerns.

“During the recent terror threat in Munich the German armed forces, and also the military police, were put on alert,” he told NBC News. “They have been deployed in other crises, so why should the military not help with domestic security as well?”

There is, of course, push-back, and rightly so, from concerned German politicians:

Yet despite the seeming acceleration by Germany to militarize at any cost, some more sover voices did emerge, such as that of Christian Moelling, a security expert at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, told NBC News that conservative politicians appeared to be trying to capitalize on recent events as they sought to achieve their longstanding goal of allowing the military to deploy within the country’s borders.

He noted that since the end of World War II, high hurdles had been established governing how the armed forces can be used and was skeptical that any push to change that would be successful.

“To use Germany’s military for interior security, including the use of force, would necessitate a large majority for a constitutional change, and this majority doesn’t exist,” Moelling said, adding that at least two-thirds of parliamentarians would have to approve such a measure.

It can, however, quickly be achieved should there be a few more terrorist attacks on German soil, which will promptly provide the needed cover if not to change the constitution, than to implement an indefinite state of emergency, bypassing such pesky things as laws. As a reminder, France has had once since last November.

And there you have it: just create so many “incidents” by allowing the “eager-to-kill” refugee a free hand to do so and, voila, decree and state of emergency.

But what I find intriguing here is that the root problem – flooding Europe with non-assimilating, and in some cases, radicalized, refugees – is not being addressed. Rather, it is being used as the crisis of opportunity to (1) expand the military (in this case, Germanys’), (2) expand and militarize domestic police, and (3) rule under emergency. In other words, the refugee crisis serves as the modern Reichstag fire.

Of course, Chancellorin Merkel is herself largely responsible for the mess, and one doesn’t hear or see any indication from her that she wants to change her policy or has any desire to do so, and this suggests that the real goal all along was to create the primary conditions for the creation of a vastly expanded military – remember that German industrial and defense leaders want to triple the size of Germany’s military by 2025 – and the conditions for its domestic use.

This much seems obvious, at least in Germany’s case. So where’s the high octane speculation here? As most regular readers here know, and if you’ve been following my interviews over the years, I’ve also strongly suspected that the Islamic world was being “set up,” and used as a crisis of opportunity not only to delay and marginalize the voices of reform within it, but also to drive domestic policy in the West. In the latter case, it should be recalled that France and Germany both have committed to the creation of a joint European-wide military and certain corporate mergers have already transpired in aid of this agenda. So where does the refugee crisis fit in? It fits because it does two things: (1) it creates a “counter-culture” against which Europeans can unite to defend “European culture,” i.e., it serves the creation of a European cultural identity, which currently the EU lacks, and (2) it creates the conditions for the expansion of national militaries and their integration. I’m relatively confident that the game plan is being revealed here, for the very simple reason that the problem these measures are designed to address could be  more simply, and possibly more cheaply, addressed simply by closing European borders. Europe, in short, is being used as a test bed.[Bold Emphasis Added In Bottom 5 Paragraphs]

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
_________________________________________________________________

Profile photo of 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”.

The Fear Of Individuality

StandOut
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
February 11, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

Let’s start with this bit of background:

The fear of individuality comes from the apprehension that a human, unchained and alive, might create something that would expose the titanic hoax of the collective and the group; the apprehension that an individual might create something undeniably great and different; and, therefore, put collective human society in its proper perspective.

And so the individual is called upon to sacrifice himself on the altar of the group.

That is the directive.

The counter-force is the individual using his rational mind, his imagination, and his creative force to surpass this societal brainwashing.

The first step is realizing he is not part of the great collective Cheese Glob.

But most people in so-called “democracies” would not see things this way. They would object. They would claim “the needs of all the people” are not being met. They would claim no one has the right to rise above the standards of the masses.

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com