A ChemtrailsGeelong.com Article
Counterfeit Charity and the Invasion of Europe
|Above: a particularly felicitous illustration for the article "Madness in the Med: how charity rescue boats exacerbate the refugee crisis" by Italian-based UK journalist, Nicholas Farrell, in July of this year.|
The response of Jorge Bergolio, the man calling himself "Pope Francis", to the so-called refugee crisis, otherwise known as the recent invasion of Europe, has been a telling one.
It has essentially consisted in appeals to Catholics around the world (especially Italians) to accept irregular/illegal arrivals into their countries more or less indiscriminately and with open arms.
Unfortunately, however, for those spouting the humanitarian rhetoric in which the recent invasion of Europe has been couched, similarly motivated non-government organizations (NGOs) have had to largely withdraw their boats and ships from the central Mediterranean amid accusations that they had been acting as little more than aiders and abettors of the human trafficking operations that have plagued the region in recent times and resulted in the deaths of thousands of people. Though the NGO fleets were ostensibly in the area for the purpose of conducting rescue missions for boat people in distress, cogent evidence has surfaced indicating an ulterior motive and function.
It would appear that human trafficking boats loaded with economic migrants from mostly Africa and the subcontinent were setting out to sea from Libya with foreknowledge of the locations of NGO ships waiting not far off the Libyan coast, a fairly simple matter using marine tracking websites for instance. Passengers would then be picked up by the waiting NGO vessels and ferried the rest of the way to Italy, where they were no doubt passed off as people rescued at sea, a description that in truth, likely applied only very loosely to most of them. In any case, the fact that maritime law requires that people rescued at sea be taken to the nearest port to the point of "rescue", which in said cases was almost invariably a port in North Africa, and not Italy, appears to have continuously escaped the attention of the NGO fleet. An independent Dutch research company, Gefira, tracked as many as 39,000 migrants being transported to southern Italian ports from just off the coast of Libya in only two months.
Of course, it comes as little surprise to anyone in the world with their eyes open, that Jewish multi-billionaire George Soros is responsible for significant funding of key players connected to the Mediterranean "rescue" operations and associated propaganda, nor is it surprising that same organizations use similar humanitarian pretexts to the ones invoked by Bergolio, the kind that are so effective with well-meaning but all too gullible volunteers and members of the public.
Consider. Many of the new arrivals to Southern Italy, with little else to do during the day except beg, will be perfectly placed for future recruitment by the likes of Soros for their own foul purposes in Europe. Not to mention Mafia elements who are also believed to be complicit in the human smuggling operations. Are we so certain then that these (mostly) young men would not have been better off in their own countries and continent? Is it not a kind of arrogance to assume it? To flee from a difficult situation is not always for the best. Did Christ flee from the cross? To avoid conflict or hardship is not necessarily helpful. Are there not some things worth fighting for? And what do we really know anyway about these people, beyond statistics? Honestly. Are we prepared to acknowledge the limitation of our own perception of their actual experience? Or of their perception of ours? Notwithstanding the propaganda, can we accept that we may not know what is best for them? Or that they may not know what is best for themselves? Perhaps they too are chasing illusions. In any case, there is a lot of assuming going on in the notion that bringing them to their desired destination is an unquestionable virtue.
The NGO fleet has now largely left the Mediterranean, after Italian authorities began to insist on conditions that make it impossible for them to continue their criminal activities. The fact that they and associated propaganda efforts were largely responsible for the continuity of life-risking smuggling operations that have resulted in thousands of deaths at sea, is no better evinced than by the fact that since the long overdue crackdown by Italian authorities in July this year and the subsequent departure of most of the NGOs from the area, the flow of boat people into Italy and out of Libya has grinded to a near halt, down 85% already in August. Just as it did in Greece a little over a year earlier when internal EU border policy changes made it clear that coveted destinations such as Germany and Sweden would no longer be accessible via Macedonia and the Western Balkan route of Central Eastern Europe.
Key to the drastic reduction of numbers of attempted crossings between Libya and Italy in recent months is the fact that the Italian coastguard has ceased to cooperate with NGOs as if their interests are one and the same. The critical change is a psychological one: the Italian people are no longer permitting themselves to be bullied into submission by the misguided and pernicious notion that the NGOs have somehow the higher moral ground. They have seen through the devil's pious mask and demanded an objective investigation and appraisal of the facts.
What is abundantly clear is this: if preventing tragedies at sea is really the goal, then the best approach is sensible, well-executed border policy that discourages human smuggling operations in the first place by rendering them unprofitable, not the pious posturing of men like Bergoglio or the questionable virtue of NGOs with an ulterior agenda more political than humanitarian and unknown perhaps even to most of their own staff and boat crews.
In fact, as previously noted, maritime law requires that all "rescued" boat people be taken to the port nearest to the point of rescue, which in the case of those coming from Libya and catching the connecting NGO ferry service to Italy, has been invariably a port in North Africa, not Italy. The NGOs were deliberately breaking the law by taking them to Lampedusa or Sicily and not straight back where they came from. Indeed, a strict policy of taking them straight back where they came from, coupled with confiscation of boats, is what the Italian authorities ought to have been doing from the get go, no matter where the point of pick up. And if maritime law requires that those genuinely in distress be taken first to a nearby Italian port then let them be deported from there, as soon as humanely possible.
There are regular, legal channels for entry to a country. If a man comes by pre-authorised channels then he is a migrant, a visitor or a tourist, if not then he is an invader. Clearly, other distinctions based upon subjective value judgements that reduce the matter to a dangerously arbitrary one should be avoided. It is absurd to expect a nation to reward those who would bypass proper entry channels by granting them permission to stay. It makes a mockery of the rule of law or the will of the people or both, without which a nation ceases to be a place that anyone would wish to take risks to enter in the first place. And if enforcement of law encourages greater risk taking by those attempting the crossing, then why should anyone be responsible for what happens to them but themselves?
Please just try to understand this. I can choose to jump off a cliff, does that mean you are obliged to save me? (Let's assume that you have not in any way previously agreed to do so.) Why should you be responsible for my stupidity or recklessness? Or even for my calculated risk? You may wish to save me, and you may, but you are not obliged to do so. To think otherwise, as false prophets teach, is to place the autonomy of your soul in jeopardy. Many people are ruthlessly manipulated in that way. Rather let kindness come from your heart when it will. All else is but hypocrisy and display, for the sake of power, convenience or self-image.
There is a greater wisdom in the reality of oneself, however seemingly imperfect and raw, than in the superficiality of thought, however lofty or sophisticated it seems to be. Hypocrisy once permitted quickly overtakes a man, and a nation. The truth is that allowing others to take the consequences of what they do can sometimes be, in the long run, the kindest response. Short term losses can mean long term savings or gains, and death is not the worst thing that can befall a man. Of course that doesn't mean that one should seek out death or take stupid risks, it means that there is more to life than the body and the things of the body. It is the failure of the atheist and the materialist and the coward to perceive this that locks him into the hypocrisy of false effort, and makes him so easy to manipulate. Yet it is only when one has accepted the limitation of thought, of self-image, that one is free to be and to see. And to grow.
I can choose to jump off a cliff, does that mean you are obliged to save me? Why should you be responsible for my stupidity or recklessness? Or even for my calculated risk? You may wish to save me, and you may, but you are not obliged to do so. To think otherwise is to place the autonomy of your soul in jeopardy. Rather let kindness come from your heart when it will. All else is but hypocrisy and display, for the sake of power, convenience or self-image.
Consider. Though most of the irregular/illegal newcomers into Italy from as far back as the beginning of 2015 have been economic migrants from Africa and elsewhere, the majority of the Mediterranean sea arrivals (overall) in recent years, including to Greece, have been from war-torn Middle Eastern countries, especially Syria. Of course, the question as to why these people have resorted to leaving their homes in the first place is never addressed honestly by the mainstream media or most academic commentators. Instead the continuous wars and conflicts for Israel and Jewish interests that followed in the wake of 9/11 and are the principal cause of the refugee crisis of recent years (including the highly co-ordinated European invasion of 2015/16) are disguised behind propaganda terms like "civil war", "failed state" and the "war on terror".
Now it would appear that Iran is next in the sights of the Jewish warmongers - if they can get away with it, which is doubtful. The West is waking up, at last. As one disgruntled and disgusted American recently expressed it: "The Jews have always shown a willingness to fight to the last American." To which one might feel inclined to add one's own nationality.
|Invasion! According to official estimates more than one million irregular arrivals, mostly from the Middle East, streamed into Europe in 2015 alone.|
There is an all too familiar pattern here, that may be discernible to readers of this website. It is one of crisis and response being shaped by one and the same hidden hand and background agenda, and the same cynical recourse to humanitarian or philanthropic pretext. There is also the exploiting of false historical guilt engendered by the Holocaust swindle, a psychological strategy that at least until recently has rendered many former WW2 Axis nations particularly vulnerable to obfuscations designed to blind them to their real interests. And though the effectiveness of the strategy is certainly not limited to former Axis nations, it is interesting to note that of the top seven European nations for numbers of first time asylum applications since 2008, four are WW2 Axis nations and one other WW2 neutral, with Germany in first place by a factor of more than three over second place. One can't help but reflect on the effectiveness of a propaganda machine that renders a nation's people its own worst enemy, not to mention its politicians and judiciary. But that is changing.
As already noted, there are clear signs that the peoples of Europe and the UK (and elsewhere) are stirring in the face of what has amounted to a thinly veiled invasion of their homelands by racial and spiritual foreigners aided and abetted not only by NGOs, but by their own so-called leaders and the utterly soulless EU. Of course, such signs of awakening are both welcome and encouraging, but it is a pity to see so many allowing themselves to be distracted by controlled opposition forces and politicians all too ready to focus on the ostensibly Islamic symptom of the migration problem, while ignoring the underlying Jewish cause. Surely any serious tackling of the issue must address both. And not merely at street level, but at the level of government policy.
After all, the question now is really an existential one for Europe. The people of the UK know that much, hence their courageous stand for Brexit, despite the continuing efforts of compromised (and compromising) politicians, policy makers and fear-mongers on both sides of the English channel to undermine it. And the recent election in Germany indicates an encouraging shift in perception there also. But if Europe and the UK (not to mention the US and Australia and others) are to be really free from the inevitable consequences of conflicts that have nothing to do with the best interests of their people, and can only result in more human catastrophes like the refugee crisis of recent times, then they will have to let go of illusions about both the present and the past that prevent them from seeing the world as it really is.
It is long overdue.
"The Jewish Role in the Refugee Crisis"
An interesting clip from an independent UK researcher, particularly the well made point about glaring Israeli and Jewish double standards on immigration.
Also in October: "False Prophet Bergoglio Chimes in to Save Doomed Psychiatry Racket"
The recent claim of Jorge Bergoglio (the man currently calling himself "Pope Francis") that he had weekly sessions over a period of six months in the late 1970s with a Jewish psychoanalyst raises serious questions for discerning observers about just how compromised the man at the head of the Catholic church really is ....
|Above: Zundel (left) with legendary civil rights barrister Doug Christie at the height of battle in the 1980s.|