Friday, November 13, 2015

Mass Migration is NWO/Marxist Engineering Feat Based on Genocide through Manipulation

Why the mass migration across Europe and into the United States?

Have you been led to believe that it is the result of "global warming" and other such nonsense?

You are witnessing the elites, such as George Soros and Angela Merkel, manipulate mobs of ignorant, exploited, and dispossessed people with the intent to undermine and destroy the very nationhood of countries...of cultures...and in the process, destroy the very meaning of what it means to be human.

Read...and dig into these websites...and get angry.

The following is an original research project by Silvija Germek and may be located in its original entirety here:  which is Part 1.  Part 2 may be located at this URL   


The documents below are a copy of NIC’s writings on the planned mass migration in Europe which were prepared for the joint US intelligence community over a number of years as part of planning of the coming migrant invasion of Europe. Note the very specific timeline of coincidences leading up to the current migrant crisis. 

Virtually every step along the way of preparing for the migrant crisis by heads of state, reaction of the German population, groups and types of migrants who arrive, problems created, reactions incurred and solutions offered at the moment was neatly documented in the planning documents by the joint intelligence community from 2008 until 2012 in stepwise fashion. 

By 2010, Greenhill had finished her empirical study of how to cause coercion by mass migration weapons and published “Weapons of Mass Migration”. The same year, Merkel and some in her shadow government such as Ursula von der Leyen were parroting the exact lines recommended in the reports of the US intelligence community enclosed below. NIC predicted the political kneejerk reaction – that Germans would move politically to the right as a shock reaction and that this was deemed desirable. 

Also in 2010, Merkel and her (then) social minister Ursula von der Leyen (who is the current defense minister) has been asking for migrants to enrich the German work force with. 

In 2009, Stephen Kaplan became principal deputy of the NIC. Greenhill builds part of her thesis based on Force Without Warwhich he authored for the Brookings Institution. Evidence of plans is found to create a migrant crisis and migrants to be brought to serve the German work force with much emphasis of drop in German birth rates and the prospect of retiring baby boomers. 

The timing for 2010 startup of proactive migration strategy was concluded in the 2009 NIC document. 

US National Intelligence Council (NIC) had already long worked on migration trend theory. Obama took office in 2009. James Clapper came in as DNI. NATO's New Strategic Concept was proffered in 2009.

So by 2010, US had everything positioned in ideal alignment to stir up Western European components of NATO. 

Since the inauguration of the CIA-dominated Obama administration in January 2008, the US intelligence community under strategies developed by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) have challenged NATO command and the EU, OECD and other Western European bodies to comprehend and adapt “soft power” strategies based on global demographic trends.

The US policy establishment was highly critical of the NATO initiative for a New Strategic Concept that began in Strassburg-Kehl in April 2009, presided over by Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy for being “stratified” in conventional “hard power” thinking (one year prior to adoption of the New Strategic Concept in Lisbon.)

In the article below, one of the Agency’s assets in NATO, a twice former acting Secretary of NATO, Sergio Balazino, pushed for Western Europeans to recognize issues like migration as strategic concepts.

What follows is the NIC global trends 2025 global trends report that put migration in the western European context, and below that the sequential series of NIC thinking on migration since 2000. 

From: US National Intelligence Council: Global Trends 2025, issued Nov. 2008

Western Europe has become the destination of choice for more than one million immigrants annually and home for more than 35 million foreign born—many from Muslim majority countries in North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia (see box on page 25). Immigration and integration politics, and confrontations with Muslim conservatives over education, women’s rights, and the relationship between the state and religion are likely to strengthen right-of-center political organizations and splinter the left-of-center political coalitions that were instrumental in building it. 

The US National Intelligence Council on growing global migration

Source: Population and Development Review. 2001 Dec; 27(4):817-9.

The National Intelligence Council (NIC) brings together expertise from inside and outside the US government to engage in strategic thinking on national security issues. Some of its reports are issued in unclassified versions, one of which is “Global Trends 2015: A Dialogue about the Future with Nongovernment Experts.” Published in December 2000, it discussed what it terms the key drivers of global change and presented a generally bleak set of scenarios for the medium-term future. Demographic factors, mass migration in particular, were seen as the drivers. 

This topic is investigated further in a subsequent NIC report, “Growing Global Migration and its Implications for the US.” In this article, an overview of this NIC report is presented. It notes that during the next 15 years, globalization, demographic imbalances, and interstate and civil conflicts will fuel increasing international migration, much of it illegal. Such increase will have positive and negative consequences for sending and receiving countries alike. Key regional trends are presented for the Americas, Russia and other Eurasian states, Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, and Asia. Other countries' responses to migration issues, especially Japanese and European Union responses, will affect migration pressures on the US and a broad range of US economic and security interests.
- See more at:

National Intelligence Council - Global Trends 2030, issued Dec. 10 2012

Could Western Europe Cope with New Waves of Muslim Immigration?

The potential for persistent instability in North Africa, the Levant, and South Asia clearly has high stakes for Western Europe, for lots of reasons, but foremost because of the prospect for increased migration from Muslim-majority countries. This trend will likely reshape Western European society and politics.

With low projected economic growth, Western Europe would have many challenges with current levels of immigrant flows and immigrant residents. Assuming that Western European fertility remains at sub-replacement levels, countries can expect to experience a rapid shift in ethnic composition, particularly around urban areas. While Western Europe’s future of demographic aging and declines in its working-age population should enhance immigrants’ job opportunities, labor market and workplace policies could continue to dampen formal-sector job growth. When coupled with job discrimination and educational disadvantage, these factors will confine many immigrants to low-status, low-wage jobs, and result in deepening societal cleavages.

The growing presence of Muslim communities in Western European countries has already triggered contentious debate over policies affecting human rights, group rights, education, women’s rights, freedom of expression, and the relationship between the state and religion.

Despite a sizable stratum of integrated Muslims across Western Europe, a subset will increasingly identify with Muslim communities that are relatively closed to outsiders, valuing their separation as distinct communities, oriented toward Muslim-specific rights and privileges, with some driven by a sense of alienation, grievance and injustice.

It may be that Western European governments, and political systems, could meet with limited success in managing integration of resident Muslims. Part of the challenge will likely be a surplus of policy goals—from mitigating radicalization to engendering adoption of shared values of tolerance and individual human rights, to respecting majority community values, and respecting minority community values. The skill and subtlety required to reconcile these diverse goals and implement programs with broad public support across multiple jurisdictions of government could well be beyond the capacity of most Western European states and their political systems.

Debates over Muslim-related social policies are almost certain to influence the structure and texture of the European political environment. Even without increased levels of migration, Western Europeans face wrenching tasks of rewriting of social contracts and adaptation of political systems. The presence of large Muslim minorities in Western Europe, as voters and as non-voting residents, will give these tasks a normative dimension that will hard to avoid. It is a massive open question whether Europe’s rich and complex history of reconciling religion and the state will be a net hindrance or a net asset.

Robert O. is one of the Research Directors in the National Intelligence Council’s Strategic Futures Group, with a portfolio covering governance, democratization, and migration.

Future Trajectories of Migration and Issues Policy Makers Will Face – Migration and Europe

New trends involving global migration?

In the period to 2030, I expect the powerful motivations that induced people to migrate in last 20 years are expected to persist. The motivations of migrants will be shaped by both push and pull factors—pressure to exit and attraction of destination countries—resulting in increasing numbers of migrants going to emerging economies with growing middle classes in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Massive cities with informal economies and technology centers will likely have magnetic-like attraction for both internal migrants and people from poorer countries.

• Migrants will continue to be pushed from their origin countries by environmental stress, including climate change, by war, civil conflict and crime, and by ethnic rivalries and discrimination. Survival will motivate many to move, despite marginalization of refugees in destination countries.

• Migrant motivations also will be powerfully shaped by pull factors, such as the attractions of greater wages, improved life chances, opportunity to better use their skills and education, and chances to influence their origin countries as part of cohesive Diasporas. People affected by pull factors will range from low-skilled agricultural and service workers to top flight scientists and engineers. Successful migration experiences of earlier migrants will feed motivations of others to take their chances, especially among women with constrained life chances in their home countries.

It is worth considering seven potential trends involving global migration:

Proliferation of border control and immigrant identification technologies, to track not only flows across borders, but also activities of resident immigrants. Increased use, maintenance of data bases for residents, citizens for access to services. There will likely be a related increase in opportunities for corruption, cyber intrusions, and false documentation. Technologies could give governments capabilities they really don’t want to implement, especially for large informal economies. Workarounds will abound.

Sharp increase in emerging economies as immigrant destinations. Labor migrants will take advantage of vibrant economic growth and large, urban informal economies, even if the environments portend social stresses. Governments grapple with how to accommodate immigration as both a source of economic growth and of social tension. Efforts to introduce gradations in immigrant citizenship status (as in Roman imperial efforts to give legal status to peoples from the periphery). Where will middle class interests come down? 

Aging societies will find ways to make labor migration work. Aging populations and mismatches between education and labor demand will make labor migration more important to economic performance. In these aging societies, private sectors will likely sustain and increase demand for migrant labor—for both low-skill and high-skill or professional workers, even if politically and culturally sensitive. Despite episodic efforts to rein in migration, governments will generally be both unable to withstand private sector influences favoring migration and unable to systematically track and regulate individuals migrants. Are backlashes inevitable? 

Intensified debate over status of labor immigrants and refugees in advanced social welfare states. We should expect increased social mobilization, legal maneuvering and NGO activities over rights and obligations of immigrants. How immigrants relate to preexisting social contracts will become an increasingly important issue. Will private sectors that need labor mount campaigns to support immigration and even immigrant rights?

Tensions, frictions between government jurisdictions over migration. We should expect to see divergent goals and incentives of national and provincial or local governments, with increased efforts of urban jurisdictions to extract revenue from informal economies with extensive immigrant participation. Different jurisdictions will bear different kinds of costs for migration. We are likely to see increased attention to the obligations of residency, as opposed to citizenship, with lots of contention over which part of society can articulate such obligations. Educational standards for new migrants will likely be contested. Could inconsistencies between
1 jurisdictions persist for years?
2 Increased recognition by national and sub-national governments of reputational advantages of having immigrant rights and “the right to have rights” (Arendt), at least for the highly skilled. National reputations will be a determinant of flows and, recruitment of talent and could increasingly seen as a factor in economic performance. Can we expect a global market for highly skilled, mobile people?
3 Increased government-to-government cooperation over labor migration. We could see some nascent global governance mechanisms, and increased incentives for governments to bind themselves in bilateral or multilateral institutions, conventions or protocols, in order to (1) gain leverage with domestic constituencies over migration issues, and (2) gain reciprocity from signatory nations. Implementing and monitoring such agreements will be difficult, contentious, and touch sensitivities regarding sovereignty. Would brain drain or brain gain be among the first issues to be addressed?
Robert O. is one of the Research Directors in the National Intelligence Council’s Strategic Futures Group, with a portfolio covering governance, democratization, and migration.

“NATO's New Strategic Concept in the light of the European Security Challenges” 
by Sergio Balanzino

There are other topics that may appear that were not contemplated in the previous or in the existing Strategic Concept. For example energy security, cyber security – security against cyber attacks, mass migrations – whether dependent on climate changes, on civil wars, whatever. But the fact that mass migration could affect and alter the stability of at least some members of the Alliance is a fact and is a problem and should probably be dealt with by the Alliance somehow. Well, as I said, there is no unanimity for the time being but also there is no clear project, there is no clear text of the Declaration first and of course even less of the new Security Concept. But at the bottom, at the basis of all our considerations there is one very simple and I would say essential element: the political will accompanied by the financial means.

This series of writings on the background of the European migration crisis will be continued....

The above is an original research project by Silvija Germek. You may quote from the text but please adhere to host web site WMR’s policy for reproduction: (1) List author as well as (2) post direct url to Wayne Madsen to this page as source, if using the materials. Thank you.



Merkel, Soros and CIA’s Weapons of Mass Migration

Europe’s Mass Migration Crisis of 2015

Borders in Europe are suddenly overrun by thousands of running migrants from many faraway countries daily. Tent cities for migrants are burning. Some countries build massive border fences while others still attempt to adhere to open border policies. All are strained and the worst is yet to come.

Political fights are erupting and some of Europe’s strongest political unions are fracturing while odd new cuddle coalitions of unusual political bed partners are springing up. Militarized police and anti-terror units intervene in dangerous violent escalations of migrant fights and growing protest waves against this invasion across Europe almost daily.

An “army of invaders” is on the way inside of Europe per Hungary’s president Viktor Orban, landing on Europe’s shores in boats, marching in large groups toward Germany. EU politicians and human rights NGOs insist on describing them as “Syrian war refugees” and European mainstream media goes out of its way to pose with photogenic Syrian children in tragic scenes to sell the agenda while never explaining the agenda to the public. It is clear by observation that true Syrian refugees are a minority among them while armies of all male economic migrants and as well as a host of problem populations including visibly radical Islamists from many countries make up a larger portion of the migrant tsunami. Most do not qualify for political asylum by EU laws. Yet they keep marching on, trampling down border crossings, setting obstacles on fire, attacking police and border patrols within a host of European countries, all of whom are sending urgent messages that their resources are swamped and disintegrating. Yet the migrants in masses keep marching on and Merkel keeps on merkeling on with the entire EU in tow, all tuned in intensely to some master’s voice which is obviously just not yet revealed to the rest of us unwasheds.

According to many official EU sources, the migrants consist of 80% young males from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and a host of African and Asian countries. A large number of relatively wealthy economic migrants are reportedly among them, having paid an average of $7,000-15,000 to human traffickers for voyage to Germany. European media has been reporting rumors that many cannot pay and their cost is picked up by US deep pockets. By whom?

Who are these migrants? Are they Syrians or fleeing from war zones? Why are almost all young males? Who is selecting, sorting and coordinating them on voyages around the planet and large stretches on foot, all suddenly heading for German, all listening to the same call? Whose call?

Photos of the migrant groups show something which is quite far from an ordinary random mix refugee population in the manner refugee populations tend to be comprised of a mix of everything which runs out of a war zone. Following official narrative, most of Europe’s Syrian refugees and migrants (not otherwise specified) should be a mostly Syrian mostly family mix. That is a messy picture to those who understand humanitarian relief. The young, the old, babies being born on treks, children crying and old folks dying and a lot of people who ran out of insulin on the way becoming mass medical casualties…. Yet this is far from the picture here.

Europe’s mass migration is many things…. Survival of the fittest and economically most competitive of destroyed Middle Eastern countries facing total destruction by US wars under ISIL cover at home, countless habitually migrating economic migrants from a host of Asian and African countries, among them many economic migrants with money who are not fleeing from wars but buying expensive passage into Germany to find work, among them desperate traumatized refugees from a host of countries, among them every bit of human tragedy, opportunism, depravity and hope all of humanity can offer. All of it is marching, C.O.D., demanding cash on delivery to Europe, unstoppably, growing into one stream of desperate and opportunistic humanity to Germany as if the hope of Mecca had gone out of style.

And among them, another group, an unusually high number of migrants in the group are of another type – many are turning out to be Islamic extremists who are violently hostile toward other religions and ethnic groups among the migrants they come with as well as showing hostility toward their European hosts. More disturbingly, it is widely reported that migrants vanish by the thousands once inside of Germany without registration and are drawn into Salafist networks who are busy recruiting the newcomers, particularly the countless unaccompanied minors among them. Many European authorities warn that thousands of jihadists have entered Germany as no efforts are made to stop this stream.

No border crossing in Europe has thus far withstood thousands of stampeding mostly very physically fit migrants, 80% of whom peculiarly present as young men with IPhones who are being coordinated by various Soros NGOs and like-minded volunteers on a trek across many countries toward Germany.

While the EU has had a steadily growing number of asylum-seekers from mostly Middle Eastern and African countries in the last several years, Merkel in recent months issued an additional open invitation to migrants from around the world to move to Germany. Hold that thought. Because as someone with many years of NGO in war zone experience close to UNHCR and IOM operations, I have much to say to this never having been an authentic model to follow but instead being known in the NGO/soft power/intelligence world as being a known Trojan Horse construct model but this will be discussed in detail in future texts.

On the face of it, Merkel’s invitation set a human tsunami in motion on several continents with large streams of migrants marching toward Germany across many countries. This mass migration occurred after already several hundred thousands of migrants previously arrived in the EU in recent months.

Resources throughout Europe are so swamped that various social service sectors, migrant authorities, police and national security systems are sending distress signals directly to the media instead of to Chancellor Merkel (!) and warning of impending system collapses if the borders are not closed immediately as migrant shelters are filled beyond capacity and there is no room for more migrants. The newcomers are often living outdoors in Germany with an impending cold winter without adequate shelter.

Western Balkans migration route, currently used by the largest number of migrants into western and northern Europe
Abandoned bicycles used by migrants using the Arctic route of the Russia-Norway border
Map of bicycle route from Syria to Norway

Per UNHCR and EU, an additional 3.7 million migrants are on the way to Europe from Asia, Africa and the Middle East and will reach Germany in the next few months. There are 60 million refugees on the move globally with a potential for 100 million total per UNHCR. Borders of most transit countries are being overrun repeatedly, border agents and police shoved aside by mobs of thousands of people pushing, shoving, fighting, throwing rocks and bottles at police and attacking riot police with tear gas they brought along and distributed with such efficiency that it is clear that someone is handing out these supplies to migrant masses while preparing them for their role now.

Daily stampedes of migrants break through the same borders, setting fires in transit country Croatiaburning down a tent city in Slovenia in protest over being held up at the border too long. Any border, structure of police standing in their way is attacked or mowed down by the unstoppable masses. Macedonia declared a state of emergencywhile hundreds of Finns formed a human chain which refused to let migrants enter Finland as they came over the Swedish border. Transit countries attempt to set daily quotas which their resources are capable of processing which leaves migrants stranded along each country’s border, creating hot spots fraught with violence and complex risks to each country. Tempers and violence flare, knives are drawn. Border patrol and riot police are helpless in the face of the enormous masses of humanity pouring across so many borders into Europe at once.

Hungary’s border fence, erected in response to the mass migrant invasion in 2015:

Hungary’s new border fence is guarded by its military with executive orders from President Orban to use military force, if necessary, to defend the border. Hungary is the only country in Europe which has firmly protected its borders after some initial mass invasions by migrants and Hungary’s president Orban has taken a firm stance on control of Hungary’s borders and steadfastly refused transit or asylum to the migrants in direct response to early invasions by what Orban called “an invasion by an army”, confirming that most are young male Afghans, many obvious veteran combatant jihadists with only a minority among them being real Syrian war refugees. More on Orban’s monolithic approach and the possible political and intelligence strategies behind it will be added.

Other countries who are either flirting with similar border protection ideas or are currently refusing to take EU migrant quotas are the Visegrad Group of Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Video of November 2015 migrant route via Greece, Croatia, Slovenia

Mass violence of hundreds of young men fighting each other in migrant camps is a daily occurrence. Germany routinely uses SEK (a GSG-9 twin) and various militarized federal and anti-terror forces to break up dangerous mass fights in migrant shelters.

Tensions among many European countries are escalating, political tempers flaring all over Europe. The social, media-created and political atmosphere is heavily pregnant with noticeable social engineering on a massive scale perpetrated by an orchestrated and highly organized symphony of heads of state, EU officials, media and their useful tool, the migrants themselves, who are all obviously part of a massive and complex script of economic, political, military and intelligence leaders leading the way unstoppably directly into crisis.

A giant confluence of Hegelian Dialectics is unfolding in Europe which is being flooded with mass migration by design and a host of migrant [i]outflow countries (a fixed covert foreign policy phrase, much more detail on this later) who are being crippled even more by this mass migration draining their youngest healthiest resources and workers. It is all deployed onto Europe with Germany as main target country (part of the same jargon, more detail when we discuss the CIA dialectics of what outflow and target countries are in this context of engineered coercive mass migration disasters) in a seemingly rehearsed sequence of creating a crisis as a team and cultivating the crisis with visible agendas emerging and many new and highly unusual crisis management solutions being sold to an increasingly distressed public throughout Europe.

Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria and Germany are escalating increasing conflicts with each other as the onslaught of migrants is swamping all humanitarian and police and national security systems in several countries hard hit by the migrant invasion. Twenty years after the last bloody war caused by CIA and its multi-national partner intelligence networks in Yugoslavia, Merkel who also kicked off this crisis now warns that in the Balkans, peace is increasingly at risk as the distressed countries along the transit route have little choice but play a macabre rapid-fire game of tossing unruly migrant mobs across each other’s borders to pass the problem on and send it on its way to Germany. Borders open and close quickly throughout Europe which is stemming the migrant tide. Political tempers flare.

Political fights within each country and across the borders are escalating. Hungary finally tired of asking its neighbors for cooperation and arrested Croatian police officers who had escorted trains of migrants across the border despite the expressed wishes of Hungary which wrapped many layers of concertina fencing around its borders and sent the military to guard borders to keep future migrant stampedes out of Hungary. Such benefit is politically cosmetic and temporary at best, obstructive during crisis and covertly shaping its outcome at worst.

Millions of migrants will receive asylum in Germany over the next year or two by all statistics. Counting the “Familiennachzug” or number of family members following with automatic rights upon each approved asylum-seeker who would earn the right to move to Germany also which as a final outcome quintuples the number of migrants per capita. For each asylum-approved migrant, statistically 4.5 relatives from the same “outflow country” receive the right to follow upon approval of application to…well, Germany, since the EU is furiously signaling unwillingness to continue going down Merkel’s path of European extinction much longer. New EU proposals suggest that the EU will simply take charge of distribution to all of its members, including those stubborn Visegrad countries. With Merkel as ongoing sitting Mother Angela to migrants, this portal is large enough to fill the entire EU by involuntary distribution with whatever Merkel drags into the EU while she still maintains power.

Thus, the Hungarian fence, viewed heroic by some, is merely a distraction and a dialectical manifestation of the intra-EU migrant battle but without long-range relevance beyond that. With proper papers from Germany, migrants will have the right to legally move to Hungary or the nearly equally migrant-resistant other Visegrad Group countries of Poland, Slovakia and Czech Republic. At worst, the border fence around Hungary creates bottlenecks in other regions and worsen the crisis. A single EU country posturing against the Union cannot possibly solve this problem.

A unified rapid solution from EU leadership would be needed if anyone were interested in EU internal security but the EU seems to have gone fishing for migrants in the Mediterranean and is proving to be quite complicit in the mass importation of them as EU’s Juncker is as involved as Merkel in facilitating this invasion.

It has been confirmed throughout the migrants’ routes that many migrants have been given a booklet guiding them to Germany with tips how to apply for Hartz IV German unemployment benefits, free medical care, free housing and asylum, also how to navigate EU asylum laws and circumvent the Dublin II asylum laws of the EU. The booklets have been printed in Arabic by a group named “Welcome2Eu” or “W2EU” and are being given out by NGO volunteers in Greece and Turkey at the beginning of the migrants’ mass journey across Europe.

Among the helpers and financiers of the synthetic migration crisis in Europe arevarious Soros groups and also EPIM - European Programme for Integration and Migration, a direct partner of the Soros Open Society umbrella which is hardwired into EU governance as a privatized arm of soft power foreign policy embedded in the NGO world.

Groups such as MigrationAid Hungary (#migaidhu) coordinate Twitter messages to a surprisingly large number of young men along the migrant routes with IPhones who are neither refugees nor Syrians and Twitter coordination is helping migrants find open passage via the designated transit corridor from Turkey into Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Austria where from Salzburg, Germany runs countless special trains into Germany. We are told that a married couple in Budapest took it upon themselves to coordinate the migration of millions of people by creating their Twitter account which sends up-to-date Twitter coordinates to the migrants’ apps as to which border crossing to storm and overrun next.

European media from the Balkans to Germany report that trucks have shown up with blank Syrian passports at various refugee collection points which are for sale and that thousands of fake Syrian passports along with birth certificates and entire canned portfolios of documents have been issued by networks of human traffickers who are cued in to the migration routes outlined by the Soros NGO friends and volunteers who are organizing migrant streams from a number of countries and 2 continents into Germany.

What does Soros want?

This is the stated mission of the diverse Soros groups, linked to an NGO umbrella site confirming it.

Soros’ goals are:

- Establishing a single EU Asylum and Migration Agency, leading eventually to a single EU border guard -replacing the 28 separate systems that current function in an inadequate patchwork manner. (Note: A major point is being made by ongoing “resource swamping” all migrant support agencies, leaving only this possibility of centralization of power and surrender to EU/UN ideas of global control. SG)

- Creating safe channels for getting asylum seekers to Europe and from Greece and Italy to their destination countries, (Note: Soros and EU are very OPENLY complicit in the trafficking. This will be addressed in future texts as many examples proving this point exist. SG)

- Using these necessary EU operational and financial arrangements as the basis for establishing “global standards for the treatment of asylum-seekers and migrants,”(Centralization and globalization of control of who lives where on the planet and can be mass-migrated by the country full and moved to other parts of the world and with what standards of living on this planet should be surrendered to EU/UN. SG)

- - “[Mobilizing] the private sector—NGOs, church groups, and businesses—to act as sponsors” for refugees and asylum seekers. The NGOs, churches and businesses as well as celebs are all clocked in and working hard to sell this engineered mass invasion by countless problem populations of the world as a humanitarian obligation while refusing to address the root causes of these migrations – [i](if the west stopped leading so many wars, coups, covert proxy wars and CIA mini-wars and stopped bankrupting economies, this problem would be definitively solved as most migrants consistently want to live at home and would return home if the possibility of a good life existed. The solution to the migrant problem is certainly not aiding and abetting this mass invasion as the EU is visibly engaged in along with Soros groups, UN groups and western intelligence, increasingly European military assistance from several countries now. More on that in detail in future texts. 

Soros groups to the rescue! They organizing higher funding for 4 million refugees currently located in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon with projected costs of $5,000 per refugee. This ties to a complex agenda in which the UN, EU and CIA are all visibly involved which will be covered in future writings in detail.

Merkel’s asylum politics are rapidly tossing Germany and the EU into a series of serious crises but who is controlling Merkel’s handling of this crisis? This will be examined in detail next in this series on Merkel, Soros and CIA’s Weapons of Mass Migration: Germany’s national security on the verge of collapse… militarization of Germany in domestic and international domains as a result of this crisis and respective changes in German and anticipated EU changes in laws… restriction of freedom of speech and hate speech laws, No-Go Zones, strictly enforced protest zones…. Europe moves to the political right in fear and attempted public self-defense, uncomfortably far to the right…the engineered right and far right and the controllers behind them……coercive engineered mass migration and the underlying agendas and CIA academic blueprints being used as template...the groups, individuals and motives behind the entire manufactured mass migration crisis… results of recent European elections and new far right candidates, elected due to the synthetic migrant crisis as well as fracturing alliances and new political alliances emerging in Europe…. Who is tossing Germany into crisis and polarizing Germans and visibly stoking fear and hate among Germans and mostly muslim newcomers from the Middle East, Africa and Asia and why?... full examination of the CIA blueprint texts which are being used as template to make this crisis...coming in future posts. 

The above is an original research project by Silvija Germek. You may quote from the text but please adhere to host web site WMR’s policy for reproduction: (1) List author as well as (2) post direct url to Wayne Madsen to this page as source, if using the materials. Thank you!





Merkel, Soros and CIA's Weapons of Mass Migration

The covert foreign policy blueprint behind the engineered mass migration crisis of Europe explained....part 2 of a series. Part 1 ishere.

Who is Kelly M. Greenhill? What are Weapons of Mass Migration?

In 2010, a book entitled “Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion and Foreign Policy" was published by Kelly M Greenhill. As an academic tied to universities such as Harvard, Cornell and Tufts, the Belfer Center and with links to foreign policy-planning think tanks linked to CIA and New School of Social Research (A Frankfurt School twin in NYC) and with funding from MacArthur Foundation and others (a separate text on this is underway), Greenhill wrote a substantial academic book which contains covert foreign policy “recipes” how to create a coercive crisis in both the target government as well as the countries of migrants’ origin by launching a mass migration. According to a German military intelligence adviser to the Merkel government, this is the blueprint being used to create the current migrant crisis in Europe.

The book is based on an empirical study of 50 mass migrations conducted by various groups and countries which had a coercive purpose, Greenhill studied the results and turned the information into a guide book on how to turn an engineered mass migration into a highly effective foreign policy weapon to achieve substantial political goals which can be achieved with a high rate of success via such rogue covert methods.

Greenhill represents the critical step of the transition from passive trend analysis (NIC) to proactive policy implementation, and from then on the work is assigned to special operations units which contract out to non-state players like foundations, NGOs, human traffickers and other mobs.

In this book, Ms. Greenhill writes that "coercive engineered migration is often generated for other reasons" (than the purpose of migration) - an example quoted was when Idi Amin evicted Asians from Uganda in 1972. Another example given was the 1980 Mariel boatlift with Jimmy Carter granting political asylum to what turned out to be a large group of Cubans released from prisons and sent to the US, many of whom had mob and intelligence ties.

She also stresses repeatedly that statistically, the results of coercion by migration are 57% total success (with much of the rest being at least partial success). She points out that coercion by mass migration has a statistically proven success rate of 57% while only 33% success rate applies to economic sanctions and that therefore, mass migration is definitely the better weapon. 

She makes it clear that mass migration is NEVER sanctioned by intelligence agencies as they know of this weapon and protect their own borders at all times. 

Refugee populations on the move in large numbers are nothing short of extremely problematic to support at best and typically, everything is done to discourage them from mass-migrating as they are cared for better and much more cost effectively in tent cities near their countries of origin. Additionally, they are close to home when peace returns and also near their cultural origins, thereby generally lessening the shock of displacement.

When migrating especially in large numbers, they are a risk to themselves and other countries in their transit corridor and target country. Such mass migrations always endanger both the target country by challenging resources and political will as well as damaging the outflow country by virtue of brain drain via mass emigration. Every effort is made by UNHCR and large NGO to stabilize them in nearby tent cities where they are close to their homes and culture, if at all possible.

Yet, visibly, groups with ties to Soros and the UN are visibly organizing these migration bombs aimed at Germany. Germany itself is visibly complicit in creating this chaos. Much of Syria is being emptied of some of its most productive citizens who are marching toward Germany, following an economic invitation by Merkel who expressed hope in rejuvenating the German economy with young skilled workers from initially Syria, later expanded to African nations as well.

Economic migrants and war refugees in legitimate need of help are now the only groups among the migrating masses entering Europe. Afghanistan, Albania, Kosovo and large parts of Syria and Libya have reportedly relieved themselves of scores of their problem populations such as jihadists and prison populations who are also on the march with many already being inside of Germany.

EU borders are being targeted as they have long been previously deconstructed by EU utopianism of a borderless world. Interestingly, this fits perfectly with Greenhill’s “hypocrisy cost” of wealthy liberal nations which can be coerced by specifically such open border vulnerabilities.

Angela Merkel certainly had foreknowledge of what would happen when she issued her “Welcome” call to not only Syrian war refugees and their families but any asylum-seeker in the world. She had been warned by her domestic intelligence as well as via the GASIM Reportthat borders would be stormed and Germany destabilized. She is clearly cooperating with a script which is not understood by the German people but appears to be originating from western intelligence agencies who are confirmed to be following the Greenhill recipes. Merkel steadfastly refuses to close borders and deal with the chaos this is causing in Europe.

Greenhill specifically states that migrant outflows destabilize both country of origin and destination countries of migrants and that this is part of the equation. This part would certainly correspond to the permanent large-scale population export from Syria and transplanting its population to western Europe and throughout the world as is currently being attempted by Merkel. While Merkel insists that EU must take all asylum-seekers without any upper limits how many could be absorbed whatsoever, she additionally actively invites “skilled laborers” from Syria and also Africa to move to Germany. This shopping for a cheap labor force for corporate interests as underwriting to Merkel’s humanism being conducted under the umbrella of political asylum represents a violation of not only Dublin II asylum regulations for the EU but a host of international asylum laws.

Greenhill: "My central claim is that coercive engineered migration can be usefully conceived as a two-level, generally asymmetric, coercion by punishment strategy, in which challengers on the international level seek to influence the behavior of their targets by exploiting the existence of competing domestic interests within the target state(s) and manipulating the costs or risks imposed on their civilian populations."

She continues: "In traditional coercion, these costs are inflicted through the threat and use of military force to achieve political goals "on the cheap". In coercive engineered migration, by contrast, costs are inflicted through the threat and use of human demographic bombs to achieve political goals that would be utterly unattainable through military means." (all on page 3)

Greenhill introduces a concept which she calls "hypocrisy costs" and explains that it is "symbolic political costs that can be imposed when there exists a real or perceived disparity between a professed commitment to liberal values and norms and demonstrated actions that can contravene such a commitment. Target states disposed to respond to a threatened influx with promises to forcibly repatriate unwelcome asylum seekers or simply turn migrants back at the border, for instance may find themselves facing significant hypocrisy costs if they attempt to undertake such actions after having previously made rhetorical and/or judicial commitments to protect those fleeing from violence, persecution or privation. Such moral contradictions are well recognized -and often quite deliberately exploited by those who engage in this kind of coercion. Hypocrisy costs are not necessary for coercion to succeed, however, they can serve as effective force multipliers for weak challengers.”......

Note: Afghanistan and Pakistan under US tutelage have both recently participated in coercion of Germany via such hypocrisy cost by telling Germany that they would not take their migrants back who did not qualify for asylum in Germany.

Greenhill:...”liberal democracies should be particularly vulnerable for the imposition of hypocrisy costs and to coercive engineered migration” Please compare this to the previously discussed psyops in Germany in which an entire population is shamed by their government and media in lockstep and called “racists” and “Nazis” if they refuse to support hosting the migrant invasion while Germany’s chancellor is obviously being coercing her entire nation to absorb numbers of migrants which are destabilizing Germany and the EU.

...”because democracies are more likely than their illiberal counterparts to have codified juridicial human rights and migration-related commitments, they are correspondingly more vulnerable to claims of hypocrisy..." Note: This is precisely one of the coercive maneuvers deployed in Europe right now as the specific Dublin II EU asylum regulation are strategically exploited as Europeans are reminded that their constitution has no upper limit to the asylum-seekers they must accept. The coercion is launched by forcing the EU to abide by those lofty liberal principles to the point of destabilization.

Greenhill states that democracies are particularly vulnerable to this coercive outcome. She points out that the point of entry for coercive attacks is the gap between liberal rhetoric and applied actions.

The EU’s liberal rhetoric is certainly being put to the test in this crisis and politicians complicit with orchestrating this mass migration such as Merkel and Green Party and SPD are quoting exactly such liberal ideation and insisting on putting it into action to seemingly utopian degrees. As the migrant crisis bears the fingerprints of Soros, UN, CIA and other players to whom Greenhill also links quite directly, it becomes clear by a series of their actions that they are executing the seemingly illogical political actions per Greenhill’s recipes.

Greenhill states that this “critical cleavage between codified migrant law and theory of liberal values versus reality is the point of entry” and adds that democracies always lose wars over this vulnerable point. She spends several pages identifying this specific vulnerability for targeting and weaves in co-factors such as the political climate on the ground of target country, their polarized groups that need to be considered to make it a success or failure.

Polarization among the pro migrant and anti-migrant groups in Germany is pressurized to the point of serious violence at protests, burning down of many migrant homes, radical leftist attack on right-wing protests. The groups involved have known underpinnings to the intelligence world. It is clear upon careful detailed study that the protests and counter-protests are engineered from above along with the migrant crisis. The specific protests, groups and players in Germany from Antifa to PEGIDA are discussed elsewhere in this text. The creation of the far left and far right protests, both under intelligence agency control, is yet another step necessary in success of coercion by mass migration weapons per Greenhill.

From Greenhill: "If aggression against another foreign country means that it strains social structure, that it ruins its finances, that it has to give up its territory to shelter refugees...what is the difference between that kind of aggression and the other type, the more classical type, when someone declares war, or something of that sort?" Samer Sen, India's amb. to UN

She states "this book focuses on a very particular nonmilitary method of applying coercive pressure - the use of migration and refugee rises as instruments of persuasion."

She establishes the concepts which she refers throughout the book as either "coercive engineered migration" or "migration-driven coercion" as having 3 distinct sub-categories:
1. Dispossessive engineered migrations which is ethnic cleansing
2. Exportive engineered - changing of landscape, cleansing of political dissidents in migrant outflow country
3. Militarized engineered migrations - military ejecting unwanted population groups during a war which is used directly by militaries while overrunning a target country with them for coercive purposes. 

Greenhill quotes a specific migration case where an NGO was in charge of a situation and its leadership said point blank “the migrant outflows will continue until goals are met". This is consistent with coercion by migration but also with the true covert foreign policy role of NGOs.

"Generating a crisis can help level the playing field, enhance the credibility of weak actors, increase the potency of their threats, and thereby improve their coercive capabilities in several distinctive ways."

She compares it with a bombing sortie which is too finite while calling"migrant outflows the gift that keeps on giving". 

Greenhill: Targets are "mostly advanced liberal democracies who are maximally vulnerable and that their challengers even acquire a kind of escalation dominance over their targets." This is very consistent with the massive psyops and manipulation by media in Germany as well as the escalating numbers of migrants who are brought in by traffickers with Soros’ support. Such a multi-pronged approach following the Greenhill outline is nothing less than the cookbook on how to melt down the dying western industrialist Empire.

"There are two but not mutually exclusive pathways by which migration-driven coercion can be effected using punishment strategies; loosely speaking, they might be thought of as "capacity swamping" and "political agitation”….. "Simply put, capacity swamping focuses on the ABILITY of targets to accept/accommodate/assimilate a given group of migrants or refugees whereas political agitation focuses on manipulating the willingness of targets to do so.

Capacity swamping can also be an effective strategy in the west. This is particularly true if the incipient crisis is large and sudden, because even highly industrialized states need time to gear up to effectively deal with disasters, be they natural or manufactured."

She also states that in the developing world it is typically enough to politically agitate to get the desired results while in the west, it is necessary to capacity-swamp to bring about the desired crisis... this is again very consistent with the efforts of Soros, EU, UN and Merkel acting in concert.
Political agitation from the right: PEGIDA marches against islamization of Germany

She explains that threat of migration and political agitation are enough in some nations to meet goals an then goes on:
“In the developed world, therefore, political agitation often supplants capacity swamping as the linchpin of this kind of coercion. Specifically, challengers on the international level seek to influence target behavior on the domestic level by engaging in a kind of norms-enhanced political blackmail that relies on exploiting an exacerbating what Robert Putnam has called the "heterogeneity" of political and social interests within polities.

Exploitation of heterogeneity within western states is possible because population influxes, such as those created in migration and refugee crises, tend to engender diverse and highly divisive responses within the societies expected to bear the brunt of consequences."
Polarization from the extreme left: Antifa, an increasingly violent group of state-sponsored actors

We are seeing capacity swamping and political agitation which is documented to be tied to intelligence unfolding in Germany in keeping with Greenhill’s recipes.

Greenhill also identifies opportunists as third vital ingredient - specifically stating that it is politicians are the opportunistic players in this equation who close their borders and thereby helpfully diverting the migrant stream.
Hungary’s President Orban – nationalist who protects his country or “third party opportunist” in Greenhill’s Hegelian coercive plot?

Note that this the pattern of Hungary’s president Orban who put a fence around his own borders which displaced the migrant stream and created bottlenecks in strategic areas. We must not forget that Hungary’s President Orban is a product of Soros and studied at Oxford under Pelczynski. Pelczynski also taught a young Bill Clinton at the Rhodes program and was hand-selected to train Both Clinton and Orban were trained by him in Advanced Hegelian Dialectics. Orban may well be the designated opportunist in Greenhill’s script who regulates the migrant flow valves for western intelligence as he polarizes Europe along with Merkel.

pg 32, Chapter One, “Weapons of Mass Migration”:
Just as is the case with traditional military coercion, the demands of challengers who engage in migration-driven coercion have been highly varied in scope, content and magnitude. Demands have been both concrete and symbolic and have comprised entreaties both to undertake actions and to cease undertaking them. They have run the gamut from the simple provision of financial aid to the termination of insurgent funding to full-scale military intervention and even regime change. And despite the fact that the majority of the challengers have been markedly weaker than their targets (in 54 of 64 possible cases and 49 of 56 determinate cases), they have been relatively successful; in fact, they have been more successful than their more powerful counterparts.”

Considering the immense success rates, relatively minimal output of effort compared to the bang-per-buck, Greenhill points out on every page that it is the ultimate weapon against western liberal advanced democracies which possess constitutions with well-codified migrant laws and a liberal culture with ability to divide and conquer the population into heated camps of pro vs. con in the migration social fights, thereby providing the cleavage for third party control to enter. Those are the factors she describes throughout as necessary ingredients for highest success rate.

“How to be a successful coercer” - page 37, Greenhill:
1. power base erosion of target, threatening regime's relationship with core supporters
2. unrest, creating popular dissatisfaction with the target regime.
3.decapitation, jeopardizing regime's personal security
4. weakening, debilitating country as a whole
5. denial - preventing battle field success or political elections.

We also see a list above which is the Soros list of specialties which have long been used by his trained color revolution operatives as well.

The book contains many pages of explanation how exactly the weakening of the overall condition of the target country along with periodic swamping of capacity along with sowing of dissatisfaction and all the Soros recipes fit together in exact interplay.

“Resource swamping” per Greenhill is recommended to bring down wealthy liberal democracies such as Germany. We are seeing exactly such resource swamping occurring in Europe now with traffickers and NGO organizers both swamping Europe with such large migrant groups, instructing them via large-scale Twitter coordination how to storm borders and swamp resources as means of coercion to force authorities to allow them passage and swamping occurring to such extreme points that available response systems throughout Europe are constantly on the verge of collapse, producing the desired political need for extreme solutions for which such migrants-as-weapons protocols work extremely well per Greenhill.

It is clear that this is done by design as Merkel herself is aware of the situation, yet pushes for ever larger migrant streams and plans to pick up young Africans in addition to the migrants arriving on their own. Merkel’s tone-deafness to the ever-growing crisis is consistent with Greenhill’s blueprint as Merkel (coincidentally?) creates the exact scenario which Greenhill outlines as prerequisites and coercive tools.

Greenhill explains how the heterogeneity of a society can be used as polarization fault lines for the 2 camps which are politically super-heated to go against each other - this is what Germany is following now by having created the concepts of the "Gutmenschen" and their "Willkomenskultur" who bring teddy bears and leftist politicians to the railway station to meet migrant trains on one side and the PEGIDA intel-run right-wingers under Lutz Bachmann, Hooligans, various neonazi groups which are documented to be under domestic intelligence (Verfassungsschutz) control.

Page 42 explains the coming of "waves of migrants and refugees reduce national living standards by siphoning away social resources from "real" citizens, taking employment away from more qualified applicants, bringing tensions from their home state with them, and committing disproportionate amounts of crime."

This exact scenario is happening in each detail in Germany now with Germans evicted from their apartments to make room for migrants, also Germans complaining that migrants take away skilled labor program spots. Germans were also recently told that it would likely be necessary to raise retirement age to 70 to pay for migrants. The Greenhill-predicted crime waves are also occurring in Germany while political correctness has been legislated into hate crime laws which are being used against the most vocal critics of Merkel’s migrant politics. The obvious dialectics of political correctness having turned into suspension of freedom of speech and criminalization of harsh political rhetoric are part of Greenhill’s polarization of society in order to achieve effect.

Greenhill suggests a cozy relationship with NGOs consistent with the reality that most large NGOs dealing with human rights, wars, refugees and migrants are fronts for covert foreign policy operations. Human Rights Watch, a part of the Soros-funded OSI umbrella, is named as one of the sources for on page 42 of the Greenhill book.

Greenhill warns several pages' worth about losing control of engineered migrant coercive streams because once unleashed, especially when using fanatic elements, they may take on a life of its own and make the weapon imprecise.

She uses this as example, verbatim:
"...the potential for blowback can be great and the intended consequences quite costly. For instance, not only did the US-instigated mass migration of North Vietnamese southward following the first Indochina War failed to achieve its stated objective of deterring Ho ChiMinh from pushing for reunification elections, but it also further inadvertently weakened the siting regime in South Vietnam while simultaneously increasing the US commitment to propping it up. "

....she again stresses that the success rate of 57-59% across the board with rest typically partial success and the miracle that it brings to the less talented politically weaker actors, it is definitely a highly valuable strategy worth pursuing.

Page 46 - discourse of different recipient societies and what works best on them... then she explains to expect the following outcome, if successful: Pro and contra camps are started by political activism in the recipient population. Expect the contra camp to be larger and louder and make sure that the pro camp is small, vocal, powerful, stacked with activists, lawyers and celebs. 

She also states that this should be bolstered by NGO advocacy groups.

Involvement of advocacy groups is fully implemented also - Soros is hard-wired into every step of this academic template and contributing both migrant masses as well as advocacy groups who are leading the polarizing dialectical rhetoric about migrant policy.

Greenhill points out that the 1948 Human Rights Declaration, the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees and also 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees conveniently provides this polarization with new weapons...."As legal scholar David Martin put it, "Before the development of these international instruments, opponents of a government practice might have been able to argue only that the measure was a bad idea. Since the adoption of such statements, these opponents are often able to wield a more powerful weapon in the debate for they may then claim the government practice is not merely bad policy but rather violates but rather violates international law." (Pg 48)

This is precisely what Merkel and Germany are doing now - heated political, legal and dialectical debates whether or not Merkel’s mass migration solo run is legal or not with Merkel insisting that she is obligated by EU law to take unlimited numbers until they stop coming while there are signs that the migrant streams are becoming larger and larger instead.

"Predicting and Measuring Coercive Success and Failure"
...targets will be most vulnerable not when their publics and/or elites are unified but rather when there is broad and intense disagreement about the way in which a target should respond to an incipient or ongoing migration crisis. Again, in Olsonian terms, targets will be most vulnerable when a crisis is widely expected to engender both concentrated costs (CC) and concentrated benefits (CB)- albeit by different segments of society leading to high levels of mobilization both by those in favor of the refugee/migrant group and those opposed to the same group. Conversely, in cases in which a crisis is anticipated to produce low or diffuse costs (DC) and only diffuse benefits (DB) - and consequently neither camp is mobilized and opinion is less polarized- targets will be least vulnerable, and coercion will be least likely to succeed...... then it goes on into how to make sure both sides are polarized adequately to create the kinetic force needed to start the crisis in which coercion can become a factor.
 (Pg 50) ...

Page 53 is full of instructions how to racialize these events to enhance the coercion against the target regimes - and specifically, Greenhill mentions Germany and how Germans who are opposed to a large-scale mass migrant invasion by what should be brown people can then be declared as “racists”. Many more helpful hints and recipes are posted on how to utilize the Race Card against the native population of the target country, namely Germany which is mentioned by Greenhill.

"Target Defenses and Evasive Action"
Among the things discussed, one is military action by target country to stop the problem of outflow at the outflow country.
 This is what Germany just voted to do, empowering the Bundeswehr to patrol and act as combat and special ops with much more military hardware on the Med to combat the traffickers.

This can only be viewed as obviously an insincere move as Merkel and Germany are complicit in creating the migrant problem and at best, this crisis may be an excuse to militarily empower Germany to "defend itself" from the causes of the migrant flow (i.e. intervene in wars) while playing welcoming liberal culture to all problematic migrants who arrive.

There is also a provision in Greenhill in casting the affected migrants as extreme victims which further disables the target country's willpower to stop and reverse the migrant flow because they have to help these incoming migrants. All of this is actually outlined as specific foreign policy tools in this book including applications when which of the measures are necessary.....

Greenhill cites the following example of the power of weapons of mass migration: In 1979, Deng Ziaoping and Carter met and Carter told him he could not engage in diplomatic ties with him until his human rights record improved.... Xiaoping replied with a smile: Then how many Chinese would you like, Mr. President? 10 million? 20? Or 30? Carter changed his policies and it is believed that this was a veiled Chinese threat which was apparently received with some anxiety on the CIA end.

The relevant evidence criteria Greenhill establishes to measure whether migration was induced or not is primarily statements by migrants, study of migration evolution, path, superimposition onto political picture. If it quacks like a duck.... She establishes such observations as sufficient when the picture fits conclusively enough. The concept of weapons of mass migration applies to expulsion of Russians out of Ukraine by CIA, same in Libya, Syria.... particularly Soros human rights groups have been aiding and abetting these migrant streams all along.

This represents yet another role for Soros groups. Color revolutions, human rights as the long visible soft diplomacy tool but also a very fixed role in setting the migrant tsunami in motion and coordinating the coercion via migrant streams.....The involved Soros human rights groups (link here) have shown that they are following Greenhill’s recipes, via Twitter and handbooks teaching migrants how to exploit EU legal loophooles, work against Dublin II asylum regulations and by teaching migrants to “resource-swamp” and overrun borders... the Soros role was visible early on by the visibly mainstreamed approach by massive migrant groups who all follow such outlines sent to their IPhones by Twitter.

Most of the tweets originate in the UK and US via unauthorized individuals directing large migrant streams into Germany.

Part 3: Long-term planning by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) of a large migrant invasion from muslim countries into Europe.

Beginning of this series is here.

The above is an original research project by Silvija Germek. You may quote from the text but please adhere to host web site WMR’s policy for reproduction: (1) List author as well as (2) post direct url to Wayne Madsen to this page as source, if using the materials. Thank you!

No comments:

Post a Comment