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.
It should have been long apparent that the EU’s freedom of movement dictat is not about economics but about politics, culture and crucially identity. The policy drive to move populations around Europe is intended to break people’s links with their own country, their nation, their identity and their loyalty. The EU wants to create an EU superstate and to do that it needs EU citizens loyal to it…and its unelected government. Thus politically, culturally and ethnically European nation states are ‘cleansed’…not by removing people but by moving in massive numbers of people who will not be loyal to their new state and nationality and who, as they see the homeland they left also destroyed by cultural and political invasion, they then look to the EU for governance, laws and protection.
The BBC of course is on-board but has its own reasons…very similar but it adds into the mix ‘race’…the BBC, along with Blair’s Labour Party wanted to ‘brown’ hideously white Britain and ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’….hence the BBC’s extremist drive to force open Britain’s borders to allow in as many non-white, non-Christian people as possible without regard to the consequences.
Tim Black in Spiked thinks this is the aim of the EU’s, and the Left’s, freedom of movement…
The newly christened EU citizens were never treated by the EU oligarchy as ends in themselves, as autonomous individuals with lives freely to lead. They were treated, rather, as means, tools, instruments. And not just economically. They were treated as cultural instruments, too, as vehicles of social and attitudinal change, a means to challenge and morph the make-up of national societies, to challenge and morph the attitudes and values of largely indigenous, provincial working-class populaces, to dilute and stigmatise their sense of nationhood and, ultimately, their sense of national sovereignty. And, at the same time, the migrant was therefore a means to usher in the brave EU world, consisting of a transnational entity run by an oligarchic pool of national elites who had stumbled on a way to govern apart from the older national democratic structures.
Blair himself was central to the EU’s use of immigration as a means to re-engineer society, turning it away from the nation state and towards the transnational EU. Between 1997 and 2010, New Labour oversaw the quadrupling of net migration from 48,000 people in 1997 to 198,000 by 2009. As Labour speechwriter Andrew Neather infamously put it in 2009, ‘mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural’. So spectacular was New Labour’s achievement that UN migration chief Peter Sutherland went so far as to pay tribute to the UK’s immigration policy, on the grounds that it undermined the ‘homogeneity… of the people who inhabit [the UK]’.
And the inhabitants of Rotherham still voted Labour.
It is worse than turkeys voting for Christmas.
There are solutions to the problems we Europeans face.
I have not believed, for many years, that any of these solutions are peaceful.
That sounds like the UN /EU, both trying to divide and rule the world and everyone in it…but who is surprised? The UN have failed to prevent ware and genocide for years, they have now changed to committing genocide themselves, communism is still running the world. When can Bliar be arrested for sedition at the very least?
That picture at the top should carry a health warning. It’s not for those of a delicate disposition.
Peter Sutherland’s Europe is not one I want to live in. I was born into a homogenous country and I dearly wish it could have stayed that way. Sutherland’s obsession is a fast track to yet more death, Sharia law and Muslim control.The man is a disgrace yet for years European taxpayers have had to fund him.
EE,
Pot on. Me too.
Social engineering is as dangerous, short-sighted & wrong as genetic engineering. Both are experimental and both lead to the creation of monsters.
Peter Sutherland – another creature from Goldman Sachs.
Social engineering requires that the population have no conduit for making their displeasure known, and to organise accordingly.
Since time immemorial, the establishment and the official media had a monopoly on news and comments. Then came the Internet, and the establishment lost control. Trump is the obvious result. What else they wonder?
Some twenty years ago, they tried to control the internet using paedophilia as an excuse. Its not they they were concerned about the sexual exploitation of children – if they were, they would not have tolerated the mass gang rapes of young White girls by Muslims. Its just that paedophilia was a good excuse to shut down free speech.
It failed, as America’s First Amendment was a barrier they couldn’t break
Now they are trying to use terrorism as an excuse to shut down freedom on the Internet. It wont succeed.
First, “Radicalisation” is because what is stated in the Koran. Unless they have plans to ban the Koran, its no go.
The real goal is to shut down free speech. Sites such as Jihad Watch will not be allowed into Britain and Europe. Biassed BBC will be censored. America will then stand alone. Obama took a step to control the internet by handing over some of the powers on DNS to the UN. Freedom of speech regulated by the OIC!
In any case, what is the point of blaming- Google, Facebook etc, when the real cause of terrorism in Europe is that we, that is the politicians, through sheer ignorance of Islam, have allowed millions of Muslims to settle in Europe. The bums are trying to pass the blame/buck to Google and Facebook, for the existential they have created.
NC,
Spot on again. These dangerous apologies for leaders are selling us and future generations down the river. I have long since ceased to believe a word that the BBC says, but in recent years I have also given up believing anything that the police or the government say with regard to terrorism. They are just trying to keep us quiet , to smooth over our fears , to stop us getting out on the streets and protesting about Islamification. The biggest problem that we face is that there is no political party in the UK that does take a positive stance against a Islamification. We are a people whose leaders are acquiescing in the destruction of our culture , of our homeland and of our future and we have no one to turn to. It’s a bloody bleak future.
Why would anyone wish to censor the BBC, they are on the side of the villains of the piece. A strange article appeared in this weeks Radio Times by Jon Soper protesting that the BBC is honest and impeccably unbiased. You could have fooled me, they could have taught Goerbels a few tricks of the trade. How biased are they, well the EU, global warming, islam, Donald Trump, Christianity and of course they hate the English, and the Country whilst living off the proceeds.
what are these multicultural benefits
please can anyone point out to me what the fuck they are!!
To use their own arguments, Europe, North America and Australia have ‘Western Priviledge’, they have all done very nicely and taken too much of the cake and by bringing in people from the rest of the world, adding ‘diversity’ their economies are going to do even better. Whoops! Whoa! That’s going the wrong way.
Clearly what is really needed is the , (forced?), migration of peoples from these ‘Western’ countries into the ‘developing’ countries, breaking their sterile homogenity and injecting vibrant diversity. (Wasn’t colonialism a bit like that?).
Multicultural benefits – It’s when anyone, from any where in the world, can sign on in the UK and get paid by UK tax payers 😉
When the UK, or at any rate London, is ruled by salafist Sharia Law just think for a moment.
No alcohol – no pork products – no visible females – no music – no cinemas – no theatres –
and on the other hand
Call to prayer five times a day – no tourists – no churches –
Doesn’t it sound like paradise on earth?
Of course the economics would mean no money for public services
BUT the one big advantage would be no female politicians! I am not a mysogonist, let women into parliament by all means, but look at the current crop and think “Is that the finest selection of women in the UK at the moment?”
The BBC not doing too well on this Facebook post:
BBC News
These women are taking desperate measures to get from Africa to Europe on the migrant trail. (Via BBC Panorama)
‘Simon Holland – If you’ve got a spare $25k I’m not sure you qualify as poor. These nations will have nothing left if all those with an education leave. Stay, use your skill build your own nation, sooner or later the EU will simply pull up the drawbridge.’
Sooner… or later. And… ‘migrant trial’. Bless.
That the BBC can’t get its head round the odd ability to front $25k from that part of the world speaks volumes.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4487050/polish-death-not-brexit-hate-crime/
The BBC however seems more keen on misquoting Boris on matters Brexit.
Impartially, of course. It’s in their DNA.
Classic FM getting excited, as is the BBC, by ‘chaos’ in the government, with Labour an apparent bastion of stability. Oddly the turnover and purges of Jez’ lobotomised Ministers to date not registering.
The odd thing is these reports make me not just Brexit determined more, but even less trustful of the loyalty of civil servants entrusted by the nation to look after the country’s best interests.
With the BBC leading a truly unsavoury pack.
I’m surprised no one has posted any background on Peter Sutherland :
Mickey Kantor, the US Trade Minister, credited him with being the father of globalization
He was non-executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs International (a registered UK broker-dealer, a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs) until June 2015
He served on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group,[
Sutherland strongly advocates liberal immigration policies and unrestricted immigration into the European Union. Sutherland gave his opinion to the UK’s Lords home affairs committee on 21 June 2012 as being (a) that “at the most basic level individuals should have freedom of choice” about working and studying in other countries and that EU states should stop targeting “highly skilled” migrants (and, conversely, placing restrictions on low-skilled migrants). Sutherland also argues (b) that migration is a “crucial dynamic for economic growth” and that this is the case “however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states”. Sutherland’s stated opinions on policy were (a) that “it was fundamentally important for states to cooperate on migration policy rather than developing their own policies in isolation as ‘no state is or can be an island'” (b) that multiculturalism is both inevitable and desirable: “It’s impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them” and also (c) that “the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine” any “sense of our homogeneity and difference from others”. An ageing or declining native population in countries like Germany or southern EU states was the “key argument and, I hesitate to the use word because people have attacked it, for the development of multicultural states”, he added.
Sutherland is another Lawyer turned politician without the real world experience needed to make these kinds of decisions, and determined that democracy should not get in his way.
No surprise to find him employed by the large merchant banks who only see immigration as a route to greater wealth.