Double trouble.
Somehow, putting a lid on immigration is now a crime against humanity.
That's quite a propaganda triumph. So let's announce, with a great
flourish, that the US and Europe will welcome everybody else on the planet.
Let's go all the way to prove our tolerance and good will. Why not?
The wonderful people who support waves of immigration don't seem to be
able to put a top number on this whole operation. They have a bone
stuck in their throats. They can't say, "Well, here is the absolute
highest number of immigrants who can come in." They just can't. To do
so would taint the quality of their heroic empathy. It would rip a hole
in their Sails of Love.
"Mr. President, perhaps you could tell us how many immigrants we can
admit to our shores. When would it start being a, you know, problem?
We just want to get an idea of the scope of this whole thing. When do
the numbers begin to exert a strain on the economy, for example? Aside
from, ahem, now. At what point do you suppose the number of criminals among the immigrants will cause, what shall I call it, serious trouble?
When will the resettling of these millions of people into communities
start to crack and disrupt and destroy the coherence of those
communities? I mean, there must be a number beyond which it's unwise to
go. Isn't that the way the world generally works? Too much of
anything becomes dangerous. Too many militarized policemen, too much
surveillance, too much CIA interference in other countries, too many
corporate lobbyists, too many US-backed ISIS fighters, too many leaking
cylinders of nuclear waste, too much pressure on a power plant during
an earthquake. So how about a top-limit immigration number? Does a
person who just asks for such a figure automatically qualify as a
satanic messenger from Hell? Just trying to get a feel for the
landscape of this issue...if there is a landscape."
No-top-number is called a clue. The people who should be giving one but
aren't are either deranged love addicts or conscious agents of
destruction.
Another clue: claiming, with a straight face, that granting all sorts of
government benefits to immigrants as soon as they cross the border is in no way an inducement for them to show up.
As I've explained in previous articles, the whole "wave of migration" is
an op. It's not meant to be humane. It's meant to destabilize
societies and countries, bring on chaos, destroy traditional cultures
and borders, and permit Globalization to advance.
Now let's go to the other side.
Surely, moving into foreign nations with planes and bombs and drones and soldiers (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, etc.) in no way
creates a desire for retaliation in those populations. Right? Right?
Why should it? Why should a little thing like raining down death and
destruction induce a ripple of protest? Why should we expect anyone coming here, from those places, to have any anger whatsoever in his heart?
Likewise, in the area of economic warfare, if some Globalist trade
treaty (NAFTA) sets up a long con whereby cheap US corn floods Mexico
and puts 1.5 million Mexican farmers into bankruptcy, why should we
think any of those people would harbor resentment against America, or
come across the border, out of desperation, and with ill-will in their
hearts? Again, absurd. Right?
Let's go all the way back to US economic sanctions against Iraq
(1990-2003). As a result, during that period, an estimated 500,000
Iraqi children died. Five-hundred thousand. But why would that be a problem? Why would that cause any resentment in the Middle East region?
And the participation of European countries in similar "misadventures,"
via NATO, for example, and extending back into the Colonial period...who
could think any resentment in the affected populations would pop up and
endure?
This entire immigration issue has two sides. Obviously, one of the
great tasks of politicians is to separate them and obscure any
connection---while taking the precise wrong position about each side.
How did that happen? When you cut through the nonsense and the
lies, the answer is clear. The politicians (those who are even aware)
are in the Globalist camp. They want to make wars of conquest, profit,
and extreme destabilization, on the one hand; and they want to open the
floodgates to waves of immigrants, in order to destabilize their own
countries---because the Globalist agenda demands an end to separate
nations, all nations, in favor of much larger regions which, in a state
of chaos, "must be brought under control by a higher force."
This is the op, and it has been for a long time.
If there is any genuine leadership to be found---the authentic kind, not
the devious type---it must come from people who grasp both sides of the
insanity, are willing to expose it, and are determined to end it.
Politics, as we know it from long experience, is not the art of
compromise. It's the art of walling off one side of a covert operation
from another, and pretending there is no conceivable connection. It's
the art of concealing the overall agenda. It's the art of co-opting and
corrupting innocent ideals, like "give us your huddled masses yearning
to be free," and turning them into monstrous elements of
destruction---and in the process, enlisting naïve believers to move
toward the cliff's edge.
Key political leaders understand all that, because they're fronting for elites who demand duplicity in all things.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment