London Bridge Attack and the Globalist Perspective

Lots of people are wondering why the governments of Europe refuse to address the issue of how Muslim immigration from the poorest Arab countries of the least educated people from those countries is effecting their nations. Your average conservative will say it is because they are letting radicals into their country and that is true to a degree; but, most of the people who committed terror attacks in England were second generation and were radicalized in the United Kingdom. Liberals will tell you we just have to be more tolerant of their cultures, to be multi-cultural rather than adopt English culture as the Indians and Pakistani's have in the past. They mayor of London has said that terror attacks are just the reality of life in modern European cities. On it's face that is insanity; but, he actually meant it because he doesn't believe in borders and he understands that will be one of the consequences.

The assumption I begin with in politics is that things come about because the people in power want them to. Who benefits must always be the question, follow the money that determines what happens. The perspective of all globalists and the European Union is that having many groups in constant conflict has a value beyond bringing in new cuisines. What is the value they find in it economically and socially? Lets start by looking at Theresa May's (the English Prime Minister) response to the murders on the London bridge by Muslim extremists.

Time - Read Prime Minister Theresa May's Full Speech on the London Bridge Attack.

What did she blame the attacks on? Firstly she blamed it on sectarianism (religion, any religion that people believe in). Her solution is constant and growing internal security and surveillance. The second cause she found for the violence was the internet. She said it allowed people to gather and discuss wrong ideas. Her solution is to internationally regulate what you can say online and monitor all your online communications to make sure your not a bad person. She then states that we must attack ISIS in Syria; but, Syria was not involved in ANY of the three attacks that England has experienced in the last three months alone or ever. Her fourth solution is longer detainment for people not found guilty of crimes but suspected of thinking about committing a terrorist act. In fact, there had been discussions and a trial balloon floated at the idea of suspending the English elections.

Daily Mail - Call off the election! Social media users call for vote to be postponed to 'prioritise the safety of the country' but government insists the polls WILL go ahead.

John Oliver of Last Week Tonight posted a clip from his show last night where he talked about the London bridge attack, he laughed and said the English way was to laugh it off and said the real threat was Putin. I saved the clip; but, it is no longer up, I am sure it will pop up somewhere. Yep, found another copy.

These things just don't disappear. He starts by saying that "In no way is Britain under siege", just upset. How many people were killed in the last three irritating events, how many at the Manchester bombing alone? He literally laughs at the idea that some Britain' s might be worried or concerned. He claimed that the Britain's are more upset by people making tea in a microwave than the terror attacks. He then shows a gay man in England whos says that he will keep doing what he does because he won't let the terrorists win. Fair enough; but, they didn't ask this gay man if he felt threatened by the extreme Muslims who attack gays. He ends by saying that the biggest threat to the United States is Putin and Trump and that Putin had said that some Russians could have been involved in hacking the DNC; but, that is not quite what he said, just how Oliver summarized it. 

After 9-11 happened Jon Stewart and others gave heart felt sorrow and expressions of love for their city, Oliver didn't do that, he laughed about what happened in London, watch the video, he made fun of it and then attacked Trump and Putin. This man has sold his soul and wants to sell you on the establishment agenda while appearing to be anti-establishment. He also thought Britain leaving the EU was the worst thing that has ever happened, yet he left Britain and the EU. Lets not forget that he works for one of the six multinational companies that own 90% of all the media in the United States.

Here is a few questions for you. If we are facing overpopulation then why increase the number of people in Europe by immigration? If we have a problem with greenhouse gasses in the west than why increase the number of people through immigration and thereby increase the greenhouse gas emissions from those same countries? If we cannot assimilate people without terror attacks than why bring in more people who don't agree with western beliefs and not require them to assimilate? What is the benefit? 

I want to focus on the media for a second. I am going to post a video by a guy I find amusing but frequently think oversimplifies things.

I will not post it; but, Alex Jones has an even longer copy of the tape of the staging of this event. Specifically CNN was involved in arranging a show of support from what we are told Muslims for London and against terrorists. They also made it appear to be spontaneous, which it wasn't.

The Muslims did not crash the world economy, neither did the gays, the jews, xenophobes, Nazi's or Putin or Trump or Melania or Ivanka or the illegal aliens. Nope, it was the western banks that crashed the economy and rigged the markets afterwards. It was after the worldwide markets crashed that we attacked Libya, Syria and everyone else in the middle east. A distraction. By sending them to the west we have brought in a new boogie man so that we will ignore the real boogieman, our wealthy and our leaders.