Tuesday, 26 December 2017

Who is behind the fake refugee crisis?

Who is behind the fake refugee crisis? Its a simple question that doesn't have an easy answer. We know that most of the people flooding into europe aren't actually syrians. They are from other parts of the middle east and north africa. These muslims aren't fleeing from a war, they're just looking for a welfare check from dumb liberals. And to start riots, rob people, and cause havoc... Moreover, we also know that normal border contingencys were de-activated by angela merkel and francois holland. They had no qualms at all about letting the foxes into the hen house. The following videos go into some detail on how this artificial crisis was set into motion.

The REAL reason for Europes influx
of migrants!!! WikiLeaks founder

Nikolai Starikov explains Europe's refugee crisis

The Truth About 'Refugees'

To my credit, I suspected foul play behind the refugee crisis almost as soon as it unfolded. The involvement of israeli and U.S. intelligence agencys is unsurprising. Zionist elements in both countrys want to weaken europe and divide them on ethnic and religious grounds. That will prevent them from becoming an economic competitor. Unfortuntely, the influx of hostile islamists isn't just weakening countrys like germany and france: Its slowly destroying them. If something is not done soon, it may end up setting off a humanitarian crisis in europe.


  1. Dude, you even got the basics wrong:

    "Moreover, we also know that normal border contingencys were de-activated by angela merkel and francois holland."

    The guy is called Fran├žois G.G.N. Hollande, and there were and are no such things as "border contingencies". The Schengen area ceased border controls between members and all members were obliged to control the outer borders of the Schengen area properly (including airports and ports).
    What went wrong is that the human traffickers figured out that people in maritime distress had to be rescued by Europeans, and could not be sent back because the relevant African and Asian countries were uncooperative.

    Then Merkel held a stupid speech trying to make a stand against xenophobia instead of using an exemption provision in the Schengen Accords that would have allowed to police the borders again. The speech was unnecessary and shows that she (or at least her speech writer) doesn't understand incentives, but securing the German border was hardly possible for legal and resources reasons. The German federal police (former border guards) were tied in other functions, and all a refugee needs to do to stay once having crossed the border by a step is to say "Asyl". This and the constitution outlawing an employment of the military as police made securing the borders 25+ years after the end of the Cold War and ~60 years after the Schengen Accords impossible in the short term.

    No conspiracy was needed. The human traffickers simply exploited a loophole or two for their profit.

    1. Its good to see you're willing to talk rationally about this topic, without simply dismissing it. However, your reply raises more questions than it answers.

      -Why did angela merkel not use the exemption provision? Was she the only official involved in the decision not to do so?

      -What resource constraints prevented the border from being secured? Would the sheer number of refugees have allowed them to overpower the border guards?

      -What happens to people who declare asylum? Are they taken to a refugee center and asked to provide documentation?

      -If the person is not granted asylum, do they get deported? If their home country REFUSES to accept them, are they then allowed to freely wander europe?

      -When nations REFUSE to accept responsibility for hundreds of thousands of their people seeking asylum under false pretenses (!), what penaltys will they be faced with?

      -Many of the agencys engaged in human trafficking have offices in europe. Why are they not being investigated for their illegal activity?

    2. 1 She made a stand against xenophobia, this was a misjudging of the odds or a mere speechwriter's mistake.

      2 The borders are too long for too few personnel. There's no "overwhelming" - as I mentioned, all they need to do is step forward and say "Asyl". That's the legal situation, and it's rooted in the constitution (right to asylum & rule of law).

      3 Those who request asylum have to be handled. There were some camps for intiital registering (incl. takign of fingerprints), then they often stayed at school gyms and such till decent buildings like contianer homes were available.
      It's widely known that many of them had no papers and some made wrong claims about their origin, name or age. This delayed the often inevitable legal rejection.

      4 In case of failed request for asylum people who don't get war refugee status either may get deported, but that's a police job and policing is state-level (not federal) level responsibility. The federal level is only responsible for policing niches; borders, airports, railway stations.
      The 16 states encountered many problems regarding deportations. People who got violent were refused by pilots and could not be flown out. Many states simply refused to take back people without papers or in general (including Morocco, from where a lot of the organised crime clans appear to come that supposedly caused the famous and overblown incidents in Cologne). In the end, there are too few deportations because hardly anybody uses creative solutions.

      5 There's really nothing you can do but loud protest if some country refuses to recognise people as its cown.
      Foreign and development aid policies are federal responsibilities while deportations are a state-level responsibility in Germany.

      6 Not sure which organisations you mean. The NGOs with maritime rescue activities are skipping the law/using loopholes. There's no point for human traffickers to have official offices in Europe. The overt end of their business is in Africa and Asia. BTW, their whole business model was created by poorly crafted regulatioins in the first place:


      The whole mass drowning in the Med could have been stopped within a month or so. The refugee flow in general could have been disincentivized by offering nothing better than a Jordanian war refugee camp experience to refugees, or by dumping them into some poor & corrupt African country bribed to accept them whether they're its own or not.

      It wasn't any activity by politicians that caused the refugee crisis (save for the routes thing, and that was a pre-2015 decision), much less any conspiracy - it was their inaction and inside the box operation. They still think like petty adminsitrators and try to plug one hole after another; closing the Turkey route by an agreement with Turkey and closing the Libya route by bribing warlords. They still didn't disincentivize at the core of the problem.

    3. BTW, I dismiss the conspiracy theory. It's bollocks.

    4. 1. That doesn't really answer the question. A decision was intentionally made to NOT use the exemption provision. WHO was involved in that decision? Was angela merkel the only one required to have the border police stand down?

      2. If the borders had been properly enforced, then the refugees could have been detained in camps. Instead, many were allowed to enter the country wherever they wanted and do as they pleased. The german government is complicit in this.

      3. How many refugees entered the country during the initial wave in 2015? Does a number between 900,000-1,000,000 sound accurate? Of those, how many were properly handled and detained at camps?

      4. So the answer is yes. Those who sought asylum under false pretenses are indeed being allowed to freely wander the country and cause havoc. They have been given a free pass by the german government.

      5. In other words, then, germany is not attempting to punish the countrys who flooded their borders with hundreds of thousands of fake refugees. Not with economic sanctions, not by freezing bank accounts, etc.

      6. There are groups like medecins sans frontieres, sos mediterranee, save the children, and support refugees that have offices in europe. These NGOs are in direct contact with human traffickers! Why were criminal charges not pursued against them? Why were the legal 'loopholes' not closed?

      In light of everything you and I have discussed so far, it seems obvious that the german government acted with reckless disregard for the welfare of their country and people. When government agencys only make half hearted or ineffectual attempts to solve a crisis of this magnitude, that is indirect evidence of complicity. They obviously have an ulterior motive in treating the refugee crisis as they have. Were they pressured into doing so by a 3rd party (I.E, american or israeli officials)? Its possible.

      In my humble opinion, sven, the most important question is how and why the german government decided not to use the exemption provision. I myself do not know how such a decision was arrived at... You can do a web search in your natural language, and peruse through german articles that go into detail on this.

      I would also advise you to watch all three videos listed in this post. I added a third video today, which details the illegal activitys of NGOs. If you're not feeling open minded, then skip the videos by assange and starikov, and go onto the one by paul joseph watson. It is seriously eye opening stuff that can't easily be dismissed. PLEASE watch it.

    5. 1 You're not paying attention. There was no-one ordered to stand down. There was no border police at the Austrian border, just customs. Even mobilising every federal policeman would not have reduced the refugee flow by asingle individual for legal reasons that stand above the chancellor.

      2 Learn to pay attetnion.

      3 You're distributing conspiracy theories and didn't even look up basic figures? Shame on you.

      4 "to cause havoc" is xenophobic bullshit. We have a rule fo law. Everyone gets due process. And I explained to you that there's usually no place where we could have dumped them without creative solutions. Conservatives are not mentally capable of creative solutions.

      5 We have a rule fo law. Germany is not the United States. Private property is protected by the constitution and must not be withheld at the whim of some politician. And no "countries flooded [our] borders". That's Trump-like idiocy. It's not the coutnries that send refugees - the refugees or their clans/villages made the decision.

      6 If there was actual evidence of those NGOs committing crimes, then that evidence would be used in court. Rule of law. We don't close down private organisations without evidence.

      You are truly not paying attetnion. The conservatives in government did what they always do; administrate without creative ideas.

      About what's possible: It's possible that you had lobotomy. It's possible that you're a lizard person. "What's possible" doesn't matter. There's no reason to suspect any conspiracy when the perfectly well-known legal situation, agency structures and political habits suffice to explain the entire German government reaction to the refugee crisis.

      It's also easy to see why the governemtn didn't use that emergency provision from Schengen Agreeement Article 2.2 because the legal situation made it pointless. You cannot keep refugees from moving a metre into Germany and ssaying "Asyl".

      Is there any limit to how often I have to explain to you the legal situation and rule of law? Merkel is no sun king!

      Look, German communists, social democrats, jews and even liberals and conservatives that fled the country to escape the nazis were all-too often unable to find a safe haven elsewhere, they were rejected from many countries, particularly the communists and jews who needed rescue the most. This led to a constitution-anchored right to asylum. The despotism of nazis and SED furthermore solidified the interest in creating and protecting the rule of law.

      The federal government might have made a deal with some African country to dump rejected refugeres, but even then deportation would have been the responsibility of the states, and their eagerness varied.

      The whole story is like a dry river bed. You pour much water in it - anyone who knows the geography will understand why it flows to where it flows. People coming with weird conspiracy ideas to explain why the water flew that way are plain useless and ridiculous.

  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

  3. The first couple minutes of the final video had NOTHING that I didn't already know. He used quite a biased tone, btw.

    Then the narrator entered bullshit land by extrapolating future populations with constant current growth figures. There's no way that makes sense. It's bollocks. The average growth rate in Africa (Arab and South Africa included) is projected to drop from 2.5x to well below 2% over the next three decades.

    He also lied about crime (gang rapes are commonplace nowhere outside of war zones - they're incredibly rare).

    Shortly before 9 minutes he turns crazy, claiming that Western governmetns hate Western values.

    That's an Alex Jones-y grade video. It's crap.

    1. I see you are starting to become angry. This is regrettable.

      Its never a pleasant realisation to learn that your government has thrown you under the bus. But that is exactly what has happened in europe!

      1. This is mere pettifogging. Not using the exemption provision is the same as ordering a stand down of the border police. The end result is millions of undocumented refugees flooding into the country. And you still haven't answered my question. WHAT was the process that resulted in the german government not using the exemption provision?

      2. Oh, I know exactly what you said. Your argument was that the government couldn't have enforced the borders even if they wanted to. In other words, that could use sheer weight of numbers to break through at a few key points, or to split up into smaller groups and pass through the border at many different points. Have I summarised your position correctly?

      3. My intention is to make you realise that there is a disparity between the number of people who entered germany in 2015, and the number of people who were effectively processed and vetted. I imagine its a very low ratio that could have been raised to much higher levels with a properly enforced border.

      4. The problem is, I have plenty of evidence of the refugees causing terrible havoc. Its not some delusional conspiracy thought up in the dark minds of the conservatives you seem to despise so much. Do you want me to show you the videos, sven? I warn you, some of them are quite graphic. On a man for man basis, the muslim refugees are known to cause much more crime than the white europeans. You can challenge me, but you won't win.

      5. Good, I'm glad to see you acknowledge this point: The countrys that flooded europe with fake refugees (and then refused to allow their return) are NOT being punished by germany. You can try and distort the situation as much as you want, saying that germany is morally superior to the U.S. because of this, but the fact remains. It has NOT punished these countrys for their actions.

      6. But there IS evidence of coordination. Some of it was mentioned in the video by paul joseph watson. You keep talking about rule of law, but there is another concept you ignore: Reasonable doubt. There is more than enough reasonable doubt to take action against these NGOs. But the german government has done nothing.

      Taken together, my six points are indirect evidence of the german governments reckless disregard for protecting its people from fake refugees. The only question that remains is why did they do so? Nikolai starikov believes that the crisis was forced on them by america and israel, as punishment for the nord stream pipeline. Theres more to it than that, but you'll have to watch the video. (Sadly, you may be too angry to listen any further)

    2. Well, points 1 and 2 already show that you're not processing information.
      I already told you that and why nothing that could have been done at the border would have mattered. There are legal reasons for this, which I mentioned as well. You just don't process that, so it's pointless to explain anything more to you.

  4. 'It's also easy to see why the government didn't use that emergency provision from Schengen Agreeement Article 2.2 because the legal situation made it pointless. You cannot keep refugees from moving a metre into Germany and saying "Asyl".'

    Thats wrong and you know it. Those people would have been properly processed and detained at refugee camps. They would have been vetted at the very least, before being allowed to 'integrate' (LOL) with german citizens. Instead, many of the refugees were allowed to wander through the border at will and go wherever the hell they wanted. Does that seem like a normal, healthy response by a government, sven ortmann? To allow hundreds of thousands of foreigners (who are a different race, religion, and culture) to pour through your borders? No, its not. Its a recipe for disaster.

    'Is there any limit to how often I have to explain to you the legal situation and rule of law? Merkel is no sun king!'

    I have a question of my own. Is there any limit to the length that a german citizen will go to, in order to avoid acknowledging that their government has committed a colossal error? A mistake so huge that it puts their entire society at risk? Alas, I do not have the answer to that question.

    I know that there is a peculiarly german tendency to stick their collective heads in the sand and go into denial in these situations. There are historical precedents for this I would rather not have to mention...

    'The first couple minutes of the final video had NOTHING that I didn't already know. He used quite a biased tone, btw.'

    Good, you actually listened to the video. Thats something, at least. What are your thoughts on the NGOs being in direct contact with the human traffickers? As evidenced by them being the first to arrive on the scene when the bogus distress calls are sent? And sometimes rendezvousing without ANY distress call having been sent at all?

    What are your thoughts about the open society institute (which has channels with the CIA) being involved with these NGOs? Or their founder having spent huge sums of money to assist them? Is that something that might be worth investigating?

    'Then the narrator entered bullshit land by extrapolating future populations with constant current growth figures. There's no way that makes sense. It's bollocks. The average growth rate in Africa (Arab and South Africa included) is projected to drop from 2.5x to well below 2% over the next three decades.'

    The commentary after the 4 minute mark was of less interest to me. Its entirely possible that his figures on the (projected) increase in africas population could be wrong. Thats not really important, however. Watsons point was that if the number of refugees streaming into europe continues at the rates they are, then whites will become an ethnic minority. Europe will become eurabia. Is that a desirable state of affairs, sven? I know of many far-leftists who say it is.

    'He also lied about crime (gang rapes are commonplace nowhere outside of war zones - they're incredibly rare).'

    Okay, lets just say that hes wrong on that point. Are watsons other observations false? Such as parts of italy resembling the middle east?

    'Shortly before 9 minutes he turns crazy, claiming that Western governmetns hate Western values.'

    I personally find the EUs pressuring of poland and hungary (into accepting more fake refugees) to be reprehensible. Watsons call to take legal action against the NGOs aren't delusional, they're just common sense.