Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 43

Thread: Opinions on Katie Hopkins?

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by size11s View Post
    Hi Camera Joe, I don't quite understand who you are saying is funding and driving the migrant rescue boats and coordinating with the people traffickers?

    I know I am late to this thread and to be honest don't want to get into a Katie Hopkins debate as I don't consider her worth any thinking time but if someone has first hand experience of something as disruptive as the migrant issue I am definitely willing and interested to listen.
    The NGO boats communicate with the traffickers via VHF. They linger just off the coast of Libya, waiting to pick up migrants in the same spots, offshore of the same launching points. This gives the people traffickers less and less to do, and encourage the smugglers to send the migrants out on less and less seaworthy vessels with minimal fuel and no water. All the migrants are briefed and are aware that once they float a few yards from Libyan waters they will be picked up by a flotilla of waiting NGO taxi boats; some of the boats are equipped with satellite phones with the numbers of the rescue ships themselves, or for the international maritme rescue centre in Rome; this is distributed by the smugglers or networks of migrants who have already made the journey.

    This has now been recently been clamped down on by the Libyan coast guard. There were various confrontations between the coast guard and a few of the boats (particularly the more ideological drive ones like the MSF ones) who even went as far as firing shots at pro-activa's vessel to push them away from the coast; they now linger a little further off the coast and the rules have slightly changed (...although i haven't been on a boat for a while, i am aware that these confrontations are still happening albeit less frequenrly - i know there was an argument about 10 days ago between pro-activa and the libyan coast guard over whether migrants would be taken back to Libya on the coast guard boat or onwards to italy on the pro activa one... the coast guard won...)

    Last year we would regularly pick up migrants off the coast of Libya, with the lights on the coast in view, only to steam for over 48 hours towards Italy with the migrants on board. It was completely ridiculous and was little more than a ferry service.

    Many of the people working and volunteering on the rescue boats are activists who's aim is to have an open door migration policy to Europe. They can't see any problem with the immigrarion wave facing Europe, and would like to shout "Welcome to your new lives in Europe, you are all saved" to the scores of Nigerians, Senegelse and assorted other West Africans who had no good or valid reason to stay in Europe assembled on their decks. There would often be complaints about the catering and quality of food distributed on the boats; people seemed to think the rescue vessels were part of their package of rights and would be a taste to come of what they would receive in Europe. None of them could really believe that the vessels were funded by private money or donations; it was a concept completely foreign to them.

    It's hard not to be touched by many of the stories you hear and the rescues you see every day; i'm human after all, but for most of the professional seamen and search/rescue staff it was just another contract and job (...albeit an eventful and interesting one). I remain deeply humbled by the experience, and some of the rescues were deeply emotional. It doesn't make what is happening right though.

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Thanks Camera Joe, very interesting, it is a totally messed up situation and cross European politics continue to deepen the confusion. What do you think is the motivation for the NGO's to encourage the migration, outside the 'humanitarian' reasoning? They can't openly, publicly support the permanently open door attitude can they? Or do they?

  3. #23
    Senior Member DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,206

    Default

    The only publication allowed into the Bilderberg meetings is The Economist. Subscribe for a year and you'll get an idea of what's planned for Europe.

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Who invites the attendees to the Bilderberg meetings?

  5. #25
    Administrator ianp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    6,227

    Default

    The Bilderberg group themselves. All attendees act in unofficial capacities, but the group has been known to have a lot of influence on things. A spotlight was turned on the group when they visited close to where I was brought up - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Bilderberg_Conference. Some of the media reports of the time are linked at the bottom of the wiki article make for interesting reading.

    IAP
    Order of the Invisible Ethereal Electron with Crossed Wizard's Wands

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Without doubt a poorly conceived and out moded organisation, akin to an uber lobby group. Is it being inferred here that NGO's are fundamentally run/influenced by secretive uber lobby groups? I still don't see the what the intended purpose is of the NGO's forcing a permanent 'open door' policy.

  7. #27
    Administrator ianp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    6,227

    Default

    I'm not sure how the jump from NGO to bilderberg came about either. Maybe there was a recent infowars article ?

    IAP
    Order of the Invisible Ethereal Electron with Crossed Wizard's Wands

  8. #28
    Senior Member DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,206

    Default

    1
    Last edited by DaveH; 12-19-2017 at 16:30.

  9. #29
    Senior Member DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,206

    Default

    Just a small list of the people who attended the Bilderberg meetings. These are just from the US and the UK. Of course they show up to trade recipes and exchange photos of their grandkids. Not to actually run the world. Nay Nay.... pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.....

    Tony Blair (1993),[86][103] Prime Minister 1997–2007
    • Gordon Brown (1991),[104] Prime Minister 2007– 2010
    • Edward Heath,[15] Prime Minister 1970–1974 (deceased)
    • Alec Douglas-Home (1977–1980),[105] Chairman of the Bilderberg Group, Prime Minister 1963–1964 (deceased)
    • Margaret Thatcher (at least 1975, 1977, 1986),[106][107][108] Prime Minister 1979–1990 (deceased)
    • David Cameron (2013) Prime Minister 2010-2016
    • • Thomas E. Donilon (2012),[3] Executive Vice President for Law and Policy at Fannie Mae (1999–2005), National Security Advisor (2010 – 2013)
    • • Roger Altman (2011, 2012, 2013),[2][12][109] Deputy Treasury Secretary from 1993–1994, Founder and Chairman of Evercore Partners
    • • George W. Ball (1954, 1993),[110] Under Secretary of State 1961–1968, Ambassador to U.N. 1968 (deceased)
    • • Sandy Berger (1999),[111] National Security Advisor, 1997–2001
    • • Hillary Clinton (1997),[112] First Lady of the USA when attending, later 67th United States Secretary of State
    • • Timothy Geithner (2008, 2009),[2][109] Treasury Secretary
    • • Dick Gephardt (2012),[3] former Congressman and House Majority Leader
    • • Lee H. Hamilton (1997),[8][better source needed] former Congressman
    • • Christian Herter,[113] (1961, 1963, 1964, 1966), 53rd United States Secretary of State (deceased)
    • • Charles Douglas Jackson (1957, 1958, 1960),[114] Special Assistant to the President (deceased)
    • • Joseph E. Johnson[115] (1954), President Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (deceased)
    • • Henry Kissinger (1957, 1964, 1966, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1977, 2008, 2009, 2010,[23] 2011, 2012,[3] 2013,[12] 2015[14]),[80][116] 56th United States Secretary of State
    • • Mark G. Mazzie (1986, 1987),[3] Chief of Staff, The Honorable George C. Wortley, U.S. House of Representatives.
    • • Richard Perle (2011), Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee 2001–2003, United States Assistant Secretary of Defense 1981–1987[38]
    • • Colin Powell (1997),[8][better source needed] 65th United States Secretary of State
    • • Condoleezza Rice (2008),[2] 66th United States Secretary of State
    • • George P. Shultz (2008),[2] 60th United States Secretary of State
    • • Lawrence Summers,[109] Director of the National Economic Council
    • • Paul Volcker (2010),[109] Chair of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board and Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979–1987
    • • Terry Wolfe (2010),[23] author and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
    • • Robert Zoellick (2008–2015),[2][3][11][12][13][14][23][53] former Trade Representative, former Deputy Secretary of State and former President of the World Bank Group
    • • H.R. McMaster (2017), U.S. National Security Advisor, 2017–, and Lieutenant General.[117]
    • • Wilbur Ross (2017), United States Secreta
    Presidents

    George H. W. Bush (1989, 1992)[citation needed]
    Bill Clinton (1991),[103][104] President 1993–2001
    Gerald Ford (1964, 1966),[15][118] President 1974–1977 (deceased)

    Senators
    Tom Daschle (2008),[2] Senator from South Dakota 1987-2005
    John Edwards (2004),[119][120] Senator from North Carolina 1999–2005
    Chuck Hagel (1999, 2000),[121] Senator from Nebraska 1997–2009, Secretary of Defense 2013–2015.
    John Kerry (2012),[3] 68th United States Secretary of State and Senator from Massachusetts (1985–2013)
    Sam Nunn (1996, 1997),[8][better source needed] Senator from Georgia 1972–1997
    Lindsey Graham (2016), Senator from South Carolina

  10. #30
    Administrator ianp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    6,227

    Default

    And the link to NGOs, immigrants and Katie Hopkins being ?

    IAP
    Order of the Invisible Ethereal Electron with Crossed Wizard's Wands

  11. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    204

    Default

    I saw SHULTZ in that long list (hope that you didn't type that Dave) and thought "everything will be ok, the creator of SNOOPY was there", but alas there was a C missing!

  12. #32
    Senior Member DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by size11s View Post
    I saw SHULTZ in that long list (hope that you didn't type that Dave) and thought "everything will be ok, the creator of SNOOPY was there", but alas there was a C missing!
    Charles Schulz lived here in Santa Rosa. He was a great guy, you'd run into him all of the time. He loved to play Ice Hockey and built an arena where he and his buddies could play.When he was in his late 60s he was still playing and playing well. I think that the world would be in good hands if Charles ran things.

  13. #33
    Senior Member DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ianp View Post
    And the link to NGOs, immigrants and Katie Hopkins being ?

    IAP
    Katie Hopkins rails about illegal immigration into Europe and the UK. We have an eyewitness that says that there is a degree of collusion between NGO rescue vessels and the people expediting these illegal immigrants, I believe that the Bildeberg makes the decisions about the flow of illegals and what will happen to them. Here is an excerpt from an article "Bilderberg Exposed" by Daniel Estulin on the subject of Bilderbergs and NGOs it is from 2005 written for Nexus Magazine out of Australia:


    NGOs and the Global Neighbourhood


    The rise of the NGOs (non-governmental organizations) is a development that former US President Clinton suddenly (one day after it was discussed at Rottach-Egern) suggested to be among,

    "the most remarkable things that have happened since the fall of the Berlin Wall".

    Ironically, Clinton’s statement was picked up by the Wall Street Journal, a paper represented at the Bilderberg meetings by its vice-president, Robert L. Bartley, until his death in December 2003, and its editorial page editor, Paul Gigot.


    The Bilderbergers have been vigorously debating, for the first time, whether to have unelected, self-appointed environmental activists given positions of governmental authority on the governing board of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)—the agency which controls the use of the atmosphere, outer space, the oceans and, for all practical purposes, biodiversity. This invitation for "civil society" to participate in global governance is described as "expanding democracy".


    According to sources within Bilderberg, the status of NGOs would be elevated even further in the future. NGO activity would include agitating at the local level, lobbying at the national level and producing studies to justify global taxation through UN organizations such as Global Plan, one of Bilderberg’s pet projects for over a decade.


    The strategy to advance the global governance agenda specifically includes programs to discredit individuals and organizations that generate "internal political pressure" or "populist action" that fails to support the new global ethic. The ultimate objective, according to sources, is to suppress democracy.


    If the plan proceeds, UNEP, along with all the environmental treaties under its jurisdiction, would ultimately be governed by a special body of environmental activists, chosen only from accredited NGOs appointed by delegates to the General Assembly who are themselves appointed by the President of the United States, who himself is controlled by the Rockefeller–Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)–Bilderberg interlocking leadership.


    This new mechanism would provide a direct route from the local, "on-the-ground", NGO affiliates of national and international NGOs to the highest levels of global governance.



    For example, the Greater Yellowstone Coalition, a group of affiliated NGOs, recently petitioned the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO asking for intervention in the plans of a private company to mine gold on private land near Yellowstone Park. The UNESCO committee did intervene, and immediately listed Yellowstone as a "World Heritage Site in Danger". Under the terms of the World Heritage Convention, the United States is required to protect the park, even beyond the borders of the park and onto private lands if necessary.


    The ideas being discussed, if implemented, would bring all the people of the world into a global neighbourhood, managed by a worldwide bureaucracy under the direct authority of a minute handful of appointed individuals and policed by thousands of individuals, paid by accredited NGOs, and all certified to support a belief system that to many people is unbelievable and unacceptable.

  14. #34
    Administrator ianp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    6,227

    Default

    I remember reading a Guardian article on the Bilderberg group when they had their meeting in Watford and it described their influence as perhaps being greater than that of the G8. The fact that it was close to my old home is the only reason for me knowing of them. They may well be a cabal pulling strings behind the scenes, who knows but what great fodder for conspiracy buffs.

    IAP
    Order of the Invisible Ethereal Electron with Crossed Wizard's Wands

  15. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Everyone to some degree enjoys a conspiracy theory. I think what Camera Joe posted above could, without too much difficulty, be interpreted as the NGO's trying to preserve as many lives as possible within a situation that can't at this time be stopped, the immigrants/traffickers are not going stop so it can be considered 'humanitarian' to work 'within' that mess. I tend to rail against a conspiracy theory until it becomes irresistible. Extrapolating from Hopkins' and others theory you would have to then suggest that the reason for the flow of migrants from the war zones was instituted by the Bilderberg group and the NGO's, which would constitute conscious international genocide on their behalf.

  16. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,741

    Default

    I think it’s worth remembering what the Western World have done abroad over the years.

  17. #37
    Senior Member DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rodabod View Post
    I think it’s worth remembering what the Western World have done abroad over the years.
    Western World in the traditional sense which includes Europe, or the US?
    D

  18. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveH View Post
    Western World in the traditional sense which includes Europe, or the US?
    D
    Both, but we’ve been pillaging other countries for a lot longer!

  19. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    204

    Default

    The generically termed 'western world', that is western (mainly) Europe and the USA do have to acknowledge the consequences of globalisation that it has reaped the economic and social benefits of more than any other nations going back to Marco Polo, the East India companies of various European nations and the Commonwealth to name a few. Having an empire has long term responsibilities. Britain for example, for all intents and purposes governed India for the best part of 300 years through the equivalent of Tesco's supermarket in the form of the East India Company and as a nation benefitted hugely from it's natural resources and cheap labour. Not to mention it's men who fought in wars. I don't see how it can be considered reasonable to then take issue with some migration from these countries. Isn't it the obvious and inevitable result of economic globalisation?

    I do think that there is something absurd, and to a large degree unlikely, that Non Government Organisations (supposedly set up to think and operate outside government control) being influenced so strongly by the Bilderberg group (I like Ianp's Cabal term here) containing all the most influential politicians of the day. Maybe I am naive but I do think some folk do have some principles.

  20. #40
    Senior Member DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    3,206

    Default

    "I don't see how it can be considered reasonable to then take issue with some migration from these countries."

    There is quite a difference between "Some migration" and an all out forced invasion of poverty and lawbreakers who have no intention of assimilating and becoming good citizens.
    I like to think that I have principles and I don't see a logical connection between what happened 200 years ago and the invasions in progress today. Trying to rewrite history by being a nice guy is an impossible task.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •