Chaos on the streets of Paris
There is a growing belief that the masses of war refugee’s entering Europe may be the result of a much larger strategy. This week we look at a round-table discussion with James Corbett, former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, and two guests who dissect the situation.
The first significant information comes from Edmonds, who had returned from a trip to the Greek island of Lesbos. She comments that many of the refugees were not actually from Syria, but were from Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and other nations being targeted by the U.S. and NATO. Further, she states that some refugee’s were guided into Europe by American and NATO advisers, providing them with routes and supplies. This admission makes it clear that the flood of rag-tag war victims into Europe is indeed part of an organized plan.
The discussion moves to the work of Professor Kelly Greenhill, author of “Weapons of Mass Migration” Greenhill provides a detailed thesis as to how forced migration has been used as an economic and military tool. Here is a short excerpt from a PDF of her thesis:
Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement as an Instrument of Coercion
Kelly M. Greenhill[1]
“Coercion is generally understood to refer to the practice of inducing or preventing changes in political behavior through the use of threats, intimidation, or some other form of pressure—most commonly, military force. This article focuses on a very particular nonmilitary method of applying coercive pressure—the use of migration and refugee crises as instruments of persuasion. Conventional wisdom suggests this kind of coercion is rare at best.[2] Traditional international relations theory avers that it should rarely succeed. In fact, given the asymmetry in capabilities that tends to exist between would be coercers and their generally more powerful targets, it should rarely even be attempted.[3] However, as this article demonstrates, not only is this kind of coercion attempted far more frequently than the accepted wisdom would suggest but that it also tends to succeed far more often than capabilities-based theories would predict.
The article is organized as follows: I begin by outlining the logic behind the coercive use of purposefully created migration and refugee crises and discuss its relative—if under-recognized— prevalence.[4] In the second section, I briefly describe the kind of actors who resort to the use of this unconventional weapon as well as highlight the diverse array of objectives sought by those who employ it. I also show that this kind of coercion has proven relatively successful, at least as compared to more traditional methods of persuasion, particularly against (generally more powerful) liberal democratic targets. In the third section, I propose an explanation for why democracies appear to have been most frequently (and most successfully) targeted. I also advance my broader theory about the nature of migration-driven coercion, including how, why, and under what conditions it can prove efficacious. I conclude with a brief discussion of broader implications and further applications of the theory.
Defining, Measuring, and Identifying Coercive Engineered Migration
Coercive engineered migrations (or coercion-driven migrations) are “those cross-border population movements that are deliberately created or manipulated in order to induce political, military and/or economic concessions from a target state or states.”[5] The instruments employed to affect this kind of coercion are myriad and diverse. They run the gamut from compulsory to permissive, from the employment of hostile threats and the use of military force (as were used during the 1967-1970 Biafran and 1992-1995 Bosnian civil wars) through the offer of positive inducements and provision of financial incentives (as were offered to North Vietnamese by the United States in 1954-1955, following the First Indochina War) to the straightforward opening of normally sealed borders (as was done by President Erich Honecker of East Germany in the early
117 Strategic Insights
Vol. 9 (1) Spring/Summer 2010
1980s).[6]
Coercive engineered migration is frequently, but not always, undertaken in the context of population outflows strategically generated for other reasons. In fact, it represents just one subset of a broader class of events that all rely on the creation and exploitation of such crises as means to political and military ends—a phenomenon I call strategic engineered migration.[7] Coercive engineered migration is often embedded within mass migrations strategically engineered for dispossessive, exportive, or militarized reasons. It is likely, at least in part as a consequence of its embedded and often camouflaged nature, that its prevalence has also been generally underrecognized and its significance, underappreciated. Indeed, it is a phenomenon that for many observers has been hiding in plain sight. For instance, it is widely known that in 1972 Idi Amin expelled most Asians from Uganda in what has been commonly interpreted as a naked attempt at economic asset expropriation.[8] Far less well understood, however, is the fact that approximately 50,000 of those expelled were British passport-holders, and that these expulsions happened at the same time that Amin was trying to convince the British to halt their drawdown of military assistance to his country. In short, Amin announced his intention to foist 50,000 refugees on the British, but did so with a convenient ninety-day grace period to give the British an opportunity to rescind their decision regarding aid.[9] And Amin was far from unique.
Measuring Incidence
In fact, well over forty groups of displaced people have been used as pawns in at least fifty-six discrete attempts at coercive engineered migration since the advent of the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention alone.”
http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/11515/SI_V9_I1_2010_Greenhill_116.pdf
——————————————————–
I have embedded the discussion below, I highly recommend that people listen and understand the larger implications of this terrible situation, one directly caused by U.S./NATO wars with huge socioeconomic goals for the future:
https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1219-newsbud-roundtable-on-the-migrant-crisis/
Update: ‘Philanthropist’ George Soros Set To Make A Killing From Europe’s ‘Forced Migration’
| Zero Hedge
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-21/philanthropist-george-soros-set-make-killing-europes-forced-migration
(Excerpts)
“Soros, naturally, does not blush at telling us what our governments “must” do.
The term “forced migration” is clever mind hook. You may be sure that it was worked on for hours and many alternatives discarded. Its power lies in the fact that it implies both helplessness in the face of an unstoppable external force and inevitability of result – while at the same time disregarding causes.
If anyone still cares, the causes include: attacks by the US and Nato on countries which have done them no harm; Angela Merkel’s open invitation to the third world to move to Europe; material and informational support from Soros-funded organizations.
Soros continues: “In response, I have decided to earmark $500 million for investments that specifically address the needs of migrants, refugees and host communities. I will invest in startups, established companies, social-impact initiatives and businesses founded by migrants and refugees themselves. Although my main concern is to help migrants and refugees arriving in Europe, I will be looking for good investment ideas that will benefit migrants all over the world.”
I will translate: “Now that the inflow of immigrants has been set up, I am going to invest $500 million to make the process unstoppable, endless and self-funding, and make a lot of money for myself at the same time. And since this is dressed in the language of compassion, there is nothing you can say against it.”
Back to Soros’ letter: “This commitment of investment equity will complement the philanthropic contributions my foundations have made to address forced migration, a problem we have been working on globally for decades and to which we have dedicated significant financial resources.”
Just remove the words ‘philanthropic’ (which does not mean at the elite level what you think it means) and realize that ‘address’ means ‘facilitate’ to Soros, and you will understand this sentence correctly; this is a carefully crafted statement of policy.
He continues: “We will seek investments in a variety of sectors, among them emerging digital technology, which seems especially promising as a way to provide solutions to the particular problems that dislocated people often face. Advances in this sector can help people gain access more efficiently to government, legal, financial and health services. Private businesses are already investing billions of dollars to develop such services for non-migrant communities.
This is why money now moves instantaneously from one mobile wallet to another, drivers find customers by using only a cellphone, and how a doctor in North America can see a patient in Africa in real time. Customizing and extending these innovations to serve migrants will help improve the quality of life for millions around the world.
All of the investments we make will be owned by my nonprofit organization. They are intended to be successful—because I want to show how private capital can play a constructive role helping migrants—and any profits will go to fund programs at the Open Society Foundations, including programs that benefit migrants and refugees.”
“This is cultural- and ethnic-cleansing in a business suit; it is the de facto usurpation of the nation state as a social construct for the peoples of Europe as part of a multi-purpose war – one designed to destroy oil-rich states and any state with no central bank, while simultaneously collapsing sovereign states.”
————————————-
More at link
