Posted originally on the CTH on December 21, 2024 | Sundance
I have information from very solid sourcing that Saudi Arabia previously requested the return of Saudi Arabian refugee Taleb Al Abdulmohsen, a 50-year-old Saudi Arabian psychiatrist who migrated to Germany in 2006.
Saudi Arabia warned Germany of Abdulmohsen’s extremist views. However, in 2016 Germany granted Abdulmohsen asylum and protection from deportation. [Similar to USA rejecting Russia warnings of Tamerlan Tsarnaev before Boston marathon bombing.]
Taleb Al Abdulmohsen drove his vehicle into a German Christmas market, targeting Christian families celebrating the holiday season. At least five people were killed, including a child, according to the premier of Saxony-Anhalt, Reiner Haseloff, of the CDU. Some 200 other victims were injured in the attack.
From the perspective of the German government, this terrorist attack could not have come at a worse time. The German Parliament collapsed last week with a no confidence vote, which means an election in early February is required. The economy and immigration are the two biggest issues amid the German citizenry.
The terrorist attack by Saudi immigrant Abdulmohsen makes the rise of AfD, the nationalist party and the strongest opposition group on the issues of highest priority, more likely. The current German government are freaking out.
As a result of the political consequences, and in an absurd reaction therein, the German officials are claiming that Saudi immigrant Taleb al-Abdulmohsen was an “Islamophobic” follower of Islam, who was a supporter of the nationalist AfD (anti-Islam) party. None of that makes any sense.
When contrast against the strong likelihood that Saudi Arabia warned German of the unstable mindset of Abdulmohsen, and when you consider the outrage amid the German people, well, the current German government appears to be panicked and grasping for any straw that might deflect the already embattled ruling party from the consequences of their liberal immigration policy.
Things in Germany are totally ridiculous right now.
(Via Politico EU) – […] Chancellor Olaf Scholz, whose center-left party looks set to lose power in February, described the attack as a “terrible, insane act” and said “those who want to sow hatred” wouldn’t win.
But Scholz faces important questions over the next few days about what was known of the suspect, his identity was confirmed by prosecutors as Taleb Al Abdulmohsen. While prosecutors gave almost no details about the suspect, German media said Abdulmohsen is a 50-year-old Saudi Arabian psychiatrist who moved to Germany in 2006.
The Magdeburg chief prosecutor, Horst Walter Nopens, did indicate a Saudi connection.
“It looks like the background to the crime could have been … dissatisfaction with the treatment of Saudi Arabian refugees in Germany,” Nopens told a press conference on Saturday. “But what is deeper behind this is the subject of the investigation,” he said.
Interior Minister Nancy Faeser said the authorities can “say with certainty that the perpetrator was obviously Islamophobic.”
The chief prosecutor said the suspect is in police custody and has made a statement about the motive for the crime, but he declined to give any details about that statement. The investigators “do not yet know whether it was a terrorist attack,” Nopens said.
[…] German Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck described the attack as “terrible news” in a place “where people wanted to spend the Advent season in peace and community.” Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock expressed shock at the incident, and sent condolences to the victims and their families. (read more)
Think about the ridiculous logic pushed in the governing narrative:
The terrorist was “Islamophobic” but chose to target Christians at a Christmas Market, to protest the Islamization of Germany?
Good grief, even the FBI would be blushing at this level of twisted narrative engineering.
“German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Interior Minister Nancy Faeser on Saturday visited Magdeburg, where at least five people were killed and dozens were injured after a car plowed into a busy Christmas market, in what officials have called a deliberate attack.” Video Below:
Posted originally on Dec 13, 2024 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Marty, I cannot thank you enough for your coverage of the Middle East. Nobody provides such valuable forecasts for our entire region as you do. I know you have had friends in the various royal families, and you have been observed meeting with various central banks in the region. You have not been an analyst in theory only. You have been here and walked in our lands. As we say: أحضر الناس جوابا من لم يغضب “The best answer will come from the person who is not angry.” That is you.
My question is: Your Islamic Wave concludes next year, 2025.22, on March 21, and I understand that the ECM is not in Socrates, which calculates cycles independently. Since we see March/April as a critical turning point next year on many arrays, should we be alerted to more chaos in the Middle East during this period?
Thank you so much for your independence. What they did to you proved to everyone you are both honorable and independent. They did the same to Trump, proving he was not one of them and winning.
Their time is coming, جزاء سنمار جزاء مُجيرِ أُمِّ عامِرٍ الجزاء من جنس العمل “You reap what you sow.”
MM
ANSWER: Thank you. Yes, their time is coming. That’s 2032, but it started here in 2024 and will escalate into 2028. I have argued for years against the NEOCONs who judge the Middle East by their own ideas. They fail to comprehend that this is tribal. Everyone in Syria does not share an identity of being Syrian. They see themselves as first being Sunnie, Shite, Druze, Christian, etc, etc. They have sought to remove Saddam, Assad, and Quadafi under the theory that they would install democracy and they would bring peace to the Middle East. They judge the entire region as if this was a thesis for a PhD in school detached from reality. From the very beginning, the Sykes-Picot Agreement sought to carve up the Ottoman Empire and artificially create nation-states that never existed. These theories are so detached from reality that they have plunged the world into constant wars and confrontations.
There is a significant confrontation in the Middle East that appears many have never considered since they have focused on Iran rather than Turkey. While NATO has constantly pushed the propaganda that Putin wanted to retake Europe to reestablish the USSR, right within NATO there has been rising discord against this centralized dictatorial dogma. Turkey has long fostered a hatred of Greece, and this feud extends back to the Turkish conquest of Byzantium/Constantinople in 1453. But it has been the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who has fueled his dreams to conquer the Middle East to reestablish the Ottoman Empire that was broken up by the West in 1916 – not Putin.
The Russian people have no desire to return to communism. Once they tasted freedom, nobody in Russia, China, or Eastern Europe wanted to surrender that freedom again. I personally went behind the Berlin Wall to see for myself what it was really like. I was horrified. Our cancel culture today was following the very same path I witnessed there where freedom of speech was dangerous.
I think it is important that we understand that, just as in Christianity, that is only a religion – not an ethnic group. The same is true in Islam. The Turks are not of the same ethnic cloth as those in Arabia in general. According to historians and linguists, the Proto-Turkic language originated in Central-East Asia. The origin has potentially been placed in the Altai-Sayan region, Mongolia, or Tuva. The Proto-Turkic speakers were potentially primarily hunter-gatherers but also included farmers. They would evolve into nomadic pastoralists due to the climate changes.
A 2003 study found that some Xiongnu remains from Mongolia had paternal and maternal genetic lineages that have also been found in people from modern-day Turkey. There is no question that medieval Turkic groups exhibited a wide range of both East Asian and West-Eurasian physical appearances and genetic origins. In Central Asia, the earliest surviving Turkic language texts have been discovered from the 8th century. Although initiated by the Arabs, the conversion of the Turks to Islam was filtered through Persian and Central Asian culture. Under the Umayyads, most Turks were domestic servants, but then, under the Abbasid Caliphate, they were trained as soldiers. That was the downfall of the Abbasid Caliphate, for by the 9th century, Turkish commanders were leading the caliphs’ Turkish troops into battle and rose in stature both militarily and in political power. They began to rise,e establishing provincial dynasties of their own supported by Turkish troops.
Tughril I (1037-1063) was the Turkoman chieftain who founded the Seljuk Empire during the 11th century. They are known as the Seljuk Turks, who were influenced by Persian civilization. Thanks to their military training, they were able to overthrow their masters, taking the eastern province of the Abbasid Empire. By 1055, the Seljuks captured Baghdad and began to make their first incursions into Anatolia, modern-day Turkey. When they won the Battle of Manzikert against the Byzantine Empire in 1071, it opened the doorway to Anatolia and the eventual conquest of Constantinople. They were able to breach the once impenetrable walls with cannons from Asia.
Although ethnically Turkish, the Seljuk Turks appreciated and became carriers of Persian culture rather than Turkish culture; they were not of the same gene pool. Nonetheless, the Turkish language and Islam were introduced and gradually spread over the region. With time, the transition from a predominantly Christian and Greek-speaking Anatolia to a predominantly Muslim and Turkish-speaking one was underway, thanks to the monetary crisis of 1092 and the fiscal mismanagement of the Byzantine Empire. All empires ultimately collapse from their own internal corruption as we witness today in Europe, Canada, and the United States.
In the 7th century, the Byzantines began putting the image of Christ on the coinage rather than the emperor. That forced the Arabs to establish their own currency giving birth to Islamic coinage. Previously, they merely used the Byzantine coinage, which had become the world’s dominant monetary system. We do not see gold coinage struck in Europe after the fall of Rome in 476AD until the 13th century because the gold coinage of Byzantium was the internationally accepted coinage.
Israel did strike hundreds of targets in Syria, about 80% of the military capacity, to eliminate chemical weapons and arms that could then be deployed against Israel; they also sent troops deeper into the country to retake the buffer zone that had been there for 50 years. While many are merely pointing at Israel, the rebel groups that toppled Bashar Al-Assad’s regime were funded by Turkey. Amid all the chaos, one man stands to gain more than anyone else who has become a key powerbroker – Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
To complicate matters, we have some Christians and Jews trying to bring about the end times. Over the years, the dominant world powers have fiercely competed over these lands. My father was with General Patton, who began fighting against the German invasion in the Middle East.
The computer has highlighted the shift in trend coming early in 2025. I will do a special report on this crisis in January.
Posted originally on the CTH on November 1, 2024 | Sundance
On January 17, 2017, just three days before President-Trump was sworn into office, outgoing President Obama had a secret conference call with progressive media allies.
Again, this is three days before Trump took office, when the Obama White House and Intelligence Community were intentionally pushing the Trump-Russia conspiracy story into the media in an effort to disrupt President Trump’s transition to power. President Obama is essentially asking his progressive allies to help defend his administration. Part of the 20-page transcript is below:
Barack Obama– […] “I think the Russia thing is a problem. And it’s of a piece with this broader lack of transparency. It is hard to know what conversations the President-elect may be having offline with business leaders in other countries who are also connected to leaders of other countries. And I’m not saying there’s anything I know for a fact or can prove, but it does mean that — here’s the one thing you guys have been able to know unequivocally during the last eight years, and that is that whether you disagree with me on policy or not, there was never a time in which my relationship with a foreign entity might shade how I viewed an issue. And that’s — I don’t know a precedent for that exactly.
Now, the good news there, I will say, is just that there’s a lot of career folks here who care about that stuff, and not just in the intelligence agencies. I think in our military, in our State Department. And I think that to the extent that things start getting weird, I think you will see surfacing objections, some through whistleblowers and some through others. And so I think there is some policing mechanism there, but that’s unprecedented.
And then the final thing that I’m most worried about is just preserving the democratic process so that in two years, four years, six years, if people are dissatisfied, that dissatisfaction expresses itself. So Jeff Sessions and the Justice Department and what’s happening with the voting rights division and the civil rights division, and — those basic process issues that allow for the democratic process to work. I’d include in that, by the way, press. I think you guys are all on top of how disconcerting — you guys complain about us — (laughter) — but let me just tell you, I think — we actually respected you guys and cared about trying to explain ourselves to you in a way that I think is just going to be different.
On balance, that leads to me to say I think that four years is okay. Take on some water, but we can kind of bail fast enough to be okay. Eight years would be a problem. I would be concerned about a sustained period in which some of these norms have broken down and started to corrode.
Q Could you talk a bit more about the Russia thing? Because it sounds like you, who knows more than we do from what you’ve seen, and is genuinely —
THE PRESIDENT: And can say less. (Laughter.) This is one area I’ve got to be careful about. But, look, I mean, I think based on what you guys have, I think it’s — and I’m not just talking about the most recent report or the hacking. I mean, there are longstanding business relationships there. They’re not classified. I think there’s been some good reporting on them, it’s just they never got much attention. He’s been doing business in Russia for a long time. Penthouse apartments in New York are sold to folks — let me put it this way. If there’s a Russian who can afford a $10-million, or a $15- or a $20- or a $30-million penthouse in Manhattan, or is a major investor in Florida, I think it’s fair to say Mr. Putin knows that person, because I don’t think they’re getting $10 million or $30 million or $50 million out of Russia without Mr. Putin saying that’s okay.
Q Could you talk about two things? One is, the damage he could do to our standing in the world through that. I mean, just this interview he gave the other day, and what you’re worried about there. And then the other side — and you sat down with him. I found the way in which he screamed at Jim Acosta just really chilling. If you just look at the face in a kind an authoritarian or autocratic, whatever word you want to use, personality — would you, on those two?
THE PRESIDENT: On the latter issue, EJ, you saw what I saw. I don’t think I need to elaborate on that.
Q But you sat down with him privately. I’m curious about —
THE PRESIDENT: Privately, that’s not — his interactions with me are very different than they are with the public, or, for that matter, interactions with Barack Obama, the distant figure. He’s very polite to me, and has not stopped being so. I think where he sees a vulnerability he goes after it and he takes advantage of it.
And the fact of the matter is, is that the media is not credible in the public eye right now. You have a bigger problem with a breakdown in institutional credibility that he exploits, at least for his base, and is sufficient for his purposes. Which means that — the one piece of advice I’d give this table is: Focus. I think if you’re jumping after every insult or terrible thing or bit of rudeness that he’s doing and just chasing that, I think there’s a little bit of a three-card Monte there that you have to be careful about. I think you have to focus on a couple of things that are really important and just stay on them and drive them home. And that’s hard to do in this news environment, and it’s hard to do with somebody who, I think, purposely generates outrage both to stir up his base but also to distract and to — so you just have to stay focused and unintimidated, because that’s how you confront, I think, a certain personality type.
But in terms of the world — look, rather than pick at one or two different things — number one, I don’t think he’s particularly isolationist — or I don’t think he’s particularly interventionist. I’m less worried than some that he initiates a war. I think that he could stumble into stuff just due to a lack of an infrastructure and sort of a coherent vision. But I think his basic view — his formative view of foreign policy is shaped by his interactions with Malaysian developers and Saudi princes, and I think his view is, I’m going to go around the world making deals and maybe suing people. (Laughter.) But it’s not, let me launch big wars that tie me up. And that’s not what his base is looking from him anyway. I mean, it is not true that he initially opposed the war in Iraq. It is true that during the campaign he was not projecting a hawkish foreign policy, other than bombing the heck out of terrorists. And we’ll see what that means, but I don’t think he’s looking to get into these big foreign adventures.
I think the bigger problem is nobody fully appreciates — and even I didn’t appreciate until I took this office — and when I say “nobody,” I mean the left as well as the right — the degree to which we really underwrite the world order. And I think sometimes from the left, that’s viewed as imperialism or sort of an extension of a global capitalism or what have you. The truth of the matter, though, is, if I’m at a G20 meeting, if we don’t initiate a conversation around human rights or women’s rights, or LGBT rights, or climate change, or open government, or anti-corruption initiatives, whatever cause you believe in, it doesn’t happen. Almost everything — every multilateral initiative function, norm, policy that is out there — it’s underwritten by us. We have some allies, primarily Europe, Canada, and some of our Asia allies.
But what I worry about most is, there is a war right now of ideas, more than any hot war, and it is between Putinism — which, by the way, is subscribed to, at some level, by Erdogan or Netanyahu or Duterte and Trump — and a vision of a liberal market-based democracy that has all kinds of flaws and is subject to all kinds of legitimate criticism, but on the other hand is sort of responsible for most of the human progress we’ve seen over the last 50, 75 years.
And if what you see in Europe — illiberalism winning out, the liberal order there being chipped away — and the United States is not there as a bulwark, which I think it will not be, then what you’re going to start seeing is, in a G20 or a G7, something like a human rights agenda is just not going to even be — it won’t be even on the docket, it won’t be talked about. And you’ll start seeing — what the Russians, what the Chinese do in those meetings is that they essentially look out for their own interests. They sit back, they wait to see what kind of consensus we’re building globally, they see if sometimes they can make sure their equities are protected, but they don’t initiate.
If we’re not there initiating ourselves, then everybody goes into their own sort of nationalist, mercantilist corners, and it will be a meaner, tougher world, and the prospects for conflict that arise will be greater. I think the weakening of Europe, if not the splintering of Europe, will have significant effects for us because, you may recall, but the last time Europe was not unified, it did not go well. So I’m worried about Europe.
There are a lot of bad impulses in Europe if — you know, Europe, even before the election, these guys will remember when we were, like, in Hanover and stuff, and you just got this sense of, you know, like the Yeats poem — the best lacked all conviction and the worst were full of passion and intensity, and everybody on their heels, and unable to articulate or defend the fact that the European Union has produced the wealthiest, most peaceful, most prosperous, highest living standards in the history of mankind, and prior to that, 60 million people ended up being killed around the world because they couldn’t get along.
So you’d think that we’d have the better argument here, but you didn’t get a sense of that. Everybody was defensive, and I worry about that. Seeing Merkel for the last time when I was in Berlin was haunting. She looked very alarmed.
Q What can you share with us about what foreign leaders, like Merkel and others, have expressed to you about what happened here in this election and what’s happening internationally generally since November 8th?
THE PRESIDENT: I think they share the concerns that I just described. But it’s hard for them to figure out how to mobilize without us. This is what I mean — I mean, I’ll be honest, I do get frustrated sometimes with like the Greenwalds of the world. There are legitimate arguments to be made about various things we do, but overall we have been a relatively benign influence and a ballast, and have tried to create spaces — sometimes there’s hypocrisy and I’m dealing with the Saudis while they’re doing all kinds of stuff, or we’re looking away when there’s a Chinese dissident in jail. All legitimate concerns. How we prosecute the war against terrorism, even under my watch. And you can challenge our drone policy, although I would argue that the arguments were much more salient in the first two years of my administration — much less salient today.
You can talk about surveillance, and I would argue once again that Snowden identified some problems that had to do with technology outpacing the legal architecture. Since that time, the modifications we’ve made overall I think have been fairly sensible.
But even if you don’t agree with those things, if we’re not there making the arguments — and even under Bush, those arguments were made. I mean, you know, they screwed up royally with Iraq, but they cared about stuff like freedom of religion or genital mutilation. I mean, there was a State Department that would express concern about these things, and push and prod and much less NATO, which you kind of would think, well, that’s sort of a basic, let’s keep that thing going, that’s worked okay.
So I think the fear is a combination of poor policy articulation or just silence on the part of the administration, a lack of observance ourselves of basic norms. So, I mean, we started this thing called the Open Government Partnership that’s gotten 75 countries around the world doing all kinds of things that we’ve been poking and prodding them to do for a long time. It’s been really successful making sure that people know what their budgets are and how they can hold their elected officials accountable, and we’re doing it in Africa, in Asia, et cetera. And now, if we get a President who doesn’t release his tax returns, who’s doing business with a bunch of folks, then everybody looks and says, well, what are you talking about? They don’t even have to, like, dismantle that program, it’s just — our example counts too.
Q Mr. President, can I ask you to go to kind of a dark place for a second in terms of —
THE PRESIDENT: I was feeling pretty dark. (Laughter.) I don’t know how much — where do you want me to go exactly?
Q I can bring us lower, trust me.
Q The John McCain line, everything is terrible before it goes completely black. (Laughter.)
Q I know that you feel that there’s a lot you can’t say on the Russia story, but just even speaking hypothetically, if there were somebody with the powers of U.S. President who Russia felt like they could give orders to, that Russia felt like they had something on them, what’s your worst-case scenario? What’s the worry there in terms of the kind of damage that could be done?
And also domestically, with a truly malign actor, if he’s, way worse than we all think he might be, and he wanted to use the powers of the U.S. government to cause — to advance his own interests and cause other people harm that he saw as his enemies, are there breaks out there that you see? What are the places where you worry the most in terms of damage being done?
THE PRESIDENT: Okay, on the foreign policy, the hypothetical is just — I can’t answer that because I’ll let you guys spin yourselves.
What I would simply say would be that any time you have a foreign actors who, for whatever reason, has ex parte influence over the President of the United States, meaning that the American people can’t see that influence because it’s not happening in a bilateral meeting and subject to negotiations or reporting — any time that happens, that’s a problem. And I’ll let you speculate on where that could go.
Domestically, I think I’ve mentioned to Greg the place that I worry the most about. I mean, I think that the dangers I would see would be — and we saw some hints of this in my predecessor — if you politicize law enforcement, the attorney general’s office, U.S. attorneys, FBI, prosecutorial functions, IRS audits, that’s the place that I worry the most about. And the reason is because if you start seeing the government engaging in some of those behaviors and you start getting a chilling effect, then looking at history I don’t know that we’re so special that you don’t start getting self-censorship, which in some ways is worse, or at least becomes the precursor.
We have enough institutional breaks right now to prevent just outright — I mean, you would not, even with a Supreme Court appointment of his coming up, Justice Roberts would not uphold the President of the United States explicitly punishing the Washington Post for writing something. I mean, the First Amendment — there’s certain things that you can’t get away with.
But what you can do — it’s been interesting watching sort of a handful of tweets, and then suddenly companies are all like, oh, we’re going to bring back jobs, even if it’s all phony and bullshit. What that shows is the power of people thinking, you know what, I might get in trouble, I might get punished. And it’s one thing if that’s just verbal. But if folks start feeling as if the law enforcement mechanisms we have in place are not straight, they’ll play it straight. That’s dangerous, just because the immense power — one of the frustrations I’ve had over the course of eight years is the degree to which people have, I think in the popular imagination and certainly among the left, this idea of Big Brother and spying and reading emails and writing emails — and that’s captured everybody’s imaginations.
But I will tell you, the real power that’s scary is just basic law enforcement. If the FBI comes and questions you and says it wants your stuff, and the Justice Department starts investigating you and is investigating you for long periods of time, even if you have nothing to hide, even if you’ve got lawyers, that’s a scary piece of business, and it will linger for long periods of time.” …. (Much More Continues after Page, 10)
Posted originally on Aug 27, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
Does the West actually care about women? The United Kingdom wants to arrest anyone speaking poorly of Islamic views infiltrating their society, and they plan to arrest anyone expressing a misogynistic view. The Democrat select for the 2024 Presidential Election believes abortion is the pinnacle of women’s rights and liberation, offering free abortions at campaign rallies. No one can define women. They are not provided maternal leave, crimes against women are on the rise, and there is a pink luxury tax on the products they buy. The only message the left releases is that women can only be free if provided the right to abort babies, and everything else is overlooked. The women of Afghanistan probably had a glimmer of hope when America was keeping the Taliban in check. But Biden and Harris abandoned troops and allies in Afghanistan, and now, the very people who believe they defeated the United States have implemented some of the harshest laws against women to date.
These are the women Biden and Harris left behind in Afghanistan after the disastrous withdrawal. The Taliban recently held a parade to celebrate the anniversary of their defeat of America, complete with an arsenal of weapons worth $85 billion provided by the US. Those same people are using their newfound power to remove ALL rights for women. Women are not welcome in Afghan society.
Women in Afghanistan must completely cover their entire bodies in public to avoid tempting men. The UK bans anyone from posting negatively on social media because it might tempt another. Punishing people because others may become enraged is commonplace in the current rule of law.
The 114-page document that women must abide by is horrendous. Female VOICES have been banned – they are not to speak as their voices may tempt men. Dogs have more rights than women because they are not put to death for barking. Simply speaking is now a criminal offense. Women may not leave the home without a male chaperone present. Education past the sixth grade is now forbidden. Yet, women may only see female doctors, so half the population will not have access to medical care. Unmarried women have no chance at existence. These women have been reduced to property and are prohibited from having a life outside the home.
The people marching up and down the streets to free Palestine are quiet, as are the women’s rights groups. There has been no statement issued from the White House who is actually funding this insanity as the Biden-Harris Administration recently sent the Talian $239 million in funding. Where is the MY BODY, MY CHOICE crowd? The college campuses are quiet. Political activists and politicians claim they are saving women from being oppressed, but they care not about such matters. The social justice warriors will turn a blind eye to this blatant abuse of human rights because it acknowledges that Biden and Harris failed the people of Afghanistan.
“Who the —- is Allah?” a 61-year-old British man asked protestors. That comment has resulted in an 18-month prison sentence. You no longer need to commit a violent crime to be tried as a violent criminal in the United Kingdom.
It is sufficient grounds for arrest to simply say or write an opinion that could anger the other side and prompt someone else to become violent. This man’s crime was “precipitated by false information relating to the religion and immigration status of the perpetrator of the Southall murders,” according to the report. As a reminder, the protests were over the brutal murder of three young girls. The media and UK authorities are more outraged over people confusing the murderer’s immigration status than over the heinous crime itself.
There are numerous cases of migrants committing violent acts, even rape, and receiving lesser sentences. Over 3,000 people in the UK were arrested for simply posting something deemed offensive on social media last year. People are watching their nation crumble as a result of open border policies that permit unvetted men to freely commit crimes and terrorize the nation.
The media is calling Sharia Law protests “anti-racism protests” of peaceful men wishing to combat the far-right. Why did all Muslim nations turn away these refugees? Even leaders in the Arab world warned the West of the implications of taking in immigrants from places like Syria. And guess what? Now the West will arm Israel to the teeth and invite the angered Palestinians to move to their nation.
Migrants are not expected to assimilate to their new environment. They are not expected to adopt the new cultures or traditions of their new host country. Legal immigrants show immense gratitude for the opportunity to seek sanctuary in a new country that will provide them with better opportunities. The masses of illegals who arrived in the West have no such gratitude. They came here with their hands out, expecting the people to pay and pave their way, and the governments have fueled this entitlement.
The migrant crisis is destroying our societies and civilization as we have known it. It is a tragedy that the UK legal system has been infiltrated with the New World Order mindset that believes citizens should stand idle as their traditions and cultures are decimated. Those in the UK are not allowed to even question the migrant crisis or express outrage at the overwhelming increase in violent crime. True change comes when those protecting the people in power cave. When the police refuse to protect the Shira Law protestors or the politicians supporting open border we will a major shift in the UK. It’s inevitable.
Posted originally on Aug 8, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
The English Civil War raged between the Catholics and the Puritans between August 22nd, 1642, and September 1651. It included the beheading of King Charles I on January 30th, 1649. On August 22nd, 1642, King Charles I raised the royal battle standard over Nottingham Castle, thereby declaring war on his own Parliament. This war was brewing as part of the Protestant Reformation, which was funded by aristocrats who wanted to enter the banking industry, which was the monopoly of the Jews. In Christianity, the Sin of Usury prohibited lending money for interest. For decades, the workaround was to not call it interest but to effectively agree to terms that would specify a different price for a commodity. This would become the Gold Clauses that the United States Supreme Court had to nullify when FDR confiscated gold in 1934.
The English Civil War was very much part of the Protestant Reformation, which is usually considered to have begun on October 31, 1517, with the publication of Martin Luther’s Ninety-five Theses. However, there were others before him that really began as an objection to central power rule. As I have explained, there is a cycle of power concentrating and then being dispersed throughout history in the separatist movement. Indeed, state policies of centralization will inevitably lead to violent responses by the peasantry, which we are today from the political view above. Yet, not all centralization policies are the same. Historically, the structure of centralization varies, and based upon the style of how centralized power is wielded, it results in different responses.
These different types of centralized control rest entirely on the very core nature of state resources, culture, and, most importantly, how the state deals with society. If we look at the Roman Empire, they allowed each province to retain its culture, and the Romans tended to absorb the best of each society. A centralized state that tries to control and influence society with decisions made far removed from the local communities in the self-interest of the state runs the risk of revolution, which can spring from resentment typically over economic conditions and taxation that fire appears as civil unrest.
Inevitably, revolution becomes the response to centralized power. Sulla was a ruthless dictator in Rome who even wanted to kill Julius Caesar. From his death began a Private Wave. I had warned from the beginning of our current Private wave 1985.65 that we would see the first potential for a 3rd party candidate to take the presidency, and that was Donald Trump, who was sworn in precisely of the Pi target 2017.05. During this Wave #117, Cleopatra gave both to Caesar and by the end of that 8,6-year wave, they assassinated Caesar. That launched the civil war and the Battle of Actium in 31BC, officially ending the Republic, and Octavian became the first Emperor by 27BC. We too will witness a change in government by the end of this current cycle in 2037.
Look at Wave #155; this marked the rise of socialism once again and ended in January 1934 with Roosevelt’s confiscation of gold. We always get these major political changes, and the worse it becomes depending on the intensity of the centralized state’s power.
We are now in the last two waves since 2020 as we head into 2032. I believe that COVID-19 was the turning point that woke up many people to the honesty of those in power. They can “feel” the power is slipping through their fingers, and in these last years, they will increasingly become authoritarian. This is what will spark civil war not just in the United States but in many regions throughout Europe. This Soros/World Economic Forum agenda of an OPEN SOCIETY fails utterly to understand history and culture.
Historically, when you see centralized powers carry out long-term attempts to subordinate major provincial/cultural groups through mass migration to expand their power to subordinate the very population that is increasing;y becoming distrustful of government, this is always followed by violence. I warned that Emperor Valens allowed the Goths to come into Rome, which he thought would boost his military power; once they were trained in Roman tactics, they turned on the Emperor, and he died in battle, and his body was never even recovered. To this day, the word we use for “GOD” comes from the Goths – not the Roman Latin.
In the case of Britain, the Civil War of the 17th century was not unique. If we look around the world, we find that France and the Ottoman Empire, which were both agrarian empires, were hit by the Economic Crisis of the 17th Century. Much of this crisis was brought on by the Thirty Years’ War from 1618 to 1648. This was perhaps the most destructive of all conflicts in European history. The estimated number of soldiers and civilians who died from the effects of battle, famine, or disease was in the area of up to 8 million. That may not sound like a lot, but in parts of Germany, for example, the reported population declined by over 50%. Considering the loss of about 50% of the population during the 14th century due to the Black Plague, the overall reduction in the population was rather significant long-term. There were additional conflicts, such as the Eighty Years’ War, the War of the Mantuan Succession, the Franco-Spanish War, the Torstenson War, the Dutch-Portuguese War, and the Portuguese Restoration War.
To a large extent, the Thirty Years’ War was truly a continuation of the religious conflict initiated by the Protestant Reformation within the Holy Roman Empire in the 16th century. There was also a collapse in the faith in centralized government. This led to effectively the reinstiution of almost feudalism. Towns began strengthening their own fortifications and hired armies, no longer relying on protection from the centralized government. War raged, engulfing much of Europe as Sweden invaded Germany (1630–1635); the French intervention occurred between 1635 and 1648. While England was not directly involved, the Civil War also continued the Protestant Reformation.
Throughout the 1630s, tax increases were levied to pay for these wars, which led to protests throughout Spanish territories. The first sprung up in Portugal, then in the Principality of Catalonia. Stepping back and looking at the world, we see a CONTAGION of discontent that is spreading today. Back then, we find a period of sustained conflict and civil unrest in areas ranging from Ming China to the British Isles, Tsarist Russia, and the Holy Roman Empire. All of this war-making resulted in famine and disease, which inflicted severe losses on local civilian populations not involved in the fighting.
I understood the history of the 17th century, which resulted in the Ottoman Empire attempting to invade Europe because it had been weakened internally by these wars. In 1683, they laid siege to Vienna and sought to conquer the Holy Roman Empire.
Rise of Anti-Capitalism
We are at the end of this cycle, and this polarization of left vs right is rising to the surface. This time, it is this dream of Utopia that is constantly preached from the left. What is really alarming is that a research poll in Britain from the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) confirms younger people are hostile to capitalism and hold favorable views of socialist alternatives. The new paper is very alarming. just as there was this battle over religion during the 17th century, we are facing the rising LEFT, which fully intends a violent revolution. There is a growing rejection of capitalism that has grown legs thanks to the migration crisis, just as Emperor Valens experienced. This research by the IEA was of just under 2,000 people aged between 16 and 34 in the UK, carried out between February and March 2021. They found:
67% say they would like to live in a socialist economic system.
75% agree with the assertion that climate change is a specifically capitalist problem.
78% blame capitalism for Britain’s housing crisis.
72% support the renationalization of various industries such as energy, water, and railways.
72% believe that private sector involvement would put the NHS at risk.
75% agree with the statement that ‘socialism is a good idea, but it has failed in the past because it has been badly done.
There is growing support for nationalized energy companies, using Climate Change as a camouflage for social issues. There are LEFTIST politicians who present themselves as altruistic when, in fact, they are anything but magnanimous. They pretend that whatever the state does is always for the common good. Of course, that was Joseph Stalin’s claim as well.
The two greatest experiments with Socialism that demonstrate that governments will always make decisions in their own self-interest and NOT for the common good of the people remain that of Germany and Korea. Both nations were divided between Social and Capitalism. The dreams of the LEFT have never materialized, yet it seems to be the allure of the sirens in the Iliad and the Odyssey.
Ulysses ties himself to the mast and orders his men not to follow anything he says. I want to listen to the lure of the sirens. This is Socialism. It sounds great, but it defies humand nature because we are all not equal in talent, only in human rights.
The Puritans beheaded the King. Then Oliver Cromwell issued coins claiming to be Lord Protector, pictured with a laurel wreath as if he were the king. Once in power, they sought to retain it at all costs. Cromwell outlawed Christmas and had spies look in your windows to make sure you were not celebrating Christmas but praying. He outlawed all sports because that led to cursing. It was a crime to kiss your wife in public.
Britain has taken a hard turn LEFT, and the riots we see in Britain are a global CONTAGION that will lead to civil war and spread around the globe, giving more cause for the need for international war. This entire migration was intended to tipp the politics to the left for their assumed that these people would vote for the LEFT since they are handed money. Like the Gother in Rome, they will turn on the hand that fed them. This was a huge mistake.
Posted originally on Aug 8, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
Our computer has been forecasting a major rise in civil unrest on a global scale. We are witnessing this from Nigeria to Europe and even in Britain. It will migrate to the United States, and we should be prepared for NOBODY to accept this election REGARDLESS of who wins. The mainstream press will only fuel this anger as they continue to call anyone who opposes the WOKE agenda “far right,” for we have lost anything that was once just the middle of the road.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 