Invasion of Europe - Frank Salter - Political Ethologist

---------------------------------------- ARTICLE ---------------------------------------- AUDIO ARTICLE *Originally appeared on: http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2016/01/germanys-jeopardy-could-immigrant-influx-end-european-civilization.html Frank Salter political ethologist Introduction: Dire Predictions My name is Frank Salter. I'm an Australian political ethologist, meaning that includes biological approaches when studying society and politics. I've spent much of my career researching at a Max Planck Institute in Germany, as well as teaching there and elsewhere in Europe and the United States. One of my research areas is ethnic solidarity and conflict and how this affects democratic welfare states. In this talk I discuss the dire predictions that have been made about the massive influx of immigrants and refugees still entering Germany and other European countries from the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Many then fan-out, crossing Europe's old national borders which are no longer regulated due to the Schengen Agreement. Some believe this could end European civilization, despite the outpouring of goodwill and hospitality shown by millions of Germans and other Europeans. These predictions have not only come from anti-immigrant ideologues but from moderate politicians. An example is Tony Abbott, until recently Australian prime minister. Speaking in London, Abbott called on Europe to close its borders to avoid a "catastrophic error". He declared that protecting the borders will "require some force; it will require massive logistics and expense; it will gnaw at our consciences — yet it is the only way to prevent a tide of humanity surging through Europe and quite possibly changing it forever."1 Curiously, neither Abbott nor the other commentators explain why the influx would be so damaging. The same is true of Angela Merkel's argument for opening the borders. Where was the sober and transparent assessment of costs and benefits? In this talk I attempt such an assessment, by reviewing research on the way that ethnic diversity tends to increase social conflict and crime, undermine welfare, exacerbate ethnic inequality, racialize politics and erode civil liberties. I then compare these costs with the benefits of mass Third World immigration asserted by Angela Merkel and her supporters. Social Conflict UK Race Riots 2011 Recent tragic events, including the attacks in Paris, make terrorism appear the most obvious and immediate threat. The overwhelming majority of incomers are Muslims. Though most Muslims are not terrorists, many terrorists are Muslims. In general, rising ethnic diversity increases the chance that one minority or another will oppose the government's foreign policy. Tragedy results if even a small number of disaffected individuals adopt violence. However, terrorism is not the main harm likely to arise from the present immigration. The main effect will be to fracture the psychological bond of nationality, leaving citizenship a hollowed-out legalism. That is because rising diversity is associated not only with violence such as terrorism and civil war, but with a general loss of social cohesion. But let us begin with violence. Data from numerous studies show that the more ethnically diverse a society the greater the risk of conflict and, conversely, the more difficult it is to forge unity. Civil conflict is less likely in more homogeneous societies. Academic researchers have attempted to quantify the risk. In the 1990s a global study by Rudolf Rummel at the University of Hawaii measured how 109 variables contributed to collective violence of the extreme variety — guerrilla and civil war — between 1932 and 1982; that's a 50 year period. He found that one fifth of the variation in collective violence was caused by just one variable, the number of ethnic groups within the society. Conflict was made more intense when the antagonistic parties had different religions.2 That finding is obviously relevant to the present situation where Muslims are flooding into a largely Christian and secular Europe. A study of contemporary societies by Finnish sociologist Tatu Vanhanen examined ethnic conflict defined more broadly to include discrimination, ethnic parties and interest groups, as well as ethnic violence and civil war. Vanhanen used evolutionary theory to hypothesize that diversity would cause conflict to rise. Among the 176 societies he studied, Vanhanen found that in 2010 two thirds of global variation in ethnic conflict was explained by ethnic diversity.3 In other words, much of the difference between united peaceful countries and those riven by ethnic conflict is the latters' ethnic diversity. A related effect of diversity is lowered cooperation and "social capital", the extent to which people support each other. As heterogeneity grows, participation in clubs and volunteer work falls. People become more isolated and less trustful. The effect is strongest in local neighbourhoods where people experience different ethnic groups.4 In other words, it is not ignorance or isolation that cause ethnic discord, but contact with other cultures, including foreigners entering a homeland territory in large numbers. German governments should be aware of the tendency of ethnic diversity to cause social conflict because that tendency has been studied in German research institutions. For example, ethologist Irenaeus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, a professor at the Max Planck Society, and colleagues such as Johan van der Dennen at the University of Groningen, The Netherlands, have for decades studied the effects of cultural mixing on ethnocentrism and xenophobia in mass anonymous societies. Both have warned that large scale mixing of different ethnicities reduces social stability and risks domestic peace. Some of the research I've been discussing was inspired by evolutionary theory. This is an important approach long excluded from the social sciences. Human psychology evolved in the context of ethnically homogeneous groups. From this perspective the diversity now being imposed by modern elites is unnatural on the evolutionary time scale. That unnatural level of diversity is responsible for some of the conflict, according to evolutionary theory. Further confirmation of this evolutionary hypothesis is the finding that genetic diversity, as distinct from cultural diversity, correlates with social conflict. Since ethnic groups are pools of genetic similarity,5 mixing such pools increases genetic variation within a society and, according to new global research, causes greater social conflict.6 Stronger causes than genetic diversity are cultural, economic and historical factors, which help explain the surge of goodwill that Germans, Swedes and other Europeans showed Syrian refugees in 2015. But these factors can fluctuate greatly in the short term, while it can take many generations for genetic variation to fall. More Crime German victim of Muslim Gang Rape Crime is social conflict in which the aggressor breaks the law. The track record of crime committed by non-Western immigrants to Europe is not reassuring. A disturbing trend in France, which has Europe's largest Islamic population, is the growth of no-go areas where even police dare not venture except in force. In addition in France and Britain there are occasional riots so violent and extensive that police lose control. These periods of mass conflict amount to uprisings. The trend is for parallel societies to be established as the immigrant populations from less compatible cultures segregate themselves and new generations come of age. Generous welfare and multiculturalism exacerbate immigrant crime, which often increases in the second generation. Between 1997 and 2013 large scale organized sexual exploitation of White girls took place in the English town of Rotherham in South Yorkshire, predominantly by Muslim Pakistani men. Up to 1,400 girls as young as 12 years of age were raped and sex-trafficked by multiple men. Sweden and Denmark also offer a glimpse of what Germany can expect from the intake of unselected immigrants coming from incompatible cultures. In Sweden the majority of those charged with murder, rape and robbery are immigrants, despite immigrants numbering only 16 per cent of the population.7 In Denmark immigrants from several countries commit crimes at a much higher rate than do ethnic Danes. This is especially true of immigrants from the Middle East and Africa.8 The greatest frequency of law-breaking was shown by the children of non-Western immigrants. Those aged 15-19 were overrepresented by 93 per cent, those aged 20-29 by 130 percent, and those aged 30-39 were overrepresented by 135 per cent. Ethnic Danes were underrepresented for all these age categories. For Germany the data are less accessible but an unconfirmed report indicates that in 2011 asylum-seekers committed 3.3 per cent of all crimes, many times their proportion of the German population.9 By 2014 that already-high figure had jumped to 7.7 per cent of all crime. In the same period, the number of assaults and shoplifting across Germany more than doubled.10 Reduced Welfare ' "Poverty in Germany at its Highest Since Reunification" Obviously the influx of millions of poor people will strain welfare budgets. Europeans who have paid social security insurance their whole working lives will soon be supporting health, housing, unemployment and age benefits for millions who have never contributed. If the influx is not stopped, this will be the start of an astronomical transfer of wealth, while the system survives. It might not survive long because most European governments are already heavily in debt and managing heavy welfare expenditures. In 2013, the last year for which data are available, general government gross debt in Austria was 81% of GDP, in Belgium 104%, France 92%, Germany 77%, Italy 128%, Spain 92%, and the United Kingdom 87%.11 In Sweden government debt is only about 39% of GDP but its immigrants from Africa and the Middle East are straining the budget. These immigrants make up about 16% of the population but take as much as 58% of welfare payments, representing a large wealth transfer from ethnic Swedes.12 That transfer is a bad investment because about 48% of working-age immigrants are unemployed. Even after 15 years in the country, 40% are not working. But welfare is still more fragile than these figures indicate. Research conducted at Germany's Max Planck Society indicates that ethnic change due to immigration will change taxpayers' motivation, reducing their willingness to support welfare. Comparison of welfare systems around the world shows that as ethnic diversity rises, welfare tends to decline.13 Not only welfare declines but any services relying on contributions to public goods. That includes cooperation with police, charities, medical and military authorities. Foreign aid, which is international welfare, is even more fragile. Foreign aid is strongly and negatively correlated with donor countries' ethnic diversity.14 The irony could not be more cruel. By accepting large numbers of people of non-Western cultures, who are seeking to benefit from generous welfare, European countries not only risk losing domestic welfare for natives and immigrants alike, but reducing their foreign aid to immigrants' homelands. It's a lose-lose strategy. Greater Ethnic Inequality Ethnic inequality, a major cause of civil conflict, will increase as a result of the present influx. When an ethnic group fails to achieve income equality down the generations, the effect is deeply ingrained resentment and a low threshold for civil unrest. That might be why second generation immigrants often show higher criminality than their parents. Once again there is no excuse for ignorance because Germany has its own native-born instructor on the causes of ethnic inequality. Thilo Sarrazin is an SPD politician and was, until 2010, board member of the Deutsche Bank, the year he published a book titled Germany Abolishes Itself: How We Risk Losing Our Country.15 Sarrazin documented the slow pace of integration of Turkish immigrants into German society and economy, their disproportionate reliance on government welfare and their higher fertility. He found that slow assimilation was caused by the Islamic religion and lower educational outcomes were caused by persistent ethnic tradition.16 When he wrote this, Angela Merkel was already German Chancellor. She condemned Sarrazin and endorsed his removal from the Deutsche Bank board, an omen of her 2015 radicalism and intolerance. It is certain that the present influx will escalate ethnic stratification in Germany and in Europe. If this were only due to poor languages skills and low education, the inequality could close within a generation or two (still an appalling assault on the receiving societies). But many of the immigrants come from populations with long records of poor educational and economic performance, likely to result in chronic ethnic stratification reminiscent of despotic empires.17 By importing a new underclass, Germany and Europe are abolishing their egalitarian national societies. Racialized Politics Turks protesting "Nazi terror", "job discrimination" and "daily racism" in Germany An open door policy is advocated by self-proclaimed anti-racists such as Angela Merkel and her allies on the far left. The "anti-fa" protesters who shout-down PEGIDA and other conservatives take it for granted that borders should be open to all comers. But one certain outcome of the new immigrant influx is the further racialization of politics and growing demographic pressure on ethnic Europeans. Racialization will take the form of sectarianism, ethnic parties, multiculturalism, school indoctrination, political correctness and affirmative action — discrimination meant to equalise outcomes. Racialized politics is already a fact of life in diverse societies such as Britain, France, the United States and Australia. Throughout recorded history societies controlled immigration, especially when it involved large numbers. Angela Merkel's and Francois Hollande's open door policy is a reckless social experiment that is already inducing compassion fatigue. Nationalist and anti-immigration parties are rising in Austria, Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, and Switzerland. The ethnic inequality discussed earlier is an important cause of racialization. By the second generation poorer immigrant groups, especially those that are culturally or racially visible, become susceptible to radicalization by ideologies that legitimate grievances. These ideologies help immigrants rationalise their low socioeconomic status and sense of alienation by making them out to be victims of White racism. The ideologies are acquired from universities, schools, the media, social workers, politicians and ethnic leaders. Victimhood ideologies also produce guilt and fear in Whites, by linking their ethnic identities — and only theirs — to extremism and fascism.18 This is unfair because White majorities are typically less ethnocentric than minorities. The myth of minority victimhood conditions the White majority to accept replacement-level immigration. These doctrines have been influential in English-speaking countries and much of Western Europe since the cultural revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. Meanwhile in Germany immigration politics has started in the non-democratic mode typical of ethnic politics throughout the West. No referendum is planned to give Germans a choice concerning their destiny. With minor exceptions, citizens do not even have the option of voting against the open door policy in a normal election, because the major parties support open borders. Germans who wish to have a say in immigration policy must vote for new parties that have not yet been captured by special interests. Reduced Civil Liberties Merkel discussing ways to limit "anti-immigrant" views with Facebook founder Zuckerberg Rising diversity undermines civil rights. Wherever the founding ethnic group has lost control of immigration, governments come under pressure from the political left and their minority clients to suppress "hate speech", which can include statements of opinion and fact. The limiting of free speech also precedes and helps cause the rise of replacement level immigration. But certainly it is also an effect of diversity. Restrictions of speech have a chilling effect on public debate. The millions now flooding into Germany and Europe are beneficiaries of this repression. Their presence will only increase pressure on government to crack down on restless natives. The underlying reason for the crackdown will be the rise of massive endemic social conflict, wholly predictable and indeed predicted by social scientists. Benefits? Arguments for Open Borders Are these costs outweighed by the benefits proposed by Angela Merkel and her supporters? Six main arguments have been advanced to persuade Germans to accept the influx: The first argument is Merkel's claim that Germany and Europe are morally obliged to settle genuine refugees. There is obviously a moral duty to help but the argument that refugees must be settled in Europe fails for two simple reasons. Firstly, many of the incomers are not refugees but economic immigrants. Secondly, the heavy costs imposed by the influx on native Germans means that a moral policy must optimise the two sides' interests, not maximize immigrant welfare at the expense of the host society. After all, the first duty of governments, especially in democracies, is to protect their constituents. Germany and the EU could be helping refugees in or near their own countries. The second argument is Merkel's claim that Germany will benefit by throwing off its Nazi legacy once and for all. This is a despicable argument because Germans are innocent of genocide, unless one accepts the Nazi doctrine of collective racial guilt. The opposite effect is more likely. Vilification of ethnic Germans could intensify because Merkel has launched a new era of racialized politics in which exponents of mass Third World immigration will use any victimhood narrative to silence the majority. The third argument was stated by the German Interior Minister in mid September 2015.19 He claimed that the government had no choice but to accept any number of refugees because Article 16a, paragraph 1, of the German constitution, the Grundgesetz, states that "Persons persecuted on political grounds shall have the right of asylum." This is a strictly legalistic argument because, as we have seen, there is no moral duty to settle large numbers of refugees in Germany. So let's look more closely at the law. Paragraph 2 of Article 16a of the Grundgesetz states that paragraph 1 does not apply to persons entering the Federal Republic "from a member state of the European Communities".20 The overwhelming majority of refugees entering Germany have come via other EU states. Germany was entitled to prevent them entering but the Merkel government suspended the Dublin Regulation, which requires asylum seekers to be returned to the European country of first arrival.21 How could Germany have accepted this EU law in the first place if it contradicted the German constitution? If, on the other hand, the Dublin Regulation reflects article 16a of the constitution, how could it be so easily suspended?22 Clearly Germany and the EU can legally protect their borders. It is Merkel and other EU leaders who allowed the influx, not any law. The fourth argument was advanced by Merkel and Mercedes CEO Dieter Zetsch, who maintained that the refugees will make productive workers. Zetsch stated: "They could, like the guest workers from decades ago, help us preserve and improve our prosperity. For Germany cannot any more fill the jobs available." This is utopian speculation that runs counter to precedent and knowledge of cultural differences. More likely, Germany will be burdened by immigrant communities suffering high unemployment and concentrated in low productivity unskilled jobs. The fifth argument is even more radical. It was stated by demographer Stephan Sievert, of the Berlin Institute for Population and Development. Sievert optimistically stated that Germany's population was at last growing, after decades of stagnation.23 Sievert does not admit that his implied policy entails the rapid demographic replacement of the German ethnic family, in effect cultural genocide by stages. If the German people were given the opportunity to vote on this policy, perhaps a majority would agree with German author Botho Strauss, who declared that he prefers to live among his own people even if they are falling in numbers, rather than live in an imposed cultural mix.24 A sixth argument has been offered by Merkel, in her New Year's address for 2016. It is the open border mantra, that immigration is generally good. Merkel stated that "countries have always benefited from successful immigration, both economically and socially".25 It is a danger sign when highly educated people resort to tautologies, such as deducing that successful immigration is successful. In fact immigrant societies — America, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, France, and others — are all well down the track of turning their founding cultures into minorities without ever offering them a democratic choice. Merkel also followed the usual pro-immigration line by accusing her critics of "coldness or even hatred", implying that she is motivated by warmer emotions. And she foreshadowed a new inclusive definition of what it means to be German, which is a prudent move for someone intent on demographic transformation. Omitted from this latest statement, but likely to follow, are other elements of the pro-immigration mantra, such as diversity is strength, or German identity is the same as citizenship, or school children must be educated in tolerance, or immigrants rescue German culture from its white-bread impoverishment. These arguments and assertions are completely normal in Western societies whose political classes have opened them to mass immigration. These six alleged benefits of massive unselected immigration are typical of the intellectual level of open border arguments elsewhere in Western countries. That such shallow and sometimes mendacious rhetoric is uttered by intelligent individuals would be impossible without their near monopoly of media access resulting from the ideological intolerance that has suppressed open debate for decades. Conclusion: Jeopardy — Will Europe Survive? The evidence just reviewed indicates that dire warnings are not overstated. The ethnic transformation now being inflicted on Germany and the rest of Europe by its political class, if continued, will severely damage European culture and way of life. The opposed arguments are flimsy and fail entirely to address the perceived risks. Commentators are not exaggerating then they warn that European civilization, the result of three millennia of cultural evolution, is in jeopardy. Hopefully common sense will prevail and journalists and politicians will listen respectfully to the people's concerns and aspirations. Perhaps Merkel and Hollande will recover from their moral mania and free themselves from special interests long enough to deign the flood to recede. Perhaps the EU will formulate a conservative immigration policy, one that does not cater mainly to the interests of immigrants, minorities and the corporate sector but also respects Europeans by preserving their identities, cultures, domestic peace, equality and national cohesion. It is more likely that voters will solve the problem than Europe's intellectually corrupt political class, and that new parties will be granted the power to reclaim national sovereignty from the failed EU project. In that case the EU will collapse, as individual nations move to protect themselves from the Schengen Agreement, now become a mortal threat instead of a promise. That could form the basis for a new trans-European movement that protects the identities and ways of life of individual nations and Europe as a whole. But until now these considerations have been foreign to Angela Merkel and her supporters. She sells her open door policy as humanitarian. But in reality this is a cruel policy likely to produce suffering across Germany and Europe. She has failed to consider the interests of individual European nations or of Europe as a whole. Europe's political class has, in effect, embraced the most aggressive form of multiculturalism, in which the establishment forms an alliance with minorities to dominate the majority. The suffering the open door policy will bring — the inequality, including the special evil of ethnic stratification, the collapse of welfare, the crime, the slums and no-go areas, the degradation of women, the racialization of politics, the decline in wages, the loss of national cohesion, the growing sense of loss and alienation among Germans and immigrants alike, the accelerated replacement of Europeans in their ancient homelands, the constriction of civil rights and the pervasive chaos — all of this will last for generations. Merkel is doubly cruel because she is stripping developing societies of their more educated and industrious people. The inevitable fall in European foreign aid will hurt poor countries around the world, caused by the stagnation of European economies and decline in social capital. A responsible policy would resemble the British strategy of helping refugees in or near their own countries while restricting their immigration to Europe, though it should be noted that in Britain non-refugee immigration is out of control. For Germany the situation is more threatening due to its toxic political culture, despite its present low level of ethnic diversity. The country's chances of recovery — which means adopting a sustainable immigration policy — depend on how the following questions are answered by events. How long will it take for the present reaction to become a powerful political force? How long before Germany's leadership feels the wrath of a people enraged at the prospect of the transformation of their country? And should the reaction become intense, will citizens remain mobilised long enough to build political organisations sufficiently powerful to correct the situation? Will they be able to inflict political censure on Merkel and the political class so stark that it neutralises the incentives offered by the establishment? Will they be able to do so in the teeth of relentless attacks from the mainstream media and educational establishments? Will they stay focused long enough to renegotiate EU arrangements or withdraw Germany from them? Will they persist long enough to push through constitutional amendments that define Germany as the homeland of the German people and allow legal redress against leaders who attempt demographic replacement? Whether or not there is a pause in the influx, Germans and other Europeans should educate themselves about the deep causes of this disaster and how to prevent its recurrence.  http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2016/01/germanys-jeopardy-could-immigrant-influx-end-european-civilization.html Frank Salter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Salter Website http://socialtechnologies.com.au/ ---------------------------------------- COMMENT Video/Audio appears to cover the above article (so far). Article worthwhile reading. ---------------------------------------- Europa-Evropa

Manufactured 'Refugee Crisis' - Invasion of Europe - US-Anglo Strategy to Weaken Ally Europe

---------------------------------------- ARTICLE ---------------------------------------- Nikolai Starikov: Explains Who Is Behind Europe's Refugee Crisis Russian Insider Published:  Oct 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTDlY4o23XA 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 ---------------------------------------- Nikolai Starikov Russian writer, opinion journalist, social activist and a co-chairman of Great Fatherland Party & subsidiary social NGO, Union of Russian Citizens Starikov is the organizer of the "Goebbels' Award", which is awarded to "people who lie about, slander and vilify Russia". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Starikov ---------------------------------------- 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

Invaders as Welcome as Ebola - Germans Are Afraid

---------------------------------------- ARTICLE ---------------------------------------- Invaders as Welcome as Ebola 16 Year Old German Girl https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGfP8CyJAhg Nobody Respects Merkel:  Merkel Destroyed Germany German People Are Afraid Germans Are Censored by the Government German 'Justice' is Providing Welfare for Aliens Needy Germans Who Have Worked for Decades in Their Own Country Are Denied Support. Germany Does Nothing for the Homeless / Taxpayer Money Spent on Invaders German Children & Elderly Raped by Invaders Why isn't Germany closing borders, arresting & deporting invader savages? Please help the German people. ---------------------------------------- COMMENT No way known is Germany a sovereign state. Germany remains an American post-WWII puppet-state, through which American interests are destroying the rest of Europe. This isn't just a war on Germans, it's a war on all Europeans wherever they may be:   look at the demographics. ---------------------------------------- Europa-Evropa

Europe Turns to Shit, As Genocidal Government & Media Lie

---------------------------------------- ARTICLE ---------------------------------------- Europe Turns to Shit, As Genocidal Government & Media Lie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U36fCE_vCE Published:  Sept 2015 INVADER SAVAGERY / discuss robbing, raping & taking Europeans hostage / use random children as shields / defecated where they stood / 90% able-bodied healthy men 18-45 years / trampling food / shouting 'money' / grabbing at passers-by, trying to take luggage & valuables / aside from hatred & absolute ill-will, they have nothing to offer Europeans ---------------------------------------- COMMENT What the genocidal government and lying corporate media won't tell you. ---------------------------------------- Europa-Evropa

Corrupt European Union Pig Lies - European Invasion & RAPE Crisis - Spun as 'Unassociated' 'Refugee Crisis'

---------------------------------------- ARTICLE ---------------------------------------- Corrupt European Union Pig Lies - European Invasion & RAPE Crisis - Spun as No Connection to 'Refugee Crisis' Lies & Genocidal Policies DAILY MAIL - UK - HEADLINE LINK | DM ARTICLE DAILY MAIL UK READER COMMENTS CLICK image for Enlargement  COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. ---------------------------------------- COMMENT How good would it be to see Europe overthrow these corrupt, lying pigs facilitating rape, assault, murder and dispossession of native Europeans? ---------------------------------------- Europa-Evropa

Austria - 72 Year Old Raped By Afghan - 20-Month Slap on the Wrist

---------------------------------------- ARTICLE ---------------------------------------- https://www.rt.com/news/330571-afghan-raped-pensioner-austria/ Austria not to deport Afghan asylum seeker who raped 72yo woman Published time: 29 Jan, 2016 11:27 An 18-year-old asylum seeker in Austria who raped a 72-year-old pensioner will not be deported to Afghanistan. Instead he will serve a 20-month sentence in prison and continue to live in Austria. The Afghan asylum seeker, who was identified as Wahab M., faced the Regional Court on Wednesday for raping an old lady, Austrian press reported. The court found him guilty and sentenced to 20 months in jail and issued a €5,000 fine. The maximum penalty would have been up to five years, according to Austria’s Kurier newspaper, but the judges considered several mitigating factors such as his being underage (the attacker was 17 at the time of the incident), his confession and the absence of a criminal record. READ MORE: Vienna’s police chief under fire after advising women not to walk alone at night After serving his sentence, the refugee will remain in Austria as he received a short term in jail (less than three years). In the meantime, the newspaper revealed new details of the case. The 72-year-old woman was identified as Christina F., from the town of Traiskirchen, in eastern Austria. Traiskirchen currently has one of the biggest refugee centers in Austria. Christina’s daughter Sylvia was reportedly working with asylum seekers. The incident took place on September 1, 2015, local media reported, but police didn’t reveal it at the time because of the sensitivity of the case. "It was a really hot day and I decided to take my dog for a walk along the Schwechat River [in Traiskirchen], and saw two young men swimming there,” the old lady recalled, as cited by Kurier newspaper. READ MORE: Police in German town advised not to prosecute migrant offenders over petty crimes – media One of the young men reached out his hand to her and asked her to help him onto the bank, she said, adding that she helped him without any suspicion. "Suddenly, I felt a blow from behind,” Christina said, adding that she was grabbed and pushed to the ground. The man put his hand over her mouth and tore off her clothing. READ MORE: Swedish prosecutors won’t probe reported cover-up of sex assaults by refugees The old woman, who weighed only 48 kilograms, was unable to resist the attacker. Also her dog was 13 years old and “was sadly not up to protecting his mistress from the attack," a friend of the old woman, Hans Vesely, 72, later said. After the attack, she managed to get home. Later she was found by her friend whom she told what happened after he saw the bruises on her body. "She is not the same woman anymore. She doesn't trust being left on her own and does not leave home, and she's become very weak since the incident," Vesely said. Initially the authorities were not able to find the perpetrator. He was caught after committing a petty crime which required his DNA sample. The sample matched the one found on the old lady and authorities arrested the refugee. First he denied the accusations, saying that he was drunk and didn’t have a clue what exactly happened. His friend also said he saw nothing. Eventually Wahab M. admitted the rape, following the disclosure of DNA evidence. Austrian authorities deported at least 3,278 asylum seekers in 2015, Interior Minister estimates say. In most cases, they were deported because their applications were rejected and only a few of them because of criminal convictions. Sexual harassment of women by male refugees and migrants has been a hot topic recently. The first city to report about such cases on New Year’s Eve was Cologne, Germany where “heavily intoxicated” men of “Arab or North African” origin were harassing and assaulting local women en masse in the city center. Similar incidents have been reported in other German cities such as Berlin, Frankfurt and Stuttgart. Police were accused of covering up migrant attacks. https://www.rt.com/news/330571-afghan-raped-pensioner-austria/ ---------------------------------------- COMMENT Reading this makes me sick. The attack on this old woman is disgusting. Elderly people are about as vulnerable as children, in the sense that they're weak and they can't defend themselves.  Old people are additionally vulnerable, in that their bones break easily AND an attack like this can have enormous and long-lasting physical consequences, as well as enormous psychological consequences. Nobody's mother or grandmother should go through this. I feel like crying reading this.  It is beyond belief that the sentence for rape in Austria is a mere 5 years and that one can violently attack and rape an elderly woman and get a mere 20 months.  It is also beyond belief that this danger to society is not deported from Europe, where he does not belong in the first place. How can Europeans continue to allow this? It's preposterous that governments (eg the British and the US / most likely EU-NATO effort) spent Western taxpayer money on 'stop rape in war' styled political PR schemes, (targeting third world countries that politicians are intent on stealing resources from ... countries where I'm betting rape is prevalent not only in war, going by the assaults on European women), while European politicians FACILITATE RAPE of European women. Meanwhile, POLICE SUPPRESS RAPE-BY-MIGRANT INFORMATION and violent assaults of Eurpean women, to protect: 1. the foreign invaders; 2. the politicians who have facilitated invasion and rape; so that European authorities may preserve ongoing genocidal immigration policies. All the while, the media, the liberal left intelligentsia, and the rent-a-protest (or stage a candlelit vigil) mob, demand the destruction of Europe and rape of European women, as feminists and sundry do-gooders remain silent. ---------------------------------------- Europa-Evropa

Sweden & Immigration Bedlam - Europe

---------------------------------------- ARTICLE ---------------------------------------- Europe - True Face of Fascism - 'We Are the Others' LINK | Post Propaganda & Exploitation FAIL Sweden National Police Commissioner Social Democrat party member  & killer-sympathiser: Dan Eliasson LINK | Post Sweden LIES & DAMAGE CONTROL Mission Impossible Deportation LINK | Post ---------------------------------------- COMMENT These might be of interest to anyone else that's following the European immigration bedlam. ---------------------------------------- Europa-Evropa ᛞ ᛞ