In political, economic and demographic terms, we are living through remarkable times. The news, whether it be domestic or international, is almost uniformly bad. And yet amidst this maelstrom, the helmsmen of the emergent global economic and political order continue to chart a course that they set long ago, cognisant of the storms that their policies must surely engender, yet happy for us to suffer the ill-effects of their globalist tempest, utilising the naïveté of those who believe in the ideal of a global village, to aid in their construction of a global prison, from which none, they hope, will be permitted to escape.
Bound by fetters of debt, intellectually and emotionally crippled by decades of propaganda instilling self-doubt, guilt and self-loathing, the peoples of Europe – in particular those of the West, for those of the East have not yet fallen prey to this singular psychopathology – edge towards embracing oblivion in the name of ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’. Globalisation, they are told ad nauseum, is not only inevitable, but also beneficial. We are told so by our politicians and our bankers; by our broadcasters and big business; by our press, trades unions and ‘anti-racism’ campaigners. From the dope-addled hippy, to the calculating corporate fascist; from the Trotskyist subversive to the Islamist longing for the introduction of a universal caliphate, all yearn for the destruction of nations and peoples, specifically, of European nations and peoples. As such, they are united in a desire to snuff out freedom and political will. They are the totalitarian advocates of a post-political future, in which choice is removed, and individuals become the objects of administration, rather than the subjects of politics. The detail of each of their globalist visions may be divergent, but their consequence is the same: the purging of human agency from history, and the end of freedom for all but a narrow stratum of a governing global oligarchy.
Strange, is it not, that those of us who oppose this process, are the ones stigmatised with the label of ‘fascist’? Only the genuine political self-determination of peoples across the globe, can serve as both the guarantor of human freedom, and the preservation of true cultural diversity. Agencies of supranational governance, the free movement of global capital and transnational corporations guarantee something quite different: perpetual insecurity and the end of freedom.
It is against such a backdrop, that speeches given earlier this week by Ed Miliband and Peter Sutherland should be viewed. Miliband, naturally, requires no introduction, but the figure of Peter Sutherland is altogether more shadowy, although out of the two, it is Sutherland who wields the more genuine power. What is the influence of an MP or an aspirant Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, compared to that of such a man as Sutherland? Non-executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs International; Bilderberg Group Steering Committee member; UN Special Representative on Migration, Head of the Global Forum on Migration and Development? Still, it matters not that Miliband’s existing and potential power should be the lesser of the two, for both men share a mental outlook and policy platform, neither possessing any notion of responsibility to, or affection for, the peoples and nations of Europe.
Miliband’s speech, like his recent speech on Englishness, was essentially devoid of content. Its intent however, was just the same as its forerunner: to generate headlines conveying the impression that he cares about the ostensible topic under discussion. Whilst sections of the media and some trades union spokesmen have dutifully complied with this charade, feigning outrage over his touching upon such topics as national identity and immigration, both speeches delivered the same message as found expression in the policy of the last Labour Government: immigration and globalisation are positive, and should be promoted as such. This can be demonstrated through reference to key elements of Miliband’s speech reproduced below (I have added emphasis in bold).
Excerpt 1: “Britain must control its borders but it must always face outwards to the world.The Britain I believe in is a confident and optimistic country, not one which is insecure and inward looking.If people are looking for a politician who says immigration is just bad for Britain, that's not me.I believe immigration has benefits, economically, culturally and socially.”Excerpt 2: “I am the son of immigrants and I am hugely proud of it.I will always talk about immigration in a way that is true to who I am, to my heritage, to my mum and dad.”Excerpt 3: “Providing a refuge for those fleeing persecution.And a new approach to immigration based on building a different kind of economy.An economy that doesn't leave anyone behind.That continues to attract people from abroad who contribute their talents to our economy and society.
That offers proper wages and good conditions.That's the kind of economy that will enable Britain to compete with the world.”
In summary the core message of Miliband’s speech was this: Labour made a gaffe in selling mass immigration from the EU accession states to the public and this backfired electorally, not because the party believes this to have been wrong, but because it handled its propaganda maladroitly. The Labour Party needs to repair its image with its traditional indigenous (although Labour’s upper echelons would never use such a term) working-class supporters, who have to a considerable degree deserted Labour; it would still like their votes. By talking about “immigration” in a manner which suggests to the public that Miliband is recognising Labour’s mistakes and addressing their concerns, whilst in reality simply acknowledging that there had been public disquiet and then reiterating the message that Labour still advocates mass immigration and thinks that it is beneficial, Labour hopes that it can pull the wool over the public’s eyes and win back the support of ex-Labour voters without changing policy. Miliband wishes to change the presentation of policy, whilst retaining its essence: open borders and the deculturisation of the United Kingdom, especially England.
Another highly noteworthy aspect of Miliband’s speech was the target that he selected in his discussion of mass immigration: white Central and Eastern Europeans from the EU member states of the former Soviet bloc. Nowhere did he have a critical word to say with respect to the far larger, as well as more culturally and economically problematic, influx of immigrants from Asia (predominantly Pakistan and Bangladesh) and Africa (e.g. Somalia and Nigeria). It seems that he is perfectly at ease with this mass settlement. Why? Although it is true that mass immigration from the EU accession states of the former Soviet bloc has lowered wages, increased unemployment and placed an increased strain on housing, education, health and utilities, there is not so great a cultural gulf between these immigrants and the host population as that between us and the incomers from Asia and Africa. Although the press are keen to run stories about ‘East European’ or ‘Romanian’ criminal gangs, these are predominantly Roma, and thus should not be conflated with ethnic Romanians or other immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe.
So, why is it, taking into consideration the additional problems associated with significant elements of the immigrant populations from Africa and Asia, that Miliband chose not to focus upon them? Given Miliband’s glaring omission, it could give the impression that he has some issue with white European peoples that he does not have with non-Europeans. In this respect, his sentiments are very much at one with those of Peter Sutherland, who according to the BBC told the House of Lords this week that:‘The EU should "do its best to undermine" the"homogeneity" of its member states.’ His recommendations, that fly in the face of the bloody experience of history and of many ethnically cleft states around the world today, were not backed up by evidence, but rather by mere assertion, resting upon some spurious sense of deferential morality that places the interests of peoples outside Europe, above those of Europeans. Thus it was that he insisted that: '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.’
Sutherland’s stance is utterly brazen. Those who have accused the Bilderberg group of attempting to swamp European states with non-European immigrants have been accused of being ‘conspiracy theorists’, but in Sutherland’s statement and in the policies of the UN, the EU and the UK Government, we see the same open-borders globalist logic at play, and it betokens a dark future for all Europeans. He continued:
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. Just as the United Kingdom has demonstrated.
He also ‘urged EU member states to work together more closely on migration policy and advocated a global approach to the issue - criticising the UK government's attempt to cut net migration from its current level to "tens of thousands" a year through visa restrictions.’
Ed Miliband: Globalism Repackaged