Divide and conquer.

Yes, I think you are very much on target. A few other considerations:

We are told there was a sudden, massive surge due to the Syrian civil war (which anyway long preceded the wave). But only a portion of the migrants are coming from Syria. It may not even be a majority. The rest are coming from northern Africa and central Asia (like Pakistan).

And since that is the case, the "surge" of migrants doesn't make sense. Why would all these people from all these different countries just suddenly decide to up and move in the span of a few months? Sounds contrived. Or in any case the various conflicts they may be fleeing (such as in Syria) are backed by Western intelligence. I suspect that the more or less sudden onset of the surge of migration from all these different places was due to coordinated efforts on the part of TPTB. It's certainly no coincidence that since they took down Gaddafi, Libya has served as the major conduit of migration from Africa.

I also suspect that the migrant stories we see on the news are not representative and may even be fake. I believe that most of these migrants had their transportation paid for. We are to believe they are so poor and desperate that they are forced to leave their home country, but they managed to pay thousands of dollars to leave. It can and does happen (like many Mexican migrants), but not in a massive "all of a sudden" wave like that.

Also consider the stories of migrants walking their way across Turkey, into Greece, north to Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Austria, then either North to Germany and then even from there north to Denmark and then to Sweden. Or from Austria west to France and then across all of France north to Calais and then on. No, sorry, they're not walking. Just look at a map of Europe. It's absurd.

So how are they traveling en masse to these destinations? Trains? Buses? Planes? Traveling by train across such distances in Europe is not that direct and not cheap. Who is paying for all that? Who is coordinating it? The migrants themselves? The host countries? The EU? The UN?

We see news clips that are supposed to give us some kind of picture of what is happening, but I believe most of it is manufactured (like that cropped picture of the 'rescued' migrants floating in the water but uncropped pic shows some of them standing in the shallow water). I think the transportation of the migrants around Europe is largely paid for and organized by the same forces that are creating this situation in the first place.

And finally, as for culture clash, again, most of that is a manufactured hoax, produced by fictitious reports coming from the mainstream media, who are no less controlled by the intelligence agencies of their home countries than the US media is controlled by the CIA. The mass rapes on New Years eve all across Germany? Fake. Show me one video that shows any evidence of that actually happening. There is none, and crisis actors giving interviews after the fact doesn't count. There probably are some rapes and sexual assaults. Is it higher than native rates? We don't know. I also wouldn't rule out the possibility that they are being encouraged (and paid) to be inflammatory. And the ridiculous 'pamphlets' they are supposedly distributing to migrants? Please. I don't believe anything I see in the US media, and I see no reason to believe anything in the European press, either.

When you add in this mix of mass migration to more and more (fake) terror attacks on European soil (the best is yet to come, no doubt), it's highly, highly combustible. France has already declared a state of emergency (aka martial law), with no end in sight.

Great analysis daddy! r/conspiracy is starting to sound like r/c_s_t I like it!

The one thing you're wrong about is the rapes. Go to r/rapefugees to see that the mass rape of Europe is occurring.

OK, so I thought maybe I was wrong and went there to look. But seeing all the psy-op propaganda layed out in front of me like that in all its ridiculous absurdity only reinforced my conclusion that it's a big hoax. Sure, there are undoubtedly rapes and assaults happening. But again, no evidence that the rate for this population is above the native population, and certainly no evidence that it is as high as we are being led to believe.

Yes, I saw the link to the Swedish police statistics. But if this is all a big psyop perpetrated by the plutocrats via Western intelligence agencies, they can release fake statistics. Just because it's from a 'government source' doesn't make it credible.

But most of the links there are from media sources like the daily mail or breitbart, which are totally unreliable but probably just as unreliable (that is, controlled) as any other source (they just have bad reputations). So you've got articles where they are claiming that the police have reported things to them. Why should we believe them? And why should we believe the police? How does any of this reporting make anything credible? And Stefan Molyneux? Please. SMH.

Let's look at the photographic evidence. Surprisingly slim. The video on Taharrush Gamea (aka the rape game) had the most, but virtually all of it (if not all of it) was footage from Arabic countries like Egypt. The only one that might not have been was the Greek footage, but I remember looking into that. It is from a Greek TV broadcast, but it's not at all clear how much of the footage is from Greece, when the footage was taken, or even what it is really supposed to show. They show you real footage of Taharrush Gamea, priming you. Then they show you this, but is it the same thing? Unclear. Do you find it odd that the other footage has subtitles, but the footage from Greece doesn't? What's going on there?

But all that video of Taharrush Gamea from Arab countries just points to the weirdness of the lack of photographic or video evidence from Cologne on New Year's eve. All we get are a handful of pictures of some guys posing with their friends. Attacks all through the night, thousands of victims, who knows how many witnesses, plus they said cctv footage. But that's all we get? If I understood the article correctly, those pictures were taken from the phones of victims and witnesses. So why would the victims have been standing around taking pictures of their attackers posing for pics on New Year's eve? It makes zero sense. It looks to me like they just pulled some pics off of Facebook profiles.

And the 'real time' map of attacks in Cologne. Do you realize they have that timed precisely down to the minute of the attack. Suppose you were out having fun with your friends on New Year's, nursing a buzz. You're attacked. Maybe your phone is even stolen. If and when you do finally reach the police, are you going to be able to tell them, down to the minute when you were attacked? No chance. They might write down what time they were contacted, but that's not the same. It looks like fabricated data made with such accuracy as to make it appear factual.

And the rt article about the attacks on a Munich train? I couldn't access the video. The article said the fight happened when the German guys tried to defend a woman being harassed. That's what they said, but I don't see any evidence of that. Maybe the German guys were being a bunch of racist assholes and got what they deserved. Maybe they were fighting for another reason. Maybe the dark-skinned guys were Turkish residents or gypsies. Who the fuck knows?

I'll repeat what I said earlier: don't believe anything you read in the newspapers or watch on TV. And just because 'the government' or 'the police' say something, doesn't make it true. In fact, I would say these days it's just the opposite.

You right.

[deleted]

How could this subject be taboo here?

Yes, you're right, it's not. It's the rise of the cryptofascist elite trying to make a power play for the one world government. They don't care about capitalism/democratic republicanism or communism/marxism, they expect both to fail ultimately. They've subverted the international intelligence communities with double agents who are defined as members of secret socieites whose primary alliegance is to the secret society and their agendas, not to the county to whom they claim nationality.

The socieites are very paternal and hierarchical and the feature that makes these cults operate is compartmentalism--for example the symbol of 'beehive' which is a common motif in freemasonry, serves to reinforce this ideal. Because this compartmentalization necessarily creates an ignorance of the collectivity of behaviors and effects of the secret societies, a collective negligence is created. The purpose of compartmentalization is to inhibit members from fully understanding the ramifications of their individual participation and role within the society and thereby enabling them to contribute to an evil plan that is in play, a plan to ruin the world.

This is why if you ask a freemason, you can expect he's an initiate and not a high level freemason (high levels won't give you the time fo day). As an initiate, he's really in the dark on the inner workings of the freemasonic group. He just thinks he's a nice, upstanding member of a fraternity, a pios protestant, and someone who collects money for charities. He has no idea that at their core, there's a jester group that engages in prostitution, human trafficking, drug dealing, assassinations, staging false flag events, engaging in strange magick rituals including trying to put a capstone on one of the Egyptian pyramids, engaging in violence and domestic and foreign terrorism, espionage and treason.

I appreciate the things you post.

cryptofascist elite

If I had gold... you need to copyright that term.

Because it hits too close to home for the PTB to allow.

It is so taboo he dare not speak it o_O

On the Right/Far Right:

The far right utilised the advent of mass immigration as a way to cater to the concerns of the general populace. Since no one else did the masses went to where their opinions were expressed and represented about that matter.

The far right if it is far right tends to be a fascist movement sometimes a designation of the right itself so that to distance itself if they it does not go too well. In other words depending on the structure of the far right party its probably a sandbox for the right itself. Having said that they still support outward fascist policy and economics, eg neo-con/neo-liberal. Deregulation, being the abolition of laws (Judical Government) presented as the "free market" and for free market name sake. Divestment of government programs and public services presented as reducing big government. Corporate welfare as "too big to fail" and "for the job creators". Banishment of labour unions as "breaking corruption" and attempted reduction of people's pay. Another might be martial law and curfews. Essentially they aimed at privitisation, tax cuts/breaks, tax refunds and reducing "cost". The motive of the right appears to be (only) for and by profit and its protection.

The mass immigration issue tends to be about the effects of peoples pay and exploitation of those people. People smuggers and slave traders make their money through illegal immigrants and perhaps in cahoots with business and certain government officials. If you watch a BBC documentary about the Scottish Tobacco merchants working in Jamaica the announcer mentioned to the effect that Adam Smith was inspired by them and wrote his book the Wealth of Nations. I can tell you that there were not very many Scottish workers there and if you even seen images of any sort of Jamaica you will know what sort of "workers" were there. Sweatshops in England with people working as slaves would be another example as recent as 1 or 2 years ago that were rescued from those conditions.

Another issue would be the division of society. The foul Muslim clerics that preached hostility in Europe are fascists and feudalistic fascists, their followers oblivious supporters of their impending serfdom that they fled from. The populace its likely that it would call for more protection and having submitted their freedoms and privacy for their safe spaces. That may include martial law, curfews, snooping through emails etc. In effect society to fight fascism deals it with fascism essentially either raising the bar of fascism or being dragged down to fascism. The conflict could also generate sales of arms and other equipment for safety sake and through fear they dictate people and hoard their profits. They may also want to be seen as "pure" and by they it would be the backers of the far right/right movement. In England for example they would like to be seen as pure whites and the rest their fellow anglo saxon brothers as hybrids of foreigners and thus "pure" is better to rule. Doesnt Monarchy ring a bell here? Also they could prop the war industry to excuse more invasions abroad.

While the far right makes a case against immigration its a veneer to fascism, eugenics, darwinism, imperialism and profiteering.

On the Left/Far left:

The left had profoundly fucked its priorities, it focused on LGBT rights, LGBT marriage, abortion, feminist movements etc. Far from supporting people in general and hardly done much for working conditions, work rights and the like. There is another part of the left that in a one-hand-washes-the-other-fashion a controlled opposition to continue the mass immigration to for smuggers, slave traders and profiteers. Appealing to altruism and humanism to keep the illegals and invite more. That works to the favour of the far right which tends to be to eliminate and scrap the left which they could blame the controlled opposition part of the left and try to get people to get angry at the ones that were supposed be supporting and representing them, including unions. Lenin, Engels and Marx, I imagine would not be in favour of mass immigration and for those individuals to be exploited by profiteers, smugglers and slave traders. Its true that those illegals could pay US$2000 a pop to get in and as such not so very financially vulnerable as it once appeared, that is an other topic.

The left speaks in a language to the illegals and mass immigrants that sounds foreign. Those immigrants do not like freedom, fairness, equality and democracy. They said it and were proud of it. Essentially they tend to sympatise with a culture of deep fascism, feudalism serfdom and sectarianism. Very few counties in Asia and Africa seemed close to democracy, China for example was a monarchical fascist and feudal society until about 1911. Residue of that appears to be remained in their culture. Interestingly Western Europe since the First German Empire until about the French revolution had a monarchical fascist and feudal society. The Roman Empire included early forms of socialism and communism prevalent in the Southern and Eastern parts after the break away from the Western Roman Empire that brought on the First German Empire which was mostly overrun by German mass immigration and German influence so hardly "Roman". Anyway the illegals would get on the bandwagon with the left then dump it after they could stay and make a case for sharia law and other cultural impositions which again favours the fascists in Europe as a pretext to bring a fascist government, scrap the left and any other movements that question its validity.

The motive for the left would seem to be justice and fairness as well as altruism and humanism. To appear as such they make a case by having taken the path of least resistance to show that by catering to mass and illegal immigration, LGBT and feminism while not keeping track of the national issues that interests people across many walks of life.

Politics seems to be currently manipulated and geared toward fascism with removing other rights, liberties and freedoms as well as their advocates for the sake of "security" and "patriotism". McCartism could be used to keep people in check and excuse wrongdoings as security and patriotism.

We as people can change that and stop the fascists and promote innovation, fairness, justice, standard of living and the pursuit of happiness to name a few.

EDIT: Grammar

I don't think it's what "the powers that be" want at all. The goal is moving towards globalism (and more importantly, consolidation of power) and clashing cultures is side effect of this. Perhaps they've rushed it or perhaps increased awareness has exacerbated the situation. However, the elites will try to use any social unrest to their advantage regardless that the risk of it blowing up in all our faces has increased.

I think it would be naive to say a mistake caused the mess we are witnessing.

Particularly since the original founder of the EU said that this was exactly what he wanted.

To ensure the rise of the far right

No, they don’t want that.

and make a step toward fascism

That’s not far-right.

Fascism - an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

Fascism - an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing

NOPE. Saying it again doesn’t make it true.

Read a dictionary: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fascism and wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

wikipedia as a source

And yet if you actually know anything whatsoever about economics or government, fascism is far left. If you want to plot it on all three axes simultaneously, which is MUCH better, it’s either top-front-left, top-front-right, center-front-left, or center-front-center, depending on who’s in charge. It is most assuredly not right wing or traditionalist.

A random jpeg of uncited, alternative theory as a source.

Good job.

I think you and your own theory (not the jpeg), is somewhat confused. It sounds like you are confusing fascism, which is by its very definition inherently nationalistic and right-wing, with varying degrees of authoritarianism, such as the extreme of totalitarianism which can be right or left-wing. Maybe not.

In any case, your whole pretense was to debate me from this particular model you believe in, which after doing so you then cited in the JPEG (and spoke as if this model is common knowledge).. then you completely disregard the models of understanding in the dictionary, wikipedia, and undoubtedly others that don't match your jpeg. And you think I'm going to agree that your jpeg, or particular model, holds the truths to all political understanding? :)

I presume you are quite the pedant, or rather fundamentalist whose opinion will not be swayed, so I will waste no more time and respond no more to this triviality.

The map is not the territory.

it’s wrong because i say it’s wrong

Good enough. Thanks for admitting defeat.

I never said it was wrong :) You are the one here embarking on a crusade of right and wrong, victory and defeat.

Almost as though that’s sort of the idea...

[deleted]

What the fuck are you even saying.

Let me take a wild guess- you are under the impression that fascism is a leftist ideology because of the word socialism in national socialism?

No, because of the actions undertaken and the control exerted by the state, as well as the manner in which the economy is forwarded.

Educate yourself.

Libertarians FTW!

Read a dictionary: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fascism and wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

wikipedia as a source

And yet if you actually know anything whatsoever about economics or government, fascism is far left. If you want to plot it on all three axes simultaneously, which is MUCH better, it’s either top-front-left, top-front-right, center-front-left, or center-front-center, depending on who’s in charge. It is most assuredly not right wing or traditionalist.

I appreciate the things you post.

cryptofascist elite

If I had gold... you need to copyright that term.