The roots of the European migrant crisis, which of course is directly tied to the proxy wars and chaos in the Middle East (particularly in places like Libya and Syria), run through foreign policy objectives implemented by Washington and Tel Aviv. This article will address them both, since that’s the only way you’ll be able to grasp what’s really going on as opposed to the constant media spin and propaganda we’re subjected to on a daily basis. First, let’s look at the US and NATO’s role in the attack on Libya and the underlying reasons for Gaddafi’s killing that naturally led to Libya becoming a completely failed state and breeding ground for terrorists.
Back in 2003, probably fearing that the Bush-Cheney regime would use his previous funding of certain groups the US designates as “terrorists” as justification to lump him in with the “Axis of Evil” list, Gaddafi renounced radical Muslim jihadists and handed over all his weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) in a move that even Time magazine recognized by writing “Now Gaddafi’s a Good Guy”. He then established full diplomatic relations with the US shortly afterwards. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t last, since he’s wasn’t privy to a secret US military plan within the Pentagon hierarchy to take out 7 countries in 5 years including Libya. This plan was specifically told to Wesley Clark, who had been the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, by a 3-Star general in the Pentagon late in 2001. The countries that this general mentioned the Pentagon was going to take out were: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finally ending with Iran. Later on in 2008, neocon Douglas Feith (under-secretary of defense for policy at the time) said that Donald Rumsfeld had sent a letter to President Bush on September 30th, 2001 that the US should seek to establish “new regimes” in the seven countries I’ve just enumerated.
After 9/11, the Neocons that came to power under the Bush-Cheney White House had previously written what their geopolitical playbook would be with “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” under the aegis of a Neocon think tank known as Project for the New American Century (PNAC), wherein they advocated that the US use its military might to project its power abroad to protect its “national interests” (i.e. US multinationals like Exxon-Mobile) and prevent any other country from becoming a legitimate rival to US hegemony now that the Soviet Union had dissolved as a major super power in the world. Another somewhat more covert (though no less important) aspect of US foreign policy as it pertains to the Middle East is its unequivocal support, both economically and politically, for the State of Israel that includes its illegal territorial ambitions in the region. We’ll deal with that later; for now let’s go back to Libya.
Prior to the French and US led NATO attack back in 2011, on behalf of radical Islamic jihadists in the Benghazi region, Libya was a flourishing and prosperous country. Gaddafi shared his country’s oil profits with his citizenry, had developed the largest agricultural irrigation project in the world helping to green the country for farmers, would advance $20,000 to newly married couples, and had the highest standard of living out of any African country. Where he made a fatal mistake, however, in terms of so-called US as well as French “national interests” is when he began to advocate for what he called a “Pan-African Union”. A major part of this philosophy was an economic system to fund their own development projects outside the control of the predatory IMF/World Bank system and the French domination of Francophone countries that would be backed in part by the Libyan Dinar, which was subsequently backed by gold and silver. This would not be tolerated by the IMF/World Bank nor France, who have always sought to plunder Africa’s rich mineral, oil, and precious metal resources on the one hand, while keeping the countries of Africa exploited and enslaved to debt on the other hand.
Disrupting that scenario, as Gaddafi did, is what triggered the coup d’etat of Western-backed rebel jihadists, who would take over the country only with the massive aerial bombing support by NATO fighter jets. So, even though the vast majority of the Libyan people were pro-Gaddafi, you had a handful of radical jihadists (including Al-Qaeda of North Africa and the Al-Nusra Front), who began an insurrection against him. Naturally, Gaddafi launched a counter-offensive, where he had practically wiped out these radical jihadists with very little bloodshed. The only stronghold left that they still controlled was in the city of Benghazi. At one point, he told the “rebels” to throw down their weapons, and they wouldn’t be harmed. However, it is at this stage in the campaign that the US State Department under Secretary Hillary Clinton pressed for attacking Gaddafi under the assumption that to do nothing would lead to a “bloodbath” of the civilian population in Benghazi. International human rights organizations like Amnesty International knew that it was an absurd claim, given that there was no indication that Gaddafi would risk being ostracized by the world community by committing such atrocities against his own people. But, as usual, lies and BS hysterics won out, and NATO launched a major bombing campaign against the Libyan army to aid the rebels in taking over the country, where it very quickly descended into civil war and chaos.
It is now known that military intervention into Libya by NATO wasn’t anything to do with humanitarian reasons. Even then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta admitted in his memoirs that, “our goal in Libya was regime change.” As documented by David Ray Griffin in his excellent book, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World, when Gaddafi’s own son, Saif, along with other high-ranking members of the Libyan regime tried to negotiate a resolution, Hillary Clinton told a general at the Pentagon to refuse to take the calls, since as an intelligence asset working with the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Saif, “Secretary Clinton does not want to negotiate at all.” So, if anyone was out for blood, it was then Secretary Hillary Clinton. After Gaddafi’s beaten, bruised, bloodied, and bayoneted dead body was shown in a video by the Benghazi jihadists, who would later kill US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other staff members- Hillary Clinton crowed, “We came, we saw, he died.” By 2016, at least 100,000 Libyans left for Europe adding substantially to the refugee crisis there that continues to push their social service systems to the brink of collapse. And, after Gaddafi was taken out, his enormous weapons arsenal ended up in the hands of Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, and ISIS terrorists around the world, including Syria, where many went to fight a proxy war on behalf of what has become the US-Israel-Qatar-Saudi Arabian nexus against Syria’s Assad regime.
In fact, as I’ve discussed in a previous article about Libya, US Ambassador Christopher Stevens was helping the CIA and Pentagon under General David Petraeus run weapons out to radical jihadist groups that would later pop up in Syria and attempt to topple Assad. The consulate was little more than a convenient cover for this to take place. According to famed investigative reporter, Seymour Hersh, in an article published in the London Review of Books entitled “The Red Line and the Rat Line”:
“In January, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report on the assault by a local militia in September 2012 on the American consulate and a nearby undercover CIA facility in Benghazi, which resulted in the death of the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three others. The report’s criticism of the State Department for not providing adequate security at the consulate, and of the intelligence community for not alerting the US military to the presence of a CIA outpost in the area, received front-page coverage and revived animosities in Washington, with Republicans accusing Obama and Hillary Clinton of a cover-up. A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.”
While Clinton claimed that she knew nothing about the weapons transfer taking place during the congressional hearings into the Benghazi scandal, Judicial Watch and Wiki-Leaks were able to show definitely that she was not only aware, she was actively pushing for weapons to be sent to “jihadists within Syria, including ISIS.”
Moving onto Syria, we learn that there are hidden motives, forces, and players at work, should we care to look below the surface of what is clearly one of the worst humanitarian crises on the planet right now. As I stated previously, Syria was on the list of 7 countries that the Pentagon wanted to orchestrate regime change against, but the $64,000 question is, “Why do they want to topple Syria’s Bashar al Assad?” Fundamentally speaking, the war is about the control of pipelines. According to long-time energy and geopolitical researcher, F. William Engdahl, “it became clear to some geopolitical Washington strategists that Qatar could play a strategic role in pushing Russia out of the EU natural gas game and put a US-controlled supplier, Qatar, in the dominant role.” That’s why back in 2009 the Emir of Qatar, who owns the largest gas fields in the world, went to Damascus to make a proposition to Syrian President Bashar al Assad. He proposed the construction of a natural gas pipeline that would begin in Qatar, cross over into Saudi Arabia and Syria, and finally end in Turkey, where the gas would be sold to the lucrative EU markets.
Assad, however, declined the offer, saying that he wanted to “protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.” As Engdahl says, “This was the beginning of the NATO decision to militarily destroy the Assad regime.” Instead, Syria decided to broker a deal for an alternative route that would run a pipeline from Iran through Iraq and on to Syria thereby leaving Qatar and Turkey out in the cold. In July of 2012, the three countries of Iran, Iraq, and Syria signed a Memorandum of Understanding, which officially outlined the proposed pipeline sometimes called the “Shi’ite Pipeline”. Besides bringing great riches to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, should Assad be defeated and the pipeline built, the war had at least three main goals. According to geopolitical analyst Dmitry Minin, they were:
1) Break Russia’s gas monopoly in Europe. (Russia currently supplies around 40% to the EU market…not a complete monopoly but clearly the largest seller)
2) Free Turkey from its dependence on Iranian gas.
3) Give Israel the chance to export its gas to Europe by land at less cost.
As I’ve pointed out in my past articles on the Para-Political Journal, Israel has definite geopolitical goals in the Middle East, which contribute greatly to its chaotic conditions as well as the Muslim world’s hatred of the US for being their primary unconditional ally. But, just what are Israel’s long-term geopolitical goals in the Middle East? One of the best sources for understanding those goals comes from Christopher Bollyn’s book The War on Terror: The Plot to Rule the Middle East. It’s in that book that he discusses what’s called the “Yinon Plan” based on the work of an Israeli strategist named Oded Yinon, who wrote about the plan in a document called “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”. Published in Hebrew back in 1982 by the World Zionist Organization’s Department of Information, the “Yinon Plan” (as it’s commonly known as) calls for “the destruction of the armies of large Arab states and the Balkanization of their nations into ethnic mini-states.” In the English version, under the title The Zionist Plan for the Middle East, Yinon states:
“The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place recently. Lebanon’s dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Arabian Peninsula, and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.”
This was written when Israeli attacks against Lebanon were at their fiercest, turning cities like Beirut into a similar kind of war zone hell hole that we see in places like Syria’s Aleppo today. Millions have fled into neighboring countries and migrated as far north as Sweden in the EU. As Christopher Bollyn relates in the book, “The Zionist vision for the Middle East rests on two essential premises: To survive, Israel must become an imperial regional power, and must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states.” And, this is precisely what’s occurring in the Middle East with the US-Israeli plans to redraw the map of the Arab states according to their own geopolitical strategies, which although not exactly the same certainly dovetail together. Despite what Neocon and Neo-Liberal politicians try to tell us, the Zionist plans for the Middle East most certainly are not in our best interests. As Linda Heard in an article entitled “Is the US Waging Israel’s Wars?” tells us:
“There is one thing that we do know. Oded Yinon’s 1982 Zionist Plan for the Middle East is in large part taking shape. Is this pure coincidence? Was Yinon a gifted psychic? Perhaps! Alternatively, we in the West are victims of a long-held agenda not of our making and without doubt not in our interests.”
Finally, I’d like to address the cultural, social, and ethnic destruction of Europe due to the millions of Arabs, who have migrated into the EU due to in large part to the proxy wars being fought in the Middle East (particularly those of Libya and Syria that I’ve documented thus far). However, in spite of real refugees in certain war-torn countries, there are also greater economic, political, and social opportunities available that are drawing people to migrate to Europe that simply don’t exist in many Middle Eastern countries. European countries, many of which are still trying to recover from the devastation of the 2008 financial crash, are now having their social service systems put under even greater strain by being forced by their own governments to accept millions of Arab immigrants, most of whom aren’t interested in culturally assimilating whatsoever. European countries such as France, Germany, and Sweden that have allowed for the greatest number of Arabs to migrate in are also experiencing a huge rise in crimes (thefts, assaults, rapes, murders, etc.) committed against their domestic population, which has quite naturally led to a rise in nationalist/identity movements in spite of the mostly PC climate among the establishment that dismisses their concerns as nothing but racist “Islamophobia”.
The question that politicians like France’s Emmanuel Macron or Germany’s Angela Merkel simply refuse to answer, it would seem, is: “Does a sovereign country have the right to defend their national culture, ethnic heritage, language, religious values, and integrity against total dissolution by an outside foreign element that seeks to replace it?” If the answer is “yes”, then the EU would be wise to limit how many immigrants they allow in before a civil war erupts between the newly arrived mostly Muslim and mostly Arab immigrants and the mostly Christian and mostly white European nationals. When you look at a documentary on Sweden’s current immigrant crisis, for example, especially when reports about Swedish girls being raped by the recent transplants go unaddressed by the justice system, I think it’s high time that Europe start seriously thinking about stemming the tide of migrants flooding into their countries before they wake up one day and can’t recognize their own country anymore. Many are already saying just that. As unbelievable as it might sound, however, even the massive amount of migrants flooding into Europe from Middle Eastern countries could well be part of a social engineering program that was actually outlined in detail some 100 years ago by a man many consider to be the “father of the European Union”. This man is Count Richard Nikolas von Coudenhove-Kalergi.
As documented in the book The Killing of Uncle Sam, “Coudenhove-Kalergi became an advocate for Woodrow Wilson’s ‘Fourteen Points’ and the pacific initiatives of Karl Hiller. In 1921, he joined the Masonic lodge Humanitas, which he used as the launching pad for his Pan Europa movement. One year later, he published the Pan Europa manifesto, which captured the attention of Baron Louis de Rothschild and Max Warburg (father of Paul, the founder of the Federal Reserve), who opted to fund the movement to unify Europe with 60,000 gold marks. In his books Praktischer Idealismus and Kampf im Paneuropa, Coudenhove-Kalergi argued for the dissolution of national borders and the promotion of mass allogenic (genetically dissimilar) immigration. The result of this immigration, Coudenhove-Kalergi wrote, would be the creation of ‘the men of the future,’ whom he called mestizos. Such men would be of mixed Caucasian, Negro, and Asiatic blood and would appear ‘very similar to the ancient Egyptians’. The mongrelization of mankind, according to Coudenhove-Kalergi, would produce salubrious results, such as the dissolution of nationalism, the elimination of racism, and the eradication of disparities in levels of human intelligence. Since the mestizos would be of limited intelligence, Coudenhove-Kalergi maintained, they could be easily manipulated and controlled by ‘Jewish leaders of socialism’ (herrenmenschen), who had been singled out by divine providence to rule the world.”
So, here is Coudenhove-Kalergi talking about the dissolution of national borders via a Pan Europa superstate, mass genetically-dissimilar immigration, the creation of a mestizo racially mixed “man of the future” that looks similar to the beige color of the ancient Egyptian (albeit with very limited intelligence), and the control of such a thoroughly mixed and culturally inert population by a Jewish socialist elite, whom divine providence has made them “with their most exalted unselfishness, to erase the original sin of capitalism, to free people from injustice, violence, and subservience and to change the redeemed world into an earthly paradise”. Reading that last quote, I’m thinking, “What are you, fucking nuts?! Take a look at the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, if you want to get a sense of what Jewish injustice, violence, and subservience really looks like rather than being so deluded as to thinking they’re going to free you from it.” But, as crazy as his theories are to my mind, he was able to garner some very powerful support and backing, which again appear to be playing itself out on the world stage now.
After WWII broke out, Coudenhove-Kalergi first fled to France and then to the US after the Nazis invaded in 1940 where he came under the care of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) that has essentially dominated US foreign policy since their founding in 1921. During that time, he helped to draft the wartime strategy of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the postwar plans for the revitalization of Europe. Among his many disciples included such notable and powerful men as Senator William Fulbright, Allen Dulles, Thomas W. Braden, William J. Donovan, Arthur Goldberg, Jay Lovestone, and Joseph H. Retinger, who worked together to create the American Committee for a United Europe. This committee would then give rise to the European Coal and Steel Community, which was the predecessor to the European Union. This man was very well respected by some of the highest ranking men in the councils of government, as this list clearly shows and as his duties entailed, and this is only proven further when in 1950 he received the first annual Karlpreis (Charlemagne Award) for his contribution to European ideals. And, as far as Coudenhove-Kalergi is concerned, part of those “European ideals” apparently calls for the elimination of the Caucasian race and the creation of a socialist Superstate in a similar vein as to what the EU actually is today. Now, with an understanding of the writings of Coudenhove-Kalergi firmly in mind, suddenly the cultural crisis stemming from the mass migration from Arab countries aided and abetted by certain well-placed NGO’s that have a far reaching agenda for Europe, we can begin to see that it’s perhaps not such an accident after all but rather the playing out of Kalergi’s Pan Europa Plan.
Griffin, David Ray. Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World. Olive Branch Press, 2017.
Bollyn, Christopher. The War on Terror: The Plot to Rule the Middle East. 2017
Howard-Browne, Rodney and Paul L. Williams. The Killing of Uncle Sam: The Demise of the United States of America. River Publishing, 2018.