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.
He also suggested the UK government's immigration policy had no basis in international law.
He was being quizzed by the Lords EU home affairs sub-committee which is investigating global migration.
Who is Peter Sutherland? He is an Irishman linked to big business:
Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.
He told the House of Lords committee migration was a "crucial dynamic for economic growth" in some EU nations "however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states".
Peter Sutherland puts forward two arguments for breaking down homogeneity in Western nations. The first is that it's necessary for prosperity, but the second is that it's a matter of individual freedom:
"at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice" about whether to come and study or work in another country.
What are we to make of all this? First, I think the argument that you have to have open borders to do well economically isn't really what's behind the push to break down ethnic homogeneity.
A clue that Peter Sutherland isn't really motivated by "prosperity" arguments is that he advocates that Europe accept anyone who wants to work or study there rather than targeting those with skills. If I expand the quote I gave above it reads:
Mr Sutherland ... called on EU states to stop targeting "highly skilled" migrants, arguing that "at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice" about whether to come and study or work in another country.
If that were put into effect then the European taxpayer would just end up footing a much larger welfare bill. One of the wikileaks revelations, for instance, was that 24% of Muslim men and 21% of Muslim women in the UK are living off disability pensions. Imagine if the Sutherland policy were put into effect and anyone could move to the UK. How would the massive pensions bill be paid for?
What Mr Sutherland also ignores is that if there is no longer an ethnic loyalty and identity in a nation, then there is less to keep the best and brightest of the native population there. In other words, let's say Mr Sutherland got his way and in 50 years' time there was no longer a sense of ethnic English solidarity in England. Why then would a productive Englishman choose to remain in England? He might instead go to wherever the weather was nicest, or the pay was highest, or the cost of living lowest.
So if radically open borders make no sense in terms of prosperity, then why push for them? Perhaps it's a case of multinational big business chafing against any types of restrictions on its operations. Perhaps those who see themselves as international movers and shakers see the more closed loyalties of the nation state as limiting the control of a globalist bureaucracy. Perhaps too it's the enduring influence of a right liberal ideology in which what is thought to matter is a self-determining life and so it's thought to be immoral for something predetermined, like ethnicity, to influence where we might choose as individuals to live or to work.
The Peter Sutherlands of the world need to be resisted. Imagine if he got his way and everyone in the world had the right to move to England. It would, over time, drive down the quality of life in England until the point was reached that it was no longer such an attractive place to live in, and it would make those living in England rootless - disconnected from a particular culture and tradition.
Sutherland needs to have a chat with Richard Lamm former governor of Colorado, and the guy I wished had of run for POTUS because he is the most amazing man and understands exactly the pitfalls of multiculture and the the biggest lie on the planet -the benefits of cultural diversity.
ReplyDeleteEveryone should read Dick Lamms his speach "I have a plan to destroy America"
" I would then invent “multiculturalism” and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds."....
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp
In his book "Disuniting of America" Liberal historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. speaks out against radical multiculturalism. 'The rising cult of ethnicity, he argues, threatens a common American identity, imperilling the civic ideals that traditionally have bonded immigrants into a nation."
The problem for said Englishman is that there's nowhere for him to go if the UN has its way. Europe, the US, and AU/NZ would be dead letters at that point, and the rest of the world is much, much worse (especially the Muslim part of it, which would likely encompass Europe at that point). Which is, I believe, the point. When he speaks of improving prosperity, it's obvious he only means the incoming invaders. The natives are to be bled dry and discarded. Then everybody gets dirt poor. They seem notably ignorant of the parable of the golden goose.
ReplyDeleteIt's the standard Muslim invasion strategy, actually. They're only prosperous so long as there are non-Muslims around to steal from. Once they've taken all they can, or simply killed too many of the non-Muslims, they inevitably decay into abject poverty. It's happened everywhere they permanently conquered.
Don't write off the US, Randian. Only the US, in the present climate, could have allowed Pat Buchanan's Suicide of a Superpower to have been released by a major publishing house. (Characteristically, the nose-picking girly-men at Quadrant, News Weekly and National Observer have refused to run reviews of it.)
ReplyDeleteAlso, the US has a First Amendment. Even better, the National Rifle Association has 4.3 million members. Compare and contrast this with the gutless surrender of Australians in 1996 to the "conservative" (i.e. gun-stealing socialist) Howard.
As someone who has been studiously busy looking and sifting through anything at all to do with Islam, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism and yes, even that much bandied about word, Fascism, since 9/11, I am firmly of the opinion that we all as nations need to be reasserting our own sovereignty's, and divorcing ourselves from that most disastrous and tyrannical of non-governmental organizations, the United Nations, and not doing as this person suggests
ReplyDeleteEvery treaty that mostly Western or Westernized nations have signed onto with the U.N. has had a debilitating effect on those nations, to the extent that national laws which were put in place to protect the average citizen against tyrannical government are being slowly whittled away in favor of the state.
People like Sutherland-and what amazes me about this man is that he is an Irishman, a person whose national history he has not absorbed and comprehended, and if he has absorbed and knows full well his Irish roots, then he is in my opinion, a far worse person than I first imagined-are pushing for the very policies that put their own homeland in slavery during the turbulent times of English/Irish history.
I would be inclined to not trust this person with what he says.
"at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice" about whether to come and study or work in another country."
ReplyDeleteThis is what happens when our national homelands become giant shopping spaces. We are more than an economy. We are more than interchangeable economic units.
Next from Peter Sutherland:
"at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice about whether to come and enter your house, drink your beers, use your john, sleep on your bed"
Our countries are our homes. You may enter as our guest when invited.
was that 24% of Muslim men and 21% of Muslim women in the UK are living off disability pensions.
ReplyDeleteProportions for people of other religions broken down by gender too, please?
Just want a complete picture.
"at the most basic level individuals should have a freedom of choice" about whether to come and study or work in another country."
ReplyDeleteThis is what happens when our national homelands become giant shopping spaces. We are more than an economy. We are more than interchangeable economic units.
Overseas students to Australia, depending on the region they come from, are charged to a maximum of 4 - 5x more than domestic students.
And of course, the final impression they get at the end is being told that they got their qualifications by "buying" them.
I'm not sure how that's supposed to make them loyal
If that was truly the case (they "bought" their degrees) ... why do people consider studying in Australia prestigious or of quality?
Opening borders in the manner suggested will have two effects: it will (1) overwhelm and crush the western welfare state, and (2) lower wages in the working-class and middle-class occupations that can't be sent offshore. In other words, it's a means for the western elite to destroy the western working-class and middle-class. It will also very likely lead to heightened levels of social disorder, necessitating a more authoritarian state. Any way you look at it, an attractive future, for the elite.
ReplyDeleteAfrica for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, White Countries for Everyone
ReplyDeleteDIVERSITY is just a codeword for anti-white. More diverse = less white. How much more offensive can you get??? Diversity means Genocide. Anti-racist is just a codeword for anti-white.
Every white country on earth is supposed to become multicultural and multiracial. EVERY white country is expected to end its own race and end its own culture. No one asks that of ANY non-white country.
This is genocide.
In Britain Tony Blair’s Labour government opened the doors to mass immigration, with the express intention of destroying the British traditional culture, which was so hated by the Left wing. The cat was let out of the bag by Blair’s speechwriter, a Mr Andrew Neather, who said they wanted “to change the cultural face of Britain and to rub the noses of the right wing in “diversity.”
ReplyDelete..Sounds like our national broadcasters, the ABC and SBS to me.
I agree with Randian that there's nowhere for we English left to go. We are rapidly being disinherited.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that Sutherland's highly unwelcome 'advice' came during the same week as Miliband's well-publicised speech about mass immigration under Blair and Brown, which was dutifully portrayed by the mass media as 'addressing the concerns' of British voters. For good measure, a number of commentators and trades unionists chipped in with feigned indignation, accusing him of pandering to 'racism'. This was nonsense of course. Strip away the headlines and look at the text of the speech, and what you see is Miliband reiterating the case for mass immigration whilst singling out only one group for any degree of criticism: indigenous Europeans from the EU accession states. Miliband and Sutherland are peas in a pod, both vigorously anti-European and in favour of the mass settlement of European countries by African and Asian immigrants: http://durotrigan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/ed-miliband-and-peter-sutherland-united.html
'Racism' simply seems equivalent to (white heterosexual male) genetic self-interest.
ReplyDeleteThe future under these top down multicultural/multiracial social engineers.
ReplyDelete1. Authoritarian state.
2. Civil war.
The shock these politicians will have when the new ethnics take some of their positions of power in politics, bureaucracy, corporations and the banks. Then the changes to society will shock the liberal degeneracy out of them.
Then watch the white feminists come crawling back to white western men, and the European tribes reuniting for a common cause.
The white feminists will have no hope of convincing traditionalist conservative white man, I fear Paleolibertarian may fall for the idiocy again.
What's so surprising is that these global market types still cling to the post-nation state ideology even as the average man's quality of life plummets (e.g. wages stagnate and house prices sky-rocket when there's high immigration forcing natives to abandon their hopes of having a big family), ethnic tensions grow exponentially and the memories of those that established the society are lost forever.
ReplyDeleteThat Sutherland can say he plans for the termination of old England, France or Germany and not face any criticism shows that the average citizen has forgotten that it is he himself that decides the fate of his country.
He's a good candidate for Nuremberg 2.0.
ReplyDelete