Guest Column: Since When is Limiting Immigration a Crime?

And since when is bombing and invading other countries a virtuous act?
by Jon Rappoport (excerpt from Nomorefakenews.com, 1/25/16)

the matrix revealedDouble trouble.

Somehow, putting a lid on immigration is now a crime against humanity. That’s quite a propaganda triumph. So let’s announce, with a great flourish, that the US and Europe will welcome everybody else on the planet. Let’s go all the way to prove our tolerance and good will. Why not? The wonderful people who support waves of immigration don’t seem to be able to put a top number on this whole operation. They have a bone stuck in their throats. They can’t say, “Well, here is the absolute highest number of immigrants who can come in.” They just can’t. To do so would taint the quality of their heroic empathy. It would rip a hole in their Sails of Love.

“Mr. President, perhaps you could tell us how many immigrants we can admit to our shores. When would it start being a, you know, problem? We just want to get an idea of the scope of this whole thing. When do the numbers begin to exert a strain on the economy, for example? Aside from, ahem, now.

“At what point do you suppose the number of criminals among the immigrants will cause, what shall I call it, serious trouble? When will the resettling of these millions of people into communities start to crack and disrupt and destroy the coherence of those communities? I mean, there must be a number beyond which it’s unwise to go. Isn’t that the way the world generally works? Too much of anything becomes dangerous. Too many militarized policemen, too much surveillance, too much CIA interference in other countries, too many corporate lobbyists, too many US-backed ISIS fighters, too many leaking cylinders of nuclear waste, too much pressure on a power plant during an earthquake. So how about a top-limit immigration number? Does a person who just asks for such a figure automatically qualify as a satanic messenger from Hell? Just trying to get a feel for the landscape of this issue…if there is a landscape.”

No-top-number is called a clue. The people who should be giving one but aren’t are either deranged love addicts or conscious agents of destruction.

Another clue: claiming, with a straight face, that granting all sorts of government benefits to immigrants as soon as they cross the border is in no way an inducement for them to show up.

As I’ve explained in previous articles, the whole “wave of migration” is an op. It’s not meant to be humane. It’s meant to destabilize societies and countries, bring on chaos, destroy traditional cultures and borders, and permit Globalization to advance.

Now let’s go to the other side.

Surely, moving into foreign nations with planes and bombs and drones and soldiers (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, etc.) in no way creates a desire for retaliation in those populations. Right? Right? Why should it? Why should a little thing like raining down death and destruction induce a ripple of protest? Why should we expect anyone coming here, from those places, to have any anger whatsoever in his heart?

Likewise, in the area of economic warfare, if some Globalist trade treaty (NAFTA) sets up a long con whereby cheap US corn floods Mexico and puts 1.5 million Mexican farmers into bankruptcy, why should we think any of those people would harbor resentment against America, or come across the border, out of desperation, and with ill-will in their hearts? Again, absurd. Right?

Let’s go all the way back to US economic sanctions against Iraq (1990-2003). As a result, during that period, an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children died. Five-hundred thousand. But why would that be a problem? Why would that cause any resentment in the Middle East region?

And the participation of European countries in similar “misadventures,” via NATO, for example, and extending back into the Colonial period…who could think any resentment in the affected populations would pop up and endure?

This entire immigration issue has two sides. Obviously, one of the great tasks of politicians is to separate them and obscure any connection—while taking the precise wrong position about each side.

How did that happen? When you cut through the nonsense and the lies, the answer is clear. The politicians (those who are even aware) are in the Globalist camp. They want to make wars of conquest, profit, and extreme destabilization, on the one hand; and they want to open the floodgates to waves of immigrants, in order to destabilize their own countries—because the Globalist agenda demands an end to separate nations, all nations, in favor of much larger regions which, in a state of chaos, “must be brought under control by a higher force.”

This is the op, and it has been for a long time.

If there is any genuine leadership to be found—the authentic kind, not the devious type—it must come from people who grasp both sides of the insanity, are willing to expose it, and are determined to end it.

Politics, as we know it from long experience, is not the art of compromise. It’s the art of walling off one side of a covert operation from another, and pretending there is no conceivable connection. It’s the art of concealing the overall agenda. It’s the art of co-opting and corrupting innocent ideals, like “give us your huddled masses yearning to be free,” and turning them into monstrous elements of destruction—and in the process, enlisting naïve believers to move toward the cliff’s edge.

Key political leaders understand all that, because they’re fronting for elites who demand duplicity in all things.

Both A (wars of profit and destabilization) and B (unlimited immigration) are two parts of the whole, C, which is the artificial and forced Globalist cohesion/unification of the planet—indivisible, under one governing management system.

Whole column here.

This post has been read 767 times!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *