watching belgian tv, it appears brussels is in a lock down, schools closed and pupils have to stay at school. no public transport
13 people killed at airport, 35 wounded, unclear whether this was asuicide attack.
metro stations: 1 bomb and 2 other incidents.
news at 10 local time
Would someone be kind enough to put me out of my misery. Perhaps a large dose of deadly nightshade would do it.
Because you can colour me very sceptical.
This morning footage is being shown on RT of Abdeslam being captured in Belgium. Video footage of the capture is still not yet being made available - but poor quality stills of it are now around:
Imagine that, a man wearing a highly noticeable cream coloured hoodie is captured by security forces. At no point is his face to be seen.
But never mind, it must be Abdeslam because the security services and media tell us it is him.
Phew. Thank goodness I got that off my chest.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
PS, at the airport explosions we are told that "Arabic shouting" was heard at the time of the explosions, which is important because we may not have known who did it otherwise.
Anuvver problem solved...
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
I think soon an 'Iron Curtain' will surround Europe.....funny how history repeats and repeats and repeats.....
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Peter Lemkin Wrote:I think soon an 'Iron Curtain' will surround Europe.....funny how history repeats and repeats and repeats.....
Not sure, Pete. I think it might yet again become Fortress Europe:
Except that "Reino Unido" would be included in the Swastika nations.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Jan and Carsten, I wonder if I could ask you to post relevant local language (Dutch and German) articles that might highlight any curiosities and or factual inconsistencies over the coming days please? You both are far more likely to get more important and insightful material than us in the Uk or US.
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Funny how all of the security cameras, guards and police state measures are never enough to stop these crafty terrorists.
Wanna bet we won't see any really good video footage of these "suicide bombers"?
The following may seem off topic and my apologies if members think it is. However, I think it is bang on target. In fact, I think we are seeing a long-term and well organized strategy of tension unfolding. Interesting in that Brussels is just down the road from NATO headquarters. It's almost "home turf".
Quote:
The European Union is blind to the military strategy of the United States
by Thierry Meyssan
The political leaders of the European Union are entirely wrong about the Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe and the migration to the Union of people fleeing the war zones. Thierry Meyssan demonstrates here that these are not simply the accidental consequences of conflict in the wider Middle East and Africa, but a strategic objective of the United States.
23rd April 2015 the European Council observes a minute of silence in commemoration of the refugees who lost their lives in the Mediterranean. The leaders of the European Union are suddenly being confronted with unexpected situations. On the one hand, terrorist attacks or attempted attacks perpetrated or prepared by individuals who do not belong to any identified political groups; and on the other, an influx of refugees who cross the Mediterranean, several thousands of whom die along their coasts.In the absence of any strategic analysis, these two events are considered a priori as being unconnected, and are treated by different administrations. The former are handled by the Intelligence services and the police, the latter by Customs and Defence. However, they both share the same common origin the political instability that reigns in the Levant and in Africa.The European Union has deprived itself of the means to understand
If the military academies of the European Union had done their job, they would have been studying the doctrine of its « big brother », the United States, for the last fifteen years. Indeed, for many long years, the Pentagon has been publishing all sorts of documents on the « Chaos Theory» borrowed from the philosopher Leo Strauss. Only a few moths ago, an official who should have retired more than 25 years ago, Andrew Marshall, disposed of a budget of 10 million dollars annually to research this subject [1]. But no military academy of the Union has seriously studied this doctrine and its consequences. Partly because this is a barbaric form of warfare, and partly because it was conceived by one of the intellectual gurus of the US Jewish elite. And as everybody knows,the United-States-who-saved-us-all from-Nazism can not advocate such atrocities [2].If the political personnel of the European Union had travelled a little, not only to Iraq, Syria, Libya, the horn of Africa, to Nigeria and Mali, but also to Ukraine, they would have seen with their own eyes the application of this strategic doctrine. Instead, the contented themselves with speeches delivered from a building in the Green Zone of Bagdhad, from a podium in Tripoli or on Maïdan Square in Kiev. They have no idea what these populations are really experiencing, and at the request of their « big brother », have often closed their embassies, thereby depriving themselves of eyes and ears on the ground. Even better, still at the request of their « big brother », they have participated in embargos, thus ensuring that no European businessmen will travel to these areas and see what is happening there.An undetermined number of refugees have died in the Mediterranean. Sometimes, the waves wash their bodies onto the beaches of Italy, where the Customs take charge of boats filled with corpses. Chaos is not an accident, it's the goal
Contrary to what President François Hollande has declared, the Libyan migration is not the consequence of a « lack of follow-through » of operation « Unified Protector », but the desired result of this operation, in which his country has played a leading role. Chaos did not evolve because the « Libyan revolutionaries » were unable to agree after the « fall » of Mouammar el-Kadhafi, it was the strategic goal of the United States, and they succeeded. There never was a « democratic revolution » in Libya, but a secession of Cyrenaïca. There never was an application of the UNO mandate aimed at « protecting the population », but the massacre of 160,000 Libyans, three quarters of whom were civilians, under the bombardments of the Alliance (numbers from the International Red Cross).Before I joined the government of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, I remember having been solicited to act as a witness during a meeting in Tripoli between a US delegation and the Libyan representatives. During our long conversation, the head of the US delegation explained that the Pentagon was ready to save us from certain death, but demanded that the Guide be handed over to them. He added that once el-Kadhafi was dead, Libya's tribal society would be unable to name a new leader for at least a generation, and that the country would be plunged into chaos such as it had never experienced. I spoke of this interview on a number of occasions, and since the lynching of the Guide in October 2011, I have never stopped predicting what is now happening.Leo Strauss (1899-1973) was a specialist in political philosophy. He gathered a small group of students, most of whom later worked for the Decretary of Defence. They formed a sort of cult, and inspired Pentagon strategy. « Chaos Theory »
When, in 2003, the US Press began to speak of « Chaos Theory », the White House answered by using the term « constructive chaos », suggesting that the structures of oppression must be destroyed in order that life might evolve without constraint. But neither Leo Strauss nor the Pentagon had ever used the expression until then. On the contrary, according to them, chaos had to attain such a level that no structure could be built without the will of the Creator of the new Order, in other words, the United States [3].The principle of this strategic doctrine may be resumed as follows - the simplest way to pillage the natural ressources of a country over a long period is not to occupy the target, but destroy the state. Without a state, there can be no army. With no enemy army, there is no risk of defeat. Thus, the strategic goal of the US army and the alliance that it controls, the UNO, is exclusively the destruction of states. What then happens to the populations concerned is not Washington's problem.Such a project is inconceivable for Europeans who, since the British civil war, have been convinced by Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan that it is necessary to give up certain freedoms, even accept a tyrannical state, to avoid being plunged into chaos.The European Union denies its complicity in US crimes
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have already cost the lives of 4 million people [4]. These wars were presented to the Security Council as necessary counter-attacks undertaken in « legitimate defence », but it is accepted today that the wars were planned long before the 11th September, in the much wider context of « the remodeling of a greater Middle East », and that the reasons given for launching them were in fact propaganda fabrications.It is common wisdom today to recognise the genocides committed by European colonialism, but rare are those who will accept the figure of 4 million dead, despite scientific studies which attest to its accuracy. It's because our parents were « bad », but we are « good » and we can not be complicit in these horrors.It is common practice to mock the poor Germans who maintained their trust in their Nazi leaders right to the end, and only learned of the crimes committed in their name after their country's defeat. But we are doing exactly the same thing. We maintain our confidence in our « big brother », and do not want to know about the crimes in which he has implicated us. Our children will certainly mock us in turn…The errors of interpretation by the European Union
No West European leader, absolutely none, has dared to publicly express the idea that the refugees from Iraq, Syria, Libya, the Horn of Africa, Nigeria and Mali are not fleeing dictatorships, but the chaos into which we have deliberately, though unconsciously, plunged their countries. No West European leader, absolutely none, has dared to publicly express the idea that the « Islamist » attacks which are affecting Europe are not the extension of the wars in the « greater Middle East », but are directed by those who have also directed the chaos in this region. We prefer to continue believing that the « Islamists » are attacking Jews and Christians, although the great majority of their victims are neither Jews nor Christians, but Muslims. We calmly accuse them of promoting the « war of civilisations », although this concept was developed by the National Security Council of the United States, and remains alien to their culture [5]. No West European leader, absolutely none, has dared to publicly express the idea that the next stage will be the « Islamisation » of the drug market, on the model of the Contras of Nicaragua, who sold drugs to the black community of California with the aid, and under the orders, of the CIA [6]. We have decided to ignore the fact that the Karzaï family has taken the distribution of Afghani heroin from the Kosovar mafia and handed it to Daesh [7].The Under-Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, and the US ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey R. Pyatt. In a telephone wire-tap revealed by the partisans of legality, she told him that she wanted to « fuck the European Union » (sic). The United States never wanted Ukraine to join the Union
So now we are faced with two problems which are developing very rapidly - the « Islamist »attacks have only just begun. Migrations across the Mediterranean have tripled in a single year.If my analysis is correct, over the next decade we will see more « Islamist » attacks linked to the greater Middle East and Africa, doubled with « Nazi » attacks linked to Ukraine. We will then discover that al-Qaïda and the Ukrainian Nazis have been connected since their common inception, in 2007 at Ternopol (Ukraine). In reality, the grand-parents of both have known each other since the Second World War. The Nazis had at that time recruited Soviet Muslims for the fight against Moscow (that was Gerhard von Mende's plan at the Ostministerium, or Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories). At the end of the war, both organisations were recuperated by the CIA (Frank Wisner's programme with the AmComLib, or the American Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia) in order to carry out sabotage operations in the USSR.The migrations across the Mediterranean, which for the moment remain a humanitarian problem (200,000 people in 2014), continue to increase to the point of becoming a serious economic problem. The recent decisions by the Union to go and sink the boats of Libyan drug traffickers will not serve to diminish the migrations, but to justify new military operations intended to maintain a state of chaos in Libya rather than solving the problem.All this will cause serious trouble in the European Union, which today seems like a haven of peace. It is out of the question for Washington to destroy this market which it still considers indispensable, but to ensure that Europe will never enter into competition with it, hence the desire to limit its development.In 1991, President Bush the elder asked one of Leo Strauss' disciples, Paul Wolfowitz (as yet unknown to the general public), to elaborate a strategy for the post-Soviet era. The «Wolfowitz Doctrine » explained that the guarantee of US supremacy over the rest of the world demanded the curbing of the European Union [10]. In 2008, during the financial crisis in the United States, the President of the Economic Council of the White House, historian Christina Rohmer, explained that that the only way to refloat the banks was by closing the fiscal paradises in the third countries, and then to provoke trouble in Europe so that capital would flow back to the United States. Finally, today Washington is proposing to merge the NAFTA and the EU, the dollar and the Euro, dragging the member states of the Union down to the level of Mexico [11].Unfortunately for them, neither the citizens of the European Union or their leaders have any idea what President Barack Obama is preparing for them.
While Meyssan thinks that EU politicians are dumb to this devious US strategy, doubtless some are. However, I for one, am far more cynical. My sense is that many completely understand what is going on and support it.
Then again, I happen to consider that the US strategy, especially, hearkens back to the Nazi bruderhood's post WWII ambitions anyway.
***
Footnote 10 refers to a NY Times article which is copied in below:
Quote:
U.S. STRATEGY PLAN CALLS FOR INSURING NO RIVALS DEVELOP
WASHINGTON, March 7 In a broad new policy statement that is in its final drafting stage, the Defense Department asserts that America's political and military mission in the post-cold-war era will be to insure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territory of the former Soviet Union. A 46-page document that has been circulating at the highest levels of the Pentagon for weeks, and which Defense Secretary Dick Cheney expects to release later this month, states that part of the American mission will be "convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests." The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy. Rejecting Collective Approach To perpetuate this role, the United States "must sufficiently account for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order," the document states. With its focus on this concept of benevolent domination by one power, the Pentagon document articulates the clearest rejection to date of collective internationalism, the strategy that emerged from World War II when the five victorious powers sought to form a United Nations that could mediate disputes and police outbreaks of violence. Though the document is internal to the Pentagon and is not provided to Congress, its policy statements are developed in conjunction with the National Security Council and in consultation with the President or his senior national security advisers. Its drafting has been supervised by Paul D. Wolfowitz, the Pentagon's Under Secretary for Policy. Mr. Wolfowitz often represents the Pentagon on the Deputies Committee, which formulates policy in an interagency process dominated by the State and Defense departments. The document was provided to The New York Times by an official who believes this post-cold-war strategy debate should be carried out in the public domain. It seems likely to provoke further debate in Congress and among America's allies about Washington's willingness to tolerate greater aspirations for regional leadership from a united Europe or from a more assertive Japan. Together with its attachments on force levels required to insure America's predominant role, the policy draft is a detailed justification for the Bush Administration's "base force" proposal to support a 1.6-million-member military over the next five years, at a cost of about $1.2 trillion. Many Democrats in Congress have criticized the proposal as unnecessarily expensive. Implicitly, the document foresees building a world security arrangement that pre-empts Germany and Japan from pursuing a course of substantial rearmament, especially nuclear armament, in the future. In its opening paragraph, the policy document heralds the "less visible" victory at the end of the cold war, which it defines as "the integration of Germany and Japan into a U.S.-led system of collective security and the creation of a democratic 'zone of peace.' " The continuation of this strategic goal explains the strong emphasis elsewhere in the document and in other Pentagon planning on using military force, if necessary, to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in such countries as North Korea, Iraq, some of the successor republics to the Soviet Union and in Europe. Nuclear proliferation, if unchecked by superpower action, could tempt Germany, Japan and other industrial powers to acquire nuclear weapons to deter attack from regional foes. This could start them down the road to global competition with the United States and, in a crisis over national interests, military rivalry. The policy draft appears to be adjusting the role of the American nuclear arsenal in the new era, saying, "Our nuclear forces also provide an important deterrent hedge against the possibility of a revitalized or unforeseen global threat, while at the same time helping to deter third party use of weapons of mass destruction through the threat of retaliation." U.N. Action Ignored The document is conspicuously devoid of references to collective action through the United Nations, which provided the mandate for the allied assault on Iraqi forces in Kuwait and which may soon be asked to provide a new mandate to force President Saddam Hussein to comply with his cease-fire obligations. The draft notes that coalitions "hold considerable promise for promoting collective action" as in the Persian Gulf war, but that "we should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished." What is most important, it says, is "the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S." and "the United States should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated" or in a crisis that demands quick response.
U.S. STRATEGY PLAN CALLS FOR INSURING NO RIVALS DEVELOP
(Page 2 of 2) Bush Administration officials have been saying publicly for some time that they were willing to work within the framework of the United Nations, but that they reserve the option to act unilaterally or through selective coalitions, if necessary, to protect vital American interests. But this publicly stated strategy did not rule out an eventual leveling of American power as world security stabilizes and as other nations place greater emphasis on collective international action through the United Nations. In contrast, the new draft sketches a world in which there is one dominant military power whose leaders "must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." Sent to Administrators The document is known in Pentagon parlance as the Defense Planning Guidance, an internal Administration policy statement that is distributed to the military leaders and civilian Defense Department heads to instruct them on how to prepare their forces, budgets and strategy for the remainder of the decade. The policy guidance is typically prepared every two years, and the current draft will yield the first such document produced after the end of the cold war. Senior Defense Department officials have said the document will be issued by Defense Secretary Cheney this month. According to a Feb. 18 memorandum from Mr. Wolfowitz's deputy, Dale A. Vesser, the policy guidance will be issued with a set of "illustrative" scenarios for possible future foreign conflicts that might draw United States military forces into combat. These scenarios, issued separately to the military services on Feb. 4, were detailed in a New York Times article last month. They postulated regional wars against Iraq and North Korea, as well as a Russian assault on Lithuania and smaller military contingencies that United States forces might confront in the future. These hypothetical conflicts, coupled with the policy guidance document, are meant to give military leaders specific information about the kinds of military threats they should be prepared to meet as they train and equip their forces. It is also intended to give them a coherent strategy framework in which to evaluate various force and training options. Fears of Proliferation In assessing future threats, the document places great emphasis on how "the actual use of weapons of mass destruction, even in conflicts that otherwise do not directly engage U.S. interests, could spur further proliferation which in turn would threaten world order." "The U.S. may be faced with the question of whether to take military steps to prevent the development or use of weapons of mass destruction," it states, noting that those steps could include pre-empting an impending attack with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons "or punishing the attackers or threatening punishment of aggressors through a variety of means," including attacks on the plants that manufacture such weapons. Noting that the 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is up for renewal in 1995, the document says, "should it fail, there could ensue a potentially radical destabilizing process" that would produce unspecified "critical challenges which the U.S. and concerned partners must be prepared to address." The draft guidance warns that "both Cuba and North Korea seem to be entering periods of intense crisis -- primarily economic, but also political -- which may lead the governments involved to take actions that would otherwise seem irrational." It adds, "the same potential exists in China." For the first time since the Defense Planning Guidance process was initiated to shape national security policy, the new draft states that the fragmentation of the former Soviet military establishment has eliminated the capacity for any successor power to wage global conventional war. But the document qualifies its assessment, saying, "we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or effort to re-incorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus and possibly others." It says that though U.S. nuclear targeting plans have changed "to account for welcome developments in states of the former Soviet Union," American strategic nuclear weapons will continue to target vital aspects of the former Soviet military establishment. The rationale for the continuation of this targeting policy is that the United States "must continue to hold at risk those assets and capabilities that current -- and future -- Russian leaders or other nuclear adversaries value most" because Russia will remain "the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States." Until such time as the Russian nuclear arsenal has been rendered harmless, "we continue to face the possibility of robust strategic nuclear forces in the hands of those who might revert to closed, authoritarian, and hostile regimes," the document says. It calls for the "early introduction" of a global anti-missile system. Plan for Europe In Europe, the Pentagon paper asserts that "a substantial American presence in Europe and continued cohesion within the Western alliance remain vital," but to avoid a competitive relationship from developing, "we must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO." The draft states that with the elimination of United States short-range nuclear weapons in Europe and similar weapons at sea, the United States should not contemplate any withdrawal of its nuclear-strike aircraft based in Europe and, in the event of a resurgent threat from Russia, "we should plan to defend against such a threat" farther forward on the territories of Eastern Europe "should there be an Alliance decision to do so." This statement offers an explicit commitment to defend the former Warsaw Pact nations from Russia. It suggests that the United States could also consider extending to Eastern and Central European nations security commitments similar to those extended to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab states along the Persian Gulf. And to help stabilize the economies and democratic development in Eastern Europe, the draft calls on the European Community to offer memberships to Eastern European countries as soon as possible. In East Asia, the report says, the United States can draw down its forces further, but "we must maintain our status as a military power of the first magnitude in the area. "This well enable the United States to continue to contribute to regional security and stability by acting as a balancing force and prevent the emergence of a vacuum or a regional hegemon." In addition, the draft warns that any precipitous withdrawal of United States military forces could provoke an unwanted response from Japan, and the document states, "we must also remain sensitive to the potentially destabilizing effects that enhanced roles on the part of our allies, particularly Japan but also possibly Korea, might produce." In the event that peace negotiations between the two Koreas succeed, the draft recommends that the United States "should seek to maintain an alliance relationship with a unified democratic Korea." Photo: Paul D. Wolfowitz, the Pentagon's Under Secretary for Policy, who has overseen the drafting of a policy statement on the nation's mission in the post-cold-war era. (The New York Times) (pg. 14) Map of the world indicating areas where U.S may need to retain its military power. (pg. 14) Chart: "Maintaining a One-Superpower World" According to a draft document being circulated by the Pentagon, part of the American military mission in the era after the cold war will by "convincing potential competitions that they need not aspire to a greater role," thus insuring that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge. 1. Cuba and North Korea The U.S. must be prepared for what the report describes as irrational acts from Cuba and North Korea, which are viewed as "entering period of intense crisis" in the economic and political spheres. 2. Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan and India The U.S. "may be faced with the question of whether to take military steps to prevent the development or use of weapons of mass destruction." 3. Russia The U.S must continue to aim nuclear arms at "those assets and capabilities that current -- and future -- Russian leaders or other nuclear adversaries value most." 4. Europe The U.S must preserve a strong presence to maintain NATO alliance and Extend Western defense commitment into Eastern Europe "should there be an Alliance decision to do so." 5. Japan The U.S. must "remain sensitive to the potentially destabilizing effects" in East Asia if our allies there, "particularly Japan but also possibly Korea," take on enhanced roles as regional powers. (pg. 14)
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
The available photos and videos are mainly from twitter and show smoking buildings and people running away.
I think it is unlikely that surveillance footage from the airport, which surely does exist, will ever be published.
A "Fortress Europe" as a response to this makes little sense, as Abdeslam is a French citizen and practically all of the
suspects in the Paris bombing have been living in Europe for many years and have a European citizenship.
The most relevant literature regarding what happened since September 11, 2001 is George Orwell's "1984".
![[Image: ligne-rouge.gif]](http://www.voltairenet.org/squelettes/elements/images/ligne-rouge.gif)
![[Image: zoom-32.png]](http://www.voltairenet.org/squelettes/elements/images/zoom-32.png)
![[Image: 1-5272-a0178-4-e421d.jpg]](http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH300/1-5272-a0178-4-e421d.jpg)
![[Image: 1-5260-cfd2b-4-2f19d.jpg]](http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH300/1-5260-cfd2b-4-2f19d.jpg)
![[Image: 1-5261-96e63-4-309bf.jpg]](http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH300/1-5261-96e63-4-309bf.jpg)
![[Image: puce-cebf5.gif]](http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L9xH11/puce-cebf5.gif)
No West European leader, absolutely none, has dared to publicly express the idea that the refugees from Iraq, Syria, Libya, the Horn of Africa, Nigeria and Mali are not fleeing dictatorships, but the chaos into which we have deliberately, though unconsciously, plunged their countries.![[Image: 1-4205-7bb5f-2-97082-4-b4d2a.jpg]](http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH300/1-4205-7bb5f-2-97082-4-b4d2a.jpg)
![[Image: 1-4292-eb697-4-ae3a0-4-eb014.jpg]](http://www.voltairenet.org/local/cache-vignettes/L400xH300/1-4292-eb697-4-ae3a0-4-eb014.jpg)