Janet Daley asks the question the ‘elite’ should be asking themselves:
‘It has become received wisdom that the reason for that massive electoral rebellion against the EU was that the people were throwing a harmless tantrum: they were just letting off steam because they knew that their votes in this election did not matter.’
And what do people do next when they realise that their votes don’t matter?
We are in many respects living in an apartheid state…the rich, elite politicians, supposedly representing ‘us’, aided by ‘their friends in the Media’, who decide amongst themselves, regardless of public opinion, how they will run the world.
In apartheid states throughout the last century such elitist, powerful vested interests were met with differing strategies.
As Janet Daley asks, when the People really understand that they have no say in the decisions that they consider of major importance and decide to change that situation what will they do?
What would Gandhi do? What would the ANC do?
Today has brought us two perfect examples of the ‘Establishment’ moving to protect its interests…and all without a demurring word from the BBC.
Europe has seen anti-EU and anti-immigration movements becoming increasingly popular and those in charge do not look kindly upon such threats to their hegemony.
In response the unelected left-wing EU Commission has proclaimed that the UK must follow a new path economically...one remarkably similar to Labour’s own thinking…probably not a coincidence…and more than likely done at the instigation of Labour EU fanatics Mandelson and Blair…..both now increasingly in the headlines seeking to promote more ‘Europe’.
Nice that the EU dishes out pro-Labour propaganda in election year….designed to boost thier election chances and ensure an immigrant friendly government takes the reins?
And remember this?:
EU should ‘undermine national homogeneity’ says UN migration chief
The EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states, the UN’s special representative for migration has said.
Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.
Mr Sutherland recently argued, in a lecture to the London School of Economics, of which he is chairman, that there was a “shift from states selecting migrants to migrants selecting states” and the EU’s ability to compete at a “global level” was at risk.
The UNHCR has decided that Europe should be taking in more refugees…it calls them refugees but in reality they are anyone who wants to get aboard the welfare gravy train in Europe…no coincidence they mostly want to get to Germany, the Nordic states and the UK.
The BBC was reporting this all day on the radio presenting it as an issue about Syrian refugees but then moving on to encompass all migrants from the Middle East and Africa…..telling us without blinking an eye that the UN wants Europe to have an open door policy….essentially if you can get on a boat, train or plane and land in Europe you’re here for good and entitled to all the benefits that Europe can provide…or should provide according to the UN.
The BBC, as with the EU Commission’s intervention in UK politics, didn’t raise any questions about the UN policy and didn’t present us with anyone who would provide any challenge to the pro-immigration narrative.
Curiously the BBC has not reported the UN’s demands on its website as far as I can see….perhaps deciding it is too inflammatory.
The Guardian reported it…but got the story wrong:
Europe faces ‘colossal humanitarian catastrophe’ of refugees dying at sea
The United Nations has been forced to consider establishing refugee holding centres in north Africa and the Middle East due to the spiralling numbers of migrants attempting perilous journeys across the Mediterranean in a desperate effort to reach Europe.
The EU had not found effective mechanisms to prevent migrants dying at sea, he said.
Instead of focusing on ever tougher border controls, the EU needed to establish safe routes.
Note that last sentence….forget border controls…just let them in. A familiar tale from the UN….The EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states….a “shift from states selecting migrants to migrants selecting states”
The UN does clarify one point:
UNHCR Clarification on Guardian Article
In an article entitled ‘Europe faces ‘colossal humanitarian catastrophe’ of refugees dying at sea’ published on 2 June by The Guardian, UNHCR is paraphrased as saying the UN is considering Africa holding centres for asylum-seekers trying to reach Europe using irregular sea crossings. UNHCR wishes to make the following points by way of clarification:
UNHCR is not considering “holding centres” as an alternative to address the challenges of refugees and migrants risking their lives at sea.
UNHCR is calling for urgent, concerted action by coastal and non-coastal states to improve search and rescue at sea, ease disembarkation, ensure protection for refugees, asylum-seekers and the stateless, and halt harmful measures such as pushbacks and detention.
Asylum seekers should have their claims for asylum processed in a secure environment with adequate procedural safeguards in line with international refugee and human rights law.
So the UN opposes any restrictions on migrants, opposes any detention, and demands what amounts to massive handouts to the illegal migrants.
Which all might seem a bit odd…as the UN admits we can’t even cope with the problems created in 1995 in the Balkans….so how can we possibly cope with millions of migrants of vastly different cutlures, beliefs, values and demands?…..
‘The difficulty of integrating beneficiaries of international protection into their host societies in many European countries requires UNHCR to give priority to promoting good practices in this area in 2014.
UNHCR continues to search for durable solutions for those displaced during the 1991-1995 conflicts in the western Balkans and during the two conflicts in Georgia. It is cooperating with the Balkan States on the Regional Housing Programme, which is expected to provide sustainable housing solutions for some 74,000 vulnerable refugees. At the same time 97,000 IDPs still remain in need of solutions in Serbia. In Georgia, the Government successfully implements a durable solutions strategy and action plan, supported by UNHCR. However, 284,000 IDPs are still awaiting solutions.’
So 20 years on and they still look for a ‘durable solution’ to refugees created way back when…..the UN is clearly taking a political, ideological approach to immigration much as Labour did when in power…..such an approach is unworkable and undemocratic and once again demonstrates the reality of ‘democracy’ in Europ and the futility and dishonesty of the UN’s immigration ‘policy’.
The BBC seems to have decided that there are no downsides to this flood of humanity heading towards Europe or if there are any they have decided to suppress such difficulties in the hope that people will not notice…and if they do they can be shouted down as racists and nazis.
Apartheid is alive and well in Europe…the political and media classes are fighting hard to maintain their grip on power and suppress the masses, keeping them in ignorance and what is basically servitude.
Why isn’t the BBC raising any challenge to any of this? Because it is part of that class that has its boot on the neck of the People…the People who pay for the comparatively vast salaries and benefits, the hobnobbing with the rich and famous, the networking, the sporting, cultural and political access enjoyed by BBC staff…..the BBC is a bit of a parasite….greedily leeching off the working man and gorging on the licence money whilst sending in the bailiffs or police officers to lock up the poorest in society who can’t afford the TV poll tax funding the BBC grandee’s Dolce Vita.
Gandhi or the ANC? How will people react when they realise they are being ignored?
As Janet Daley says ‘what do people do next when they realise that their votes don’t matter? ‘
‘First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.’
Alan I think you misunderstand the word Apartheid and confuse it authoritarian rule.
Apartheid in its Afrikaans translation means separate development. It was a construct introduced after WW2 to allow the many ethnic groups in South Africa to have their own territory, and administer those territories in their own traditional way without interference from other ethnic groups.
The problem was (as we are seeing now in the West) those ethnic groups were not satisfied with their lot and wished to take from those more advanced ethnics groups because of greed. The construct is very complex but was a direct consequence of the second Anglo-Boer War.
The ANC, PAC and other groupings were after wealth and power not democracy. South Africa is no different to any other African State granted self rule. The ANC has successfully achieved in 15 years what Mugabe took 30 years to achieve. The African wants what you have but wants it free.
You contradict yourself…this is from your last comment on another post:
Amongst ethnic Britons there is a constant bubbling of frustration. The semi police state that is modern Britain has successfully kept a lid on it.
A police state crushing the natives……Sounds exactly like apartheid to me.
But I think you misunderstand the context…the apartheid talked of is actually of class, mindset, ideology and power…..apartheid is all about power being used to keep one group dominant and the rest dependent on their largesse….skin colour has nothing to do with it.
Check the Oxford English dictionary:
Apartheid other uses.
power being used to keep one group dominant and the rest dependent on their largesse
Isn’t that what power is always used for?
No.
What a tiny moral horizon you have.
Alan Apartheid is very antithesis of what you are alluding to here. Its very construct was to preserve the culture of the various ethnic groups in South Africa. Those who know little of South African history or social structure presume that the Bantu were one homogeneous grouping. This is false. The “New” South Africa has 11 official languages. Most of the Bantu tribal groups had been at war with each for centuries.
As I said the aetiology of the construct is long and complex but in essence it was the very opposite of integrating diverse ethnic groups.
The EU and the UN under Agenda 21 seeks to destroy National identity, foster Wealth redistribution and bastardise populations.
Interested in your definition of Apartheid……So Apartheid was about a multicultural celebration of the various black tribal societies and cultures was it?
The Boers were aiming to preserve them out of some nostalgic sentimentality were they?
Really?
I thought it was the exercise of power in the domination of one group by another…the only culture and privileges being preserved were that of those wielding the whips.
Not unlike those who hold the whip hand in society here and now.
I think you will find that ‘Apartheid’ is no longer reserved solely to describe the situation in South Africa or those based on race or ethnicity.
Ask the Wall Street Journal:
‘Egypt’s Economic Apartheid’
Or the New York Times:
‘The Apartheid of Children’s Literature’
It should be quite apparent as to the context of its usage here….you are rather confused as to the context believing it has to do with actual policies of the EU…it hasn’t…it’s all about power and the use of it to preserve privilege and position.
Alan quote;
I think you will find that ‘Apartheid’ is no longer reserved solely to describe the situation in South Africa or those based on race or ethnicity.
If you are going to use a foreign word at least understand the meaning. I gave it to you in the first reply; Separate development The object was for no multi-culture and a desire for mono-culture and preservation of each culture within defined territory.
One of the common themes on this forum is the incorrect use of term Nazi for people of the right wing; Same thing!
The indigenous Bantu tribes’ homeland territories were defined in law and administered and run by them. The areas outside those homelands were defined as white areas (white homelands) Bantu moving from their indigenous homelands required work permits to live and work in white areas. Whites were never permitted to live or work in Bantu homelands.
Apartheid does not mean separate development….it just means ‘separation’….the Afrikaaners cared not one hoot for preserving black African cultures.
And check the dictionary….Apartheid is used to describe many situations unrelated to SA or race.
Back to the Bantu, eh TigerOC?
Apartheid treated indigenous Africans as second class citizens to be kept in pens.
Apartheid was disgusting and deserved to fall.
Bantu;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_peoples
Just to add that your opinions have probably been formed, not as result of personal experience or study of South African history, but by the “impartial” news output of the BBC and other British media. Media known and trusted around the World for the absolute impartiality and truthfulness at all times.
Witness the smarmfest that Justin Webb and Peter(Lord) Mandelson concocted this morning on Today.
None of that “accountability stuff”…it`s all as if UKIP was but a pipedream of Tony Benns…for Mandelson and Webb purred on about who might best “stop the traffic” as new EU President.
And none of that f***In “ask the people” stuff..this is for the REAL grandees, the big boys and girls…so off you trot downstairs, and clean the grates like a good chap!
So it was that Webb sounded out Mandelson re the prospects of Tony Blair getting a job…why what else would we talk of in the drawing room once the servants have scarpered?
Blairs career trajectory…only the BBC and its elitist paperweights would give a stuff…and, don`t they just….listen to Webbs desperate begging for a soundbite or a hint re Blairs return to save us all.
Toady…suckup..pathetic.
‘The BBC was reporting this all day on the radio presenting it as an issue about Syrian refugees but then moving on to encompass all migrants from the Middle East and Africa…..telling us without blinking an eye that the UN wants Europe to have an open door policy….’
Just a glance at the UN/IPCC’s ‘mitigating actions against climate change’, aka UN Agenda 21, will confirm exactly this.
What would Gandhi do? Well, he’d probably go on a fast unto death – that’s what he usually did, anyway. I think he was just about to go on another one when they shot the bugger.
Perhaps EU elections are in reality more representative of people’s real opinions. Under a different voting system the black cross counts for much more in these elections than in a General Election. You have to go back to ’97 for the last time 70% voted in a GE.
Note the EU is intensely relaxed about immigration, because they know the most unemployable people will head straight to the UK.
A truly independent England would be out of the EU , the UN and Nato. All useless and all doomed. Oh and out of the UK as well.
On present form that is useless and doomed as well.
We could then pick our real friends and start again being a serious nation.
No – we need NATO. It is NATO that has kept the peace in Europe and protected us from the USSR threat. Not the EU.
This NATO you mean?
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/04/German-defence-minister-faces-down-Putin-with-a-creche-and-a-minibar
As hippiepooter says – by NATO I really mean it has been the military strength of the US that has protected Europe
Or to put it another JA, the Americans did!
that is scary stuff and should be massive news but of course it isn’t in Modern Britain
What would Ghandi do?
Tell all those who do not belong here to go back home. No one called him a racist.
”The EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states, Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.”
Peter Sutherland is a Goldman Sachs banker and a N.W.O Globalist, get’s his orders from David Rockerfeller.
I was hesitant to mention the bible because in these apostate times one is considered a crank to dare mention Christianity. The first mention of the N.W.O is I think in Genesis.
You may find this fellow most interesting James Perloff.
Talking of David Rockerfeller.
“We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years.
But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”
No David, Christians seem to be more than welcome here-and I respect anybodys elses faith here.
I sense my/our Christianity is welcome here, because we`re in the front line against Islam, and we can bandy scriptures around…and we are useful in that we can at least honour the Muslims certainties-no matter how perverted it will turn to, we can see the origins of much of the “Third Way” evil that comes when Islam meets Socialism(and both flying under many false flags like “Democrats and Human Rights).
No condemnation for those in Christ Jesus as the Good Book says…and plenty about angels of light, being Satanic too.
David has a point. The Rockerfellers are part of it. Eugenics is behind UN agenda 21. ‘Cleansing the lower classes the ‘uneducated’ populas to ‘sweep away a legion of ineffictives’ (dated 1873). Francis Galton proposed that ‘nature’ counted for nothing. A pioneer of anti-democracy, Galton declared ‘the time may come when such persons would be considered as enemies of the state, and to have forfeited all claims of kindness’. This was ‘anthropological correctness’ not dissimilar to today’s ‘poltical correctness’ in law. This ‘Eugenics’ programme was opposed by Charles Darwin. By 1911 Karl Pearson had been elected the first Galton Professor of Eugenics at University College London (UCL). By 1912 a proposed Eugenics bill (Mental Deficiency bill) would have made it illegal tp procreate the “feebleminded”. Josia Wedgewood (old style Liberal) successfully defeated the clause in 1913. But the message was never lost on those who supported Hitlar in England (as did Mosley). Francis Galton would have made an ideal BBC Trustee (today), it was he that proposed that ‘…public opinion could be deflected gently and continuously in the same direction by reasonable advocacy’…’the power of gentle, persistent effort to turn public opinion to Eugenics’…’Eugenics’ practice will follow’. They have indeed; Abortion/Euthanasi/Sexual reassignment and Censorship are all EU novelties to reinforce the idea that YOU do not exist except to serve your master (no identity nor country nor sex nor child). The Second World war was chiefly about Eugenics (proposed by Galton). What the UN secretly proposes (via the BBC) is tactical support for Eugenics to reduce the world population. The BBC is proud to introduce/Euthanasia/Child indoctrination/Sexual reassignment and Censorship to us all, the ‘inffectives’, the weak, the old the diseased can all be eradicated including conservatives, dissenters and enemies of the state. Press the RED button on your TV remote control now… (if you want to live or die). Its not Gandhi as there are no ‘human rights’ no right or wrong and no morality in this world order. Today is ‘D-DAY’ a victory over a European madman using (Galtons) Eugenics theories (similar to UN Agenda 21 objectives)!
I’m not so sure about that ,Galton was his cousin and most devoted supporter ,it is not likely he formulated the theory of eugenics independently of Darwin
I think Darwin was reticent about going public with his eugenicist views in the same way he was coy about his atheism
(A quote from “The Descent of Man”, in a chapter called “The Races of Man.”, in which Darwin wrote:
“At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla” (1874, p. 178). )
Playing god isnt so much a problem if you dont think there is one