War From Inside Out

As terrorist attacks continue, people get emotional and, as always when people get emotional, they put their attention in the wrong place and think in a foggy way. Radical Islam is A problem, but not THE problem. Every time there's a terrorist attack, people start pleading for a stop to immigration and strengthen the narrative to 'Build That Wall.'

The United States is currently in the growing pains of trying to figure out how to accomplish its goals through coercion but in such a way where they can get around the empires who actually have big enough weapons to crush us. We can't deal with Russia, China and North Korea directly, so we have to destabilize the countries that are on their way to being competitors in the world weapon market.

We do this, time and time again, by proxy. We allow rebels to do it for us, knowing they're going to fail when facing their respective government opposition, and then we get to blast all over the news that Syria and Libya are killing their own people, thus giving us a humanitarian excuse to 'intervene.'

      'In 2011, according to Middle East Eye, the LIFG in Manchester were known as the "Manchester boys". Implacably opposed to Mu'ammar Gadaffi, they were considered high risk and a number were under Home Office control orders - house arrest - when anti-Gadaffi demonstrations broke out in Libya, a country forged from myriad tribal enmities.
Suddenly the control orders were lifted. "I was allowed to go, no questions asked," said one LIFG member. MI5 returned their passports and counter-terrorism police at Heathrow airport were told to let them board their flights.
The overthrow of Gaddafi, who controlled Africa's largest oil reserves, had been long been planned in Washington and London. According to French intelligence, the LIFG made several assassination attempts on Gadaffi in the 1990s - bank-rolled by British intelligence. In March 2011, France, Britain and the US seized the opportunity of a "humanitarian intervention" and attacked Libya. They were joined by Nato under cover of a UN resolution to "protect civilians".
Last September, a House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee inquiry concluded that then Prime Minister David Cameron had taken the country to war against Gaddafi on a series of "erroneous assumptions" and that the attack "had led to the rise of Islamic State in North Africa". The Commons committee quoted what it called Barack Obama's "pithy" description of Cameron's role in Libya as a "shit show".
In fact, Obama was a leading actor in the "shit show", urged on by his warmongering Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and a media accusing Gaddafi of planning "genocide" against his own people. "We knew... that if we waited one more day," said Obama, "Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."
The massacre story was fabricated by Salafist militias facing defeat by Libyan government forces. They told Reuters there would be "a real bloodbath, a massacre like we saw in Rwanda". The Commons committee reported, "The proposition that Mu'ammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence".
Britain, France and the United States effectively destroyed Libya as a modern state. According to its own records, Nato launched 9,700 "strike sorties", of which more than a third hit civilian targets. They included fragmentation bombs and missiles with uranium warheads. The cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. Unicef, the UN children's organisation, reported a high proportion of the children killed "were under the age of ten".
More than "giving rise" to Islamic State - ISIS had already taken root in the ruins of Iraq following the Blair and Bush invasion in 2003 - these ultimate medievalists now had all of north Africa as a base. The attack also triggered a stampede of refugees fleeing to Europe.
Cameron was celebrated in Tripoli as a "liberator", or imagined he was. The crowds cheering him included thosesecretly supplied and trained by Britain's SAS and inspired by Islamic State, such as the "Manchester boys".
To the Americans and British, Gadaffi's true crime was his iconoclastic independence and his plan to abandon the petrodollar, a pillar of American imperial power. He had audaciously planned to underwrite a common African currency backed by gold, establish an all-Africa bank and promote economic union among poor countries with prized resources. Whether or not this would have happened, the very notion was intolerable to the US as it prepared to "enter" Africa and bribe African governments with military "partnerships".'

We are, whether it has been recognized by the U.S. government or not, at war. We are bringing people into the west in large numbers who have, time and time again, made their intentions transparent. As incompatible with western values as radical Islam is, you simply don't invite millions of the people you're bombing into your country, period. But the government knows what it's doing.

My hopes are high but my doubts are strong. I don't see immigration slowing down to a reasonable rate anytime soon. I see more of the same: tighter restrictions in the west, soldiers in the streets, and ever tighter regulations.

People have been devoting enormous amounts of energy to educating their fellow westerners on the incompatibility of Islam and the west, when in fact, the west, in the past century, has been swallowed into a network whose ambitions were and are just as global as radical Islam is now. Of course one will use the other. The West has destabilized other countries to get more control over them and it will do the same to its own countries, using precisely the same groups of people who were willing to do so.

Those who are under the delusion that they live in the same United States founded 200 years ago are operating on a false assumption and are going about the situation in the wrong way. We are beyond pleading for legislators and authorities to recognize those laws and contracts which protect us from them. These contracts are, at this point, messages from the past, carried on the wind. We need new countries, our own forms of accountability, and the measures to defend them. Some will go on and remain hardline in favor of the U.S. constitution. Others will form new ways of life. There's room in this world for true diversity: respecting one another's difference and preference aligned with free association.

What there is not room for, however, is the current global system, which constantly gains more power by mobilizing dangerous forces it can then discard by offering them up as scapegoats to temporarily satisfy the people.