| ---------------------------------------- ARTICLE  ----------------------------------------
Manufactured 'Refugee Crisis' - Invasion of Europe - US-Anglo Strategy to Weaken Ally Europe
SOURCE
----------------------------------------https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTDlY4o23XA [Subtitles by New Insight] TITLE Nikolai Starikov: Explains Who Is Behind Europe's Refugee Crisis ---------------------------------------- TRANSCRIPT [for quotation purposes, confirm subtitles / audio] Nikolai Starikov: Have there been previous waves of migration into Europe? Interviewer: Of course there have. Starting from the 1960s, even in the 1950s. Nikolai Starikov: Back then they came from Yugoslavia, from various countries. Later from Turkey they came to Germany. There have been many waves. In reality, it was primarily for economic reasons, sometimes there were political issues, too. For example, an anti-US revolution took place in Iran. All the corrupt Iranians -- the secret police, the local oligarchs -- fled to London, to Europe, and so on. There have always been political asylum-seekers. But there has always been the rule in the EU and in individual states that if you are seeking political asylum -- I stress POLITICAL, because you cannot seek economic asylum -- then you have to prove you are facing danger. Some of our own white-ribbon folks also fled to Holland after 2012. One of them died their, if you remember. They all declared they were in terrible danger from the blood-thirsty regime, and they must be allowed to stay. There is a procedure in place. What we see here is that there is no procedure, no state even. All of a sudden, the border guards, the customs service, all of the state functions dealing with these migrants, the issuing, or not, of documents -- they all vanished. The result is a rather strange picture: you can jump on some sea transport, sail from the coast of Africa to Europe, you'll hardly be asked for documents or whether you're a political asylum-seeker or not political. They'll do nothing to you. After that, you can do as you like. You can make demands, start a fight, smash things up. You can proceed on foot, or whoever they get from Lampedusa to Budapest. In Budapest they cause chaos: seizing the train station, smashing up the trains, and demanding to be transported to some destination. Think about it. Previously a person would arrive and say, "I request asylum." You know there is a state, you make a request to the EU. You can't demand anything. Let me give you a little historical example, which maybe isn't about refugees but about demands. The situation was this: when Vladimir Ilyich Lenin very much wanted to travel on the sealed train, ie return from Switzerland to Russia, after its capture by the February Revolution, he used all means, tried every way. He wanted to travel pretending to be a deaf-mute Swede. He wrote that England wouldn't allow him through. He tried to get on an aircraft, a hot air balloon. He tried everything -- nothing succeeded. Then a miracle happened. A certain fellow appeared by the name of Fritz Platten, who said, "We'll fix it all." He went into the German consulate in Switzerland, which had previously denied Lenin passage, and he sorted it all out with them. Then he said, "Vladimir Ilyich, go ahead and submit your application." Lenin was obviously sceptical, since he had already been denied two weeks earlier. He went in, was met by the German ambassador, and handed over his document on which was written: "Conditions under which Russian revolutionary emigrees will agree to transit through the territory of Germany." Notice he didn't say 'permit me'. He said "We are willing to transit under these conditions" -- namely exterritoriality [ie not subject to state laws], no luggage inspection and so on. The German ambassador takes it and says: "Are you mad?" Meaning: look, you're the one requesting permission to transit through Germany, it's not Germany requesting permission for transit through Russia! It's not your place to demand, but to request. Lenin told him: "Look, sir, go and ask Berlin." The Ambassador wrote a telegram which was basically saying: some annoying Russian revolutionaries have come in, and moreover are laying out their demands for transit. What should we do with them? He was thinking the answer would again be "Decline." But what came back was "Accepted their conditions." Astonished, with all of Lenin's conditions having been accepted, the Germans prepared the train, with troops in the vestibule, exterritoriality, no inspections of anything, and off they went. Returning to the current reality: people came to make a request, but now they are making demands. What has happened? There is a narrative that the Europeans orchestrated war, destroyed nations, and of course that is true. But really, that has nothing to do with granting political asylum. You can't just walk into the offices of a state agency to seek asylum and start pushing your rights: "Well, you destroyed my country, so you owe me." They will cart you off back to where you came from, right? The system was very simple, although the procedure is lengthy and bureaucratic. After someone submits an application, they have the right to live in that territory, they get some allowance, and are a little bit integrated into Western society. Later, after assessment, some are allowed to stay, while others get deported. So the system was working like that for a long time, and, now, suddenly demands are being made. What does this mean? Someone from above has pressured the authorities in the EU, just as happened to the German ambassador in Switzerland in 1917: "You know what, forget about everything, forget the procedures, let them go wherever they want, demand whatever they want, and so on." So someone has organised this and it's not the EU. So let's consider who could have organised it. Put aside ISIS and al-Qaeda, as they only exist in the media world, and in the form of armed groups receiving money, weapons and instructions from MI6, and train Bedouins to wield a weapon and cut people's heads off. What's left? Some serious power, which is forcing the European states to forget their own rules. Who has organised this? The United States of America. Notice, a plan was published for the distribution of the refugees in Europe, and the UK got zero. Everyone was accommodating the, but not UK. And the US is another UK, but very far away. No-one could ever get there by sea, because that would require an ocean liner and not some crumbling rust-bucket. However, to get into the UK, you just need to walk thrugh the Channel Tunnel, so no-one is crossing by sea. But they are not affected by the refugee problem. The whole region has been ravaged. Obviously, the migrant waves will be directed towards where there is prosperity. Notice where all these people are going -- no-one is going to Saudi Arabia, or to Qatar, or Bahrain, which are closer and people of the same faith. Among the refugees are many Arabs, but also non-Arabs. The Arabs are essentially one ethnicity, but they don't go to those countries, only to Europe. Which means it's an organised process. Next question. We are told that the refugees pay money to the people-smugglers. That's probably true. Question: where do they get the money from? That's probably true. Question: where do they get the money from? These people are obviously not the poorest. If they fled with only the shirt on their back, after their home was shelled, then the smugglers will not take them to Europe. So these are not the most disadvantaged people. Or if they are, then someone has given them money for the journey. Interviewer: The smugglers wouldn't take them for free. Nikolai Starikov: Right -- it's not some humanitarian smugglers transporting them. It means that somebody gave them the money. Next. There is a huge number of men of military age, with expensive telephones, withdrawing cash with ATM cards. My friends from Hungary called me and reported that it seems to be their daily allowance. We are being told that they are militants. I was amused that someone reported the figure of 4,000 fighters -- then all the mass media repeated it. Question: how do they know the number? Did they check the box, "I am an ISIS militant" when filling out the form? OK, a photo was found of one person with a scar, and published on Twitter. It was clearly the same person. But how do they know there are 4,000 fighters? Only whoever counted them could know that, which no-one could do among hundreds of thousands of refugees, unless they themselves confessed. Next question. You are ISIS and you're conducting heavy military operations against the Kurdish militia, the Iraqi Army, Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian Army. How many men do you have? Twenty thousand? And at this point you dispatched 4,000 to Europe. Why? In order to establish terrorist centres in Europe. Before that, you only needed 10 people. Have there been terrorist atrocities in Europe? Yes. Had they sent thousands of terrorists to Europe? Tens of thousands? Of course not. They are individuals. You would sent 5-6 people, a group, a cell, a reconnaissance network. You wouldn't send a thousand intelligence agents. It means that entire divisions have been removed from the front and sent to Europe under the guise of refugees. For what? Later, relatives can easily join them, if they become integrated. Again it's a strange kind of situation. Next, these refugees are very well organised. In Budapest the soccer fans, who are always a bit afflicted by a nationalist view of life, started throwing things at them, and they started throwing back. Imagine: people are dispirited, women, children, pensioners. Stones are thrown at them, and they start throwing stones back. It's very well organised. So there are tons of questions. Clearly, this has been organised. Clearly, money has been allocated for this. Clearly, Europe has thrown its hands up in the air for some reason, and is doing nothing. Two hundred thousand people have been brought to Germany in one week, but they say, "OK, fine, we'll put 6 billion into the budget, that's trivial." And what of the voters' voices? You know how the neo-liberals like to say: that money could have been spent on kindergartens, roads and pensions. Where is all of that? There is none of that. Next. Another interesting consideration on this subject. Whenever we see a large number of people migrating in an organised fashion, we know that someone is carefully directing this process. And look at the accompanying media attention. Have people died during the Mediterranean sea crossings? It is always said that this is inevitable: shipwrecks will always happen. At just the right time, the photo of the Syrian boy was found. It has been seen, how the shameless journalists who had found him repositioned him and then photographed him. What ws the conclusion from that? Since a Syrian boy has drowned, let's take revenge on Bashar al-Assad. In an opinion poll, 52% of Brits support air-strikes on Syrian troops by the UK airforce. Look at the logic -- it is completely absent, because the media veil closes people's eyes. Think about this: the West supports the rebels in Syria, Iraq, Libya. Out of these rebels they assemble ISIS, which didn't exist before -- how did it appear? ISIS starts fighting a war. People start fleeing from this ISIS -- not from the government forces. Some perished while fleeing. To take revenge for those people, let's bomb the Syrian army, which is opposing ISIS. This is some utterly alternative reality that's being created. Interviewer: They exploit whatever they can. Nikolai Starikov: So what's the result? The US deals a blow to Europe -- as I wrote in my book, "Chaos and Revolution as the Dollar's Weapons" -- but only such as to weaken it, to keep it subordinated, and not to collapse it, because it is needed as an ally against Russia and China. When Libya was Destroyed, it was obvious there would be a big migration wave. Dealing with it is very easy. I'll give some free advice to our European partners on how this is done. Remember that anyone crossing to Europe is supposedly spending money, right? Well, if they have crossed to Lampedusa, then wash and feed the, let them sleep, then put them on a big white steamship and take them back to Africa. Question: will they try and cross a second time? Interviewer: Hardly. Nikolai Starikov: OK, suppose they do. Then they get washed and fed, given a place to sleep, and in the morning they're back on the steamship to Africa. Will they turn up a third time? Interviewer: Maybe they will. Nikolai Starikov: Even if someone keeps giving them money for this travel, they'll get bored anyway. You'll get sick -- you crossed the sea, had a look. What did you see? Your room. Then crossed back. It's boring. Even for tourism they wouldn't keep crossing, never mind migration. If they want these people to stop sailing across to you, then just return them, and that's all. Everyone will learn of it. In that sea-port they will say: "My dear friend, we will happily take you to Lampedusa, but you will be back here again tomorrow. You really need that?" So the issue of these refugees is very simple to solve. Moreover it's within the framework of the law: deportation of people not having the right to political asylum. You could have an expedited procedure, if you find yourself choking, NOT HALF A YEAR, but one day. Maybe for every one person who really has valid circumstances and is allowed to stay, another hundred are sent back. And that's it -- the issue is resolved. This is a crisis, they're building walls, people are travelling on foot. I'm speechless. And the last point I want to make on this: people in Ukraine wanted to get into Europe. No-one is going to remove the visa requirements. However, an example has now been shown. Evidently, there are no borders any more -- the customs and border rules have been removed. Since it's possible for Arabs and blacks, why not for Ukrainians? They just need to assemble in a crowed of 100,000 people and simply walk across the Polish border -- calmly, peacefully, shouting as they go. The Polish border guards shall, according to the rules of this type of migrant, move aside, take down the barbed wire, and tie up their dogs. Then this crowd shall proceed -- on foot or on transport, however it turns out -- to Warsaw, seize the train station, and demand to be taken to Berlin. And they should be taken. Otherwise, what kind of discrimination is this? Why do you transport Syrians, but you won't take Ukrainians from Warsaw to Berlin? Interviewer: Those who so desperately wanted to get into Europe. Nikolai Starikov: At the very least they say they are culturally the same peole, although you and i know that these are people of Russian civilisation. Their skin colour is similar to Europeans, but their mindset is completely differenet. But that's not the point here. Does anyone really think this will happen? Interviewer: Let them give it a try. Nikolai Starikov: It's not going to happen -- I can tell you right away. The Poles will release the dogs, use gas. They won't let anyone through. So we have a strange situation: in Poland the state system is operating as it's supposed to, while the rest of Europe it's been suspended for some reason. Why? Because currently there is a need to bring people from one place and not from the other. That's the whole story. Interviewer: What is achieved by weakening Europe? Whay are they being put down like this? Nikolai Starikov: The Americans, and the Anglo-Saxons in general, as part of their strategy, always stick to the same principle: their allies must be weaker than them. That's why they were always trying to weaken the Soviet Union during WWII. They didn't open a second front, forgot to hand over navy ships. When Italy pulled out fo the war, their navy fell to the English. Obviously, it was suppoed to be split into three equal parts, but they forgot about all that. Comrade Stalin said at every conference: "Guys, where is our share of the Italian Navy?" In the end, he insisted. The English with their ships and subs handed over part of the Italian Navy. Only after the war did we get the former Giulio Cesare, which later became, if I remember correctly, the Novorossiysk, and sadly was blown up by a frogman, and destroyed. So their allies have to be weaker than them. Once Europe became strong and Germany began to do its own thing, they planned such an attack. Notice that the waves of refugees, which have now turned up in Europe, are heading for only one country. Interviewer: Germany. Nikolai Starikov: Germany. Let's ask ourselves a question. In Syria, Libya and elsewhere, in all the magazines, TV and radio stations, have they been talking about only one country? So everyone is unaware that there is Austria with a high standard of living, France is alright too; then there is Luxembourg, Belgium, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy and every kind of country -- do they not know that? There's even Greece, too. But they know only Germany. What's this nonsense?! Why are they all going only to Germany? Why not stay in Austria? Their standard of living is more or less the same. They are all going to Germany. Now see, at almost the same moment, just last week, Gazprom signed an agreement with German companies to begin the construction of the second branch of the Nord Stream gas pipeline. Where does it deliver gas to? Interviewer: Germany. Nikolai Starikov: Germany. Where are all the refugees are going? Following the gas. It's a remarkable coincidence, isn't it? Interviewer: Gas is not the only reason. Nikolai Starikov: But those who have organised the stream of refugees don't want the gas to reach Germany, giving Germany independence. But suppose they can't prevent construction of the second pipeline branch. Remember how they obstructed the first -- Estonia tried in every way, Sweden too. They said: "Your pipeline is environmentally incompatible with our Baltic sea-bed ... the seaweed will die off." Estonia banned construction within their territorial waters, so they had to make a 'hook', but the Swedish environmentalists got upset. So if you don't have those instruments, then do something different: "OK, guys, carry on building as you are. But meanwhile, we will construct our own 'south stream' -- not gas, but refugees. So consider the pros and cons" Methinks these two events are tightly correlated. Interviewer: So it means Europe is being held on a hook. On the one hand, they have to assist and obey the US, but on the other hand, they mustn't become so strong that they could afford to disobey. From the perspective of the Americans and the English, Europe should not have the right to a voice at all. Nikolai Starikov: They were told "bomb Libya," even if it means you wil get refugees later. They were told "support the war in Ukraine," so they had to support it, even though trade routes will be broken and you will have armed conflicts in your soft underbelly. As one conscientious blogger here said (Navalny): "expand, don't reflect." Same here -- don't think about what Washington is telling you, just do it, and it will be fine. But Europeans are not really happy with this situation, as they are the ones footing the bill for this party. That's why they're infuriated. And they're being put in their place. [Subtitles by New Insight] COMMENT Always knew this was organised bullsh*t. ---------------------------------------- Europa-Evropa |
1900: Europe had QUARTER of world population.
1900: Europe had 3 times population of Africa.
2050: Europe forecast: 7 per cent of world population.
2050: Europe forecast: one-third population of Africa.
Decades: Indigenous European population displacement by non-Europeans.
 Europeans are endangered.
|
Tuesday, 9 February 2016
Manufactured 'Refugee Crisis' - Invasion of Europe - US-Anglo Strategy to Weaken Ally Europe
