top of page

What About the Mass Muslim

Immigration of Refugees?

by John Spritzler

March 22, 2016

[Also related: "Links to Some Facts about Muslims & Islam"]

[Also related: "Illegal Immigration and What Americans Should Do about It"(focused on illegal Hispanic immigration to the U.S.)]

[Watch this Brit's FB video saying passionately what this article is saying.]

Whether one is in favor of or opposed to letting large numbers of Muslim refugees enter one's nation (be it a European one where most of the refugees are going, or the United States), it needs to be understood that the American ruling class intentionally created conditions to cause the current wave of refugee migration. American rulers, with the help of the old European colonial powers as its allies, have been targeting Muslim nations in the Middle East (Iraq and Syria and Yemen) and northern Africa (Lybia) and Asia (Afghanistan) with violence that forces people to flee. U.S. rulers use Saudi-backed Wahhabi Muslims (Al Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban) in two ways: either to ally with them to kill non-Wahhabi Muslims and overthrow regimes the U.S. doesn't like (Syria) or to use their presence as a pretext for attacking innocent Muslims (Afghanistan.)

Weapons of Mass Migration

The American and European ruling classes use the wave of Muslim refugee immigrants to divide and rule their own American and European populations. Here is how.

This article reports on the writing of Kelly Greenhill, an academic adviser to ruling class think tanks whose book, Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy, explains how the ruling class of one nation uses forced ("engineered") mass migration of refugees into another nation (the "host" nation) as a weapon to coerce the rulers of the host nation to do this or that. The coercion works best, Greenhill argues, when the population in the host nation is sharply divided into two opposed camps, one saying let the refugees in and the other saying keep them out. This division of the host population, according to Greenhill, creates a huge problem for the host nation leaders, especially if the host nation is a "liberal democracy" such as the United States in which the leaders must try to accommodate the desires of all the people in its population. To escape the dilemma of having to satisfy the two camps with opposing demands, the host rulers are inclined to accede to the demands of the rulers who have engineered the mass migration.

Greenhill's book is written for an elite ruling class audience, but it is also a book that can be read by anybody. For this reason some of the things Greenhill is communicating to her intended audience cannot be stated explicitly. A sharp example of this is the fact that Greenhill cannot "let the cat out of the bag," i.e., she cannot acknowledge the well-known fact ( also see here and here and here) that the United States is a dictatorship of the rich--an oligarchy or plutocracy to be precise. Instead she "plays the game" of pretending that the United States is a genuine democracy in which the rulers must do their best to accommodate the desires of all the people in the general population. It's as if she's winking to her elite readership. Greenhill thus pretends that the only people who would ever want to create a sharp division of the population of a host nation, into a camp in favor and a camp opposed to the engineered mass migration, are the rulers of a different nation. She never so much as hints that the rulers of the host nation, itself, might want to divide-and-rule "their own" people.

But surely Greenhill and her intended elite readers get the point, without her having to "spill the beans" to the other readers by making the point explicitly. The ruling class of the United States uses divide-and-rule all the time, especially along racial lines, and it is not hard to see that it is using mass migration for the same purpose. Part of this strategy requires creating as much internal conflict as possible between those for and those opposed to allowing the immigrants (be they Mexicans or Muslims) to enter. The liberal "Let the Muslim refugees immigrate--it's bigotry to keep them out" politicians and the ones like Donald "keep the Muslim refugees out" Trump are in cahoots (photos show it here); they are not real antagonists. The ruling class divide-and-rule strategy requires both a Donald Trump and a Hillary Clinton (and their equivalents in European nations) on opposite sides of the "ban all Muslims from entering" issue.

Let the Refugees In or Keep them Out?

In a decent world our government leaders would be trying to protect us from harm, and from terrorism in particular. And in a decent world our government leaders would try to act in a humanitarian manner towards innocent people who are refugees needing a place to live in safety. In a decent world, our government would not be doing things--very violent things!--to deliberately force huge numbers of people to have to flee from their homes into other nations. In a decent world, when--as is actually the case in our present world--there were a lot of Muslim refugees fleeing terrible violence, and the great majority of them were not terrorists but some were indeed terrorists, then what would our government of decent leaders do? I think it would use every means available to distinguish the terrorists from the non-terrorists, and offer hospitality to the ones who were clearly not terrorists and deny such hospitality to those who were or might be terrorists.

But we don't live in a decent world. Our government is deliberately forcing Muslims to flee in large numbers and thus be a "weapon of mass migration." Our government leaders have been funding and promoting Wahabi Muslim terrorists. Fundamentalist Taliban textbooks teaching children to violently attack the secular Afghanistan government (where women enjoyed full rights and attended college, etc.) were printed at the University of Nebraska, as described here and here and here.

The CIA and Osama bin Laden were working together as of 2001, when bin Laden was supposedly one of the most wanted criminals in the world for pre-9/11 terrorist attacks, such as the attack on the USS Cole. Thus CIA agents were visiting bin Laden at his hospital in Dubai two months before the September 11, 2001 attack, as discussed here and here and here (here is the text of the Le Figaro article reporting this in the original French and here is the English translation.)

Our government leaders--not 19 Muslims--did 9/11 as an inside job, to demonize Muslims so Americans would get behind American military invasions of Muslim nations such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The evidence for this is overwhelming, and much of it is collected here.

Our government leaders work hard to help Muslim terrorist organizations (like ISIS) recruit members. This is what the drone attacks are all about, as discussed here.

Our government leaders NEED Muslim terrorists. They need a bogeyman enemy to justify their invasions and to frighten us into obedience of our government leaders. This is discussed in David Stratman's Inventing the Enemy.

See Sibel Edmunds, in this video, give eyewitness testimony to the fact that the U.S. government is deliberately inserting ISIS individuals among the mainly innocent refugees (who are traumatized by these ISIS individuals) going into Europe via Greece, and also that the U.S. is deliberately making people go (as refugees) to Europe who would not otherwise do so.

Back in the years just after WWII when Communism was the bogeyman enemy and when Communist parties in Europe had large followings, American and European ruling elites orchestrated vicious terrorist killings of European civilians that were made to seem as if the terrorists were Communists. This was Operation Gladio, which is discussed by Paul Craig Roberts (Reagan's Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal) here.

So, while it would be nice if we lived in a decent world, and could support our government doing the decent thing (i.e., NOT DO THINGS TO FORCE MUSLIMS TO HAVE TO IMMIGRATE IN ORDER TO SURVIVE, and distinguish the terrorist from the non-terrorist Muslim refugees, and offer hospitality to the ones (WHO, IN THE ABSENCE OF OUR GOVERNMENT FORCING MASSIVE MIGRATION, WOULD BE FEW IN NUMBER, NOT LARGE MASSES OF PEOPLE, who are clearly not terrorists and deny such hospitality to those who are or might be terrorists) that is not possible in our actual world. Why not?

Because our government leaders won't do it. Instead they want to divide-and-rule us by making us fight over whether to ban all Muslim immigration or allow Muslims--even those who are terrorists--to immigrate. Our rulers offer us two terrible choices, deny us the decent third choice most people want, and then sit back and watch us fight each other over which terrible choice to pick.

Yes, the liberal government leaders say they screen the immigrants to keep out terrorists. But nobody believes them. This is because we keep hearing about terrorist Muslims who came into the U.S. in spite of supposed FBI and other government agencies screening them. The Boston Marathon Muslim terrorists (the two Chechen brothers), it turns out, were being closely followed by the FBI before the Marathon bombing, as reported here:

Zubeidat Tsarnaeva said her son [the elder Chechen brother] got involved in "religious politics" about five years ago, and never told her he was involved in "jihad."

She insisted the FBI "knew what he was doing on Skype" and that they counseled him "every step of the way."

"They used to come [to our] home, they used to talk to me ... they were telling me that he [the elder brother] was really an extremist leader and that they were afraid of him," Tsarnaeva said. "They told me whatever information he is getting, he gets from these extremist sites... they were controlling him, they were controlling his every step...and now they say that this is a terrorist act!"

Numerous Muslims almost set off bombs in the U.S. before the FBI caught them. The closer one looks, however, it seems that our rulers use the FBI to make sure that there are Muslim terrorist bombings (or almost-bombings) in the U.S. In 1993 the FBI allowed the World Trade Center bombing to occur. The New York Times ran an article in 2012 titled, "Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the FBI". A Guardian article in 2014 reported, "Nearly all of the highest-profile domestic terrorism plots in the United States since 9/11 featured the 'direct involvement' of government agents or informants, a new report says."

Think about it. Since our rulers (Democrats, Republicans--it's all the same) use the FBI this way to keep Muslim terrorist plots inside the United States in the news (so we will remain frightened of Muslims), then our rulers clearly have no real motive for actually screening out Muslim terrorists; they would only want to pretend to be doing such screening. Our rulers WANT Muslim terrorism to occur inside the United States.

Our government leaders will not truly respond to the Muslim refugees by doing the humanitarian and safe thing that decent people want them to do. This option is not being offered to us. We are not in control. We need to start acting the way that is appropriate for people who are not--but who ought to be--in control. That means we need to start figuring out how to get into control.

At the top of our list is to start saying what we--the vast majority of ordinary Americans--are for. It's to remove the rich from power to have real not fake democracy with no rich and no poor. And then we need to rally all the people who are for that to join together and fight for it. This requires exposing the divide-and-rule scheme that the ruling elite is using to make us fight each other over which terrible response we want the government to make in dealing with the massive Muslim refugees--people who were made refugees by the actions of our ruling elite in the first place. Getting ordinary decent people in control is the only way to make government policy both decent and safe. This is what is all about.

bottom of page