The Agenda To Destabilize
Europe - How The USA
Engineered The Migrant
Crisis
by Suzie Dawson
Recently,
I discovered an NSA strategy document in the Snowden files that
listed the EU as the number one threat to US power: it was ranked
above both China and terrorism.
Recently, I discovered an NSA strategy document in the Snowden files that listed the EU as the number one threat to US power: it was ranked above both China and terrorism.
If you have been following our DecipherYou series analysing the Snowden documents, you will be aware that the NSA secretly prioritised "an expanding EU" as the biggest strategic threat facing US economic and political power.
This is an incredible discovery that provides incontrovertible evidence in support of the theory I had advanced in an epic 2016 article I wrote calledThe Agenda To Destabilise Europe.
In that article, which was based off my analysis of CIA talking points, WikiLeaks documents, and countless other source materials, I stated that I believed the USA knew that their destruction of Libya would result in a migrant crisis (they had been warned of that in advance at the UN, as per public record) and that they intentionally went ahead with it anyway, as part of a campaign to deliberately destabilise the European Union, their supposed allies in the War on Terror.
The information in the article completely obliterates the public perceptions - seeded by mainstream media - and the conventional history of the US-Europe relationship. They are not in fact allies but competitors.
The below is a major piece in the puzzle to understanding the agenda that lies beneath recent events in Europe.
Without further adieu, here is the article. I look forward to your feedback!
Love,
Suzie
Suzie
The Agenda To Destabilize Europe
There is always a manufactured enemy - a scapegoat - behind which geopolitical puppeteers hide.
An ever-increasing concentration of anti-Muslim propaganda has been circulating in social media, more broadly since 9/11 but particularly over the last two years - gradually seeping into the common verbiage of citizens in 'First World' societies.
Tolerance hard won over multiple generations, has been lost within one.
Diversity is again being made a dirty word, rather than an integral, structural pillar of any ethical society.
Those who take fixed positions either pro or anti refugee - pro or anti Muslim - are being divided and conquered. Rather than be pitched against each other, we must examine what lies beneath the propaganda.
For the true bi-polar, diametric positions are that of pro or anti Western intelligence agencies and their interests. Interests that seldom align with that of the general public they are supposed to serve, but more often align with the wishes of the comptrollers in economics and industry and the insatiable governmental aspirations of empirical power.
Tony Gosling, an investigative journalist from Bristol in the UK, wasinterviewed by RT in 2013 and talked about this acceleration and the origins of the mentality, laying the blame squarely at the feet of intelligence agencies like Britain's MI5:
"Western intelligence services have been involved in criminal acts in the past which have actually fueled this kind of sectarian violence which seems to be beginning again here in Britain. There's some serious questions that MI5 have got to answer... we've got other extremists here in Britain, that is to say, anti-Islamic extremists. Two weeks ago a pensioner coming home from his mosque in Birmingham, in the Midlands of Britain, was murdered, and this got almost no coverage whatsoever and we need to make sure the security services are taking exactly the same sort of measures against the anti-Muslims like the English Defense League and these kinds of organisations, as they are against the Islamic organisations... what they're actually trying to do is demonise Muslims in a similar way to the Nazis demonising Jews back in the 1930s and its ridiculous. We've got to stop that, and we don't want that from MI5 thank you very much!"
Gosling makes great points, but MI5 is just one of countless agencies hiding behind the anti-immigrant curtain.
American Hostility Towards The EU
The root of American contempt for the European Union is likely not just political, but also economic. The total gross domestic product (GDP) of the European Union is slightly larger than that of the United States, although the per capita GDP is approximately one-third less.
This means the two super-powers are not simply allies, or trading partners, but are also competitors.
The European Union has, to date, proven resistant to many of the ills of American economic convention; largely remaining GE/GMO-free, andacting to regulate lobbying by interest groups.
Such constraints are abrasive to the corporate power of the United States.
While the United States has brought many of the world's countries to heel through military adventure or economic coercion, the European Union has, in some ways, remained legislatively impervious to those pressures.
The contempt of US diplomats towards the European Union was never more blatant than that revealed by the leak of the now-infamous "Fuck The EU" tape.
Revealing the culpability and craftiness of US diplomats in converting the Maidan protests into an opportunity for a pro-US regime change and then micro-managing the formation of the new Ukrainian government, the tape more broadly illustrates their general contempt for the European Union.
While it is difficult to verify the efficacy of the associated Twitter accounts,a quick search makes it clear that the 'Fuck The EU' sentiment is becoming increasingly widespread.
Signs Of Schengen Fracturing (Again)
According to The Economist: "various studies over the years have argued that the Schengen agreement led members to form closer trading partnerships, boosted both imports and exports, and drew tourists."
This opinion has been ratified by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the German Economy Minister at the Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland, this week.
Their comments were made in the wake of Austria having recently "temporarily" suspended Schengen.
As Reuters reports:
The cracks were apparent at least as far back as August, 2015, but were not the first existential pressure on the Schengen pact, as explained by The Economist:
This is not the first time that the Schengen agreement has appeared to be in danger of fraying. In 2011, fearing an influx of North African refugees, Italy and France pushed for a review of the agreement. Earlier this year the Dutch prime minister threatened Greece with expulsion if it allowed migrants free passage to the rest of Europe. Neither eventuality came to pass.
So why did those countries expect "an influx" of migrants from North Africa, as far back as 2011? What caused this original threat to Schengen?
The destruction of Libya.
The True Roots Of The Migrant Crisis
NATO's official story about the bombing of Libya is, of course, that it was a humanitarian intervention. However, there is ample evidence that it was actually a war fought for economic reasons and the control of resources.
Regardless of the 'why', the end result was foreordained by none other than Muammar Gaddafi himself.
In Part 4 of the new documentary "World Order", hosted by LiveLeak, Gaddafi is shown saying:
"Negligence of the stability in Libya will result in collapse due to instability in the Mediterranean. In case our power in Libya were to stop, millions of Africans will illegally flow to Italy, to France. Europe would become 'black' within the shortest possible period. We prevent migration by resisting Al-Qaeda. If the stability in Libya is disrupted, it will immediately cause bad consequences for Europe and Mediterranean countries. Everyone will be in danger."
This suggests that it was known well in advance of the destabilization of Libya, that failure to secure that country would result in a human tidal wave of economic migrants from the North of Africa that, compounded by the Iraqi, Syrian and other refugees that have resulted from the many military misadventures of Western interventions in the Middle East, might ultimately overwhelm Europe.
At 05:00 in the same segment of the documentary, Russian President Vladimir Putin sub-textually ratifies the theory that the United States sees a unified European Union as an economic foe.
"The united Europe is more than 300 million people, the biggest economy. The Euro keeps its position stable... It recovers the space for itself as a world reserve currency. It is good, because when there is only one reserve currency, the USD, it restricts the space for maneuver for the whole world economy."
EU Introduction Of Biometric Databases Threatens The CIA
Wikileaks' 2014 releases of 'The CIA Travel Documents' shed light on further benefits to the United States intelligence agencies, were Schengen to be collectively abandoned by European states.
CIA concerned about ability to maintain cover after intro of biometrics in 2015 in Schengen | http://t.co/ou6CcgeTW9 #CIAtravel
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) December 21, 2014
As stated in the accompanying press release:
"The documents show that the CIA has developed an extreme concern over how biometric databases will put CIA clandestine operations at risk – databases other parts of the US government made prevalent post-9/11."
From within the leaked documents themselves (specifically, the 'Infiltrating Schengen' document):
The European Commission is considering requiring travelers who do not require visas to provide biometric data at their first place of entry into the Schengen area, which would increase the identity threat level for all US travelers.
So it seems that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. While the US pushes the advances of biometrics for security purposes, the adoption of those same technologies by other states, in this case the European Union as a whole, threatens the cover of its intelligence agents.
CIA concerned about ability to maintain cover after intro of biometrics in 2015 in Schengen | http://t.co/ou6CcgeTW9 #CIAtravel
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) December 21, 2014With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?
Agitating for the termination of the border-less zone isn't just about prioritizing American economic interests, or protecting US intelligence assets. It is also about pressuring the EU into sharing more of its citizen's data with intelligence agencies.
There are some very high-profile talking heads that have been predicting that the end of Schengen is nigh, and who have fascinating input on the subject.
On November 22nd, 2015, in the wake of the Paris attacks, and just as Belgium was being locked down due to alleged terror threats, CNN hosted two such guests on a panel with anchor Fareed Zakaria.
Namely, Richard Haass - the President of the Council on Foreign Relationsand Philip Mudd; CNN Counter-terrorism analyst, former deputy director of the CIA's Counter Terrorist Center and the ex FBI deputy director of the National Security Branch.
Haass directly declared the end of the Schengen Zone, stating "those days are over".
Zakaria: Richard, you've dealt with the Europeans for many years. This is a case where, you know, you need more Europe in a sense. You need the Europeans to share more, to deepen the ties, but the politics is less Europe.
Haass: Absolutely right. You need much more sharing. You're not seeing it. We're also going to see a whole change, I think, to what's called the Schengen area, the idea that once you get into Europe you're essentially free to move around. Those days are over. So rather than European - the European project moving forward in some ways, Fareed, I think we're actually more likely to see it move backwards where the balance between nationalism and Europeanism is about to move more in the direction of nationalism.
Zakaria: Fascinating. When we come back I'm going to ask Richard about Hillary Clinton who gave a big speech about ISIS hosted by him. Stay with us.
So the President of the Council on Foreign Relations - an entity whose membership, according to Wikipedia, "has included senior politicians, more than a dozen secretaries of state, CIA directors, bankers, lawyers, professors, and senior media figures" not only predicts that Schengen is already done and dusted, but that Europe as a whole is moving backwards and heading in the direction of nationalism - a phenomena not seen since pre World War II.
But wait, there's more.
Haass: Well, I actually think not just in Europe but here in the United States we're on the cusp of what will be a second great debate about the balance between individual privacy and collective security. And the sorts of questions you just raised are going to come to the fore. And the answer is I think the pendulum is going to have to swing. Not dramatically. We're not talking going to the other end but somewhat in the direction of greater collective security. So we are going to have to gather more data, more information about societies and about our populations.
So the country whose intelligence mantra has been 'Collect It All' wants yet more data - but rather than collect it, it wants Europe to hand it over on a silver platter, on the premise that this will somehow improve their security situation.
And to what end?
Zakaria: Do you think that this will extend to being able to kill a French citizen on a battlefield if, you know, again, they haven't committed a crime. You know, we've crossed that bridge with Anwar al-Awlaki. The British just did. Are the French now facing this issue?
Mudd: I do. I think this is one of the great untold stories of this war. People debated, it's not widely known. Presidents of countries having the authority to authorize the killing of a citizen on foreign soil when that citizen can't be brought in for the judicial process. We've had, as you said, with an American, with the British citizen. If you're the French president and you find with the Americans because the Americans are likely to develop intelligence on this, that you can locate the perpetrators, you then have the choice, do you allow that plot or plotters to continue because you can't bring them home to justice immediately or do you authorize a targeted killing? And I think given what the French president said after this event you're going to have a third country say, it is appropriate for the leader of a country to authorize the killing of a citizen on foreign soil without a judicial process.
The implications are enormous. Mudd's suggestion is that the Americans will supply intelligence to European countries (in this case, France) which will lead to them authorising targeted killings of their own citizens on foreign soil, without judicial process.
Just how does one go from being Deputy Director of the CIA, to a CNN analyst?
While Mudd doesn't appear to have a Wikipedia page dedicated to him, he does appear in several references. Including the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture.
The use of the term 'get out and sell' is puzzling, until you dig a little deeper. In a video of a presentation by Mudd to his alma mater, Villanova University, he constantly refers to the CIA as 'the business', and repeatedly references himself as having decades of experience 'in the business'.
Bringing us full circle to the real agenda behind the attrition of European unity and the increase in intelligence sharing - solidifying and expanding America's financial and economic power.
Sure enough - according to Mudd he does "a week a month at a boutique wealth management firm" - which appears to map to his CNN biography which states "Mudd is the Director of Enterprise Risk at SouthernSun Asset Management in Memphis, Tennessee."
The last 10 minutes of his Villanova speech gets really interesting. When asked what was his biggest mistake, Mudd sheds light on the impetus for his transition from the public to private sectors.
"I quit government, I didn't retire. I quit in 2010 because I was nominated by the President to take over Homeland Security Intelligence. Which is a low budget Presidential nomination - although when you join government as an entry level guy - the President doesn't have that many nominees...
...that Presidential nomination requires Senate confirmation. You've got to sit in front of the Senate on C-SPAN and get your ass handed to you. I quit because the Senate at the end of the confirmation process, which is about a six-month process, said 'this guy knows about CIA and what they did to CIA prisoners, and we're going to hammer him'...
...professionally, I'm like, this is going to be front page news, I'm not doing it. That's an embarrassment to the President. I allowed the Congressional Affairs Office to handle the six months with the Congress, and they let it get out of hand. I'm happy I quit, I have a great life, I don't work very hard and I make a lot of money. And I drink a lot of wine... [laughter]
...so I pulled my nomination. It was front page news for one day, which is the right thing. I don't have very many regrets but I probably should not have trusted the Congressional Affairs Office, so I lost the career...
...Can you turn the camera off?" [Cameraman stops tape]
Wikipedia is less kind: "CIA Deputy Director Philip Mudd deliberately lied to Congress about the [torture] program..."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.