12 noiembrie 2015

N-am auzit - nici atunci, nici până acum - proteste din partea "guvernului României"...

Fiindcă nu-i "[de-]al României", de-aia !

NWO is a plan, not so much a conspiracy anymore, and it's being executed now.

Peter Sutherland, reprezentantul special pentru Imigraţie (internaţională) al Secretarului General ONU. Irlandez, dintr-un partid membru în PPE, fost în conducerea băncii Goldman-Sachs, fost președinte WTO, fost comisar european (perioada euro/Delors), participant la reuniunile Grupului Bilderberg.

Declaraţie din 2013: "UE ar trebui să facă tot posibilul pentru subminarea omogenității* statelor-membre".

* omogenitate etnică, religioasă, culturală

UN: - EU must destroy homogeneity of member states through immigration

Despite warnings from many people that this huge immigration into Europe that we see now, had to be planned on a high level, very few would listen. Instead those who insisted that something was fishy were called conspiracy nutters and paranoid. But when the UN chief of migration, Peter Sutherland (pictured), openly states what is on the table, what the plan is for Europe, the conspiracies suddenly become truth, as many originally far-fetched conspiracies do.

Peter Sutherland, who is UN migration chief & chairman at Goldman Sachs bank, wants to use (Muslim) immigration to destroy European countries’ culture. Here is what BBC reported:

"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.

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”.

This was actually the plan already years ago, and ISIS, who has less brains combined than a football team, could never come up with, and executed such a large-scale plan. The terrorist organization is simply successfully exploiting it by sending terrorists along with migrants and refugees.

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. The organization has had 7 international meetings so far, and had its first one in 2007.

The 7th meeting was held in Stockholm, Sweden (imagine that) on 14 to 16 May 2014, where the theme was: “Unlocking the Potential of Migration for Inclusive Development.”

And the 8th meeting will be held in Istanbul, Turkey on 14-16 October 2015, where the theme will be: “Strengthening Partnerships: Human Mobility for Sustainable Development.”.

The agenda for a New World Order, often referred to as NWO, most people reject as a conspiracy. This despite former US President George H.W. Bush's speech of exactly the plan for a NWO. Now, combine the above and the video below, and the conspiracy starts to make sense, huh?

Of course there will be conflicts throughout Europe at some point. It will be a clash of civilizations, and most likely it is something that has been calculated into the plan. Reduction of the population is surely going to happen. It is inevitably in conflicts. Then the UN Peace Keeping forces will swoop in, patrolling in Europe, and the UN is half way there, policing us.

The US however, is (at the moment) a different matter. Citizens are armed and can protect themselves. At least so far. But it won't last. Disarmament of the US population is an important goal for the Obama administration (and the UN), and it's fast approaching. And if you thought that amendments and laws can be changed, take a look at Europe, China, Russia, and most countries, where only the criminals carry, illegally.

NWO is a plan, not so much a conspiracy anymore, and it's being executed now.

But don't take my word for it. Instead listen:

Oh, and there is very little we can do about it. When the elite decides something, it is imposed upon us whatever we say or do. Unless there is an "European spring", but that is not likely to happen. We are both too lazy, and most of us refuse to even pay attention to stuff like this. Like herded sheep, watching "Idol" and grassing on the field, until the herder calls. Lamb chops.


Peter Sutherland: Undermining the Nation State

Last year, a man named Peter Sutherland said that the EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states. He said this as the United Nations' 'Special Representative for International Migration'. He also went on to claim that the UK government's immigration policy had no basis in international law.

So who is Peter Sutherland?

This man has his fingers in so many pies it's no wonder that he's so fat and unhealthy-looking. And he's such a greedy man that he's not particularly bothered what the pies contain – as long as they contain power and political influence. For example, Mr Sutherland is a non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and Senior Counsel at the Irish Bar. He also works for the Fine Gael party in Ireland and has attended meetings of the Bilderberg Group. More relevantly to this issue, he heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development. Before all that, Sutherland was Attorney General of Ireland and a chairman of BP.

Now what do selling oil, working for international finance, working for Fine Gael, and, more importantly, agitating for mass immigration – against national 'homogeneity' – all have in common? Yes, you've got it: power. That is, political power and therefore the ability to carry out one's very own political and social experiments on the peoples of Europe. And all this is done – and has been done – without Peter Sutherland receiving a single vote from anyone (save, perhaps, some shareholders here and there). 

Is Mass Immigration All About Economics or All About Ideology?

Last year, Peter Sutherland came out with the most extreme and blatant statements of prejudice in regard to mass immigration that you could possibly imagine. He said that the people of the UK "still nurse a sense of [their] homogeneity and difference from others". What followed was even worse. He concluded: "And that's precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine."

Well, he said it! He said that the EU should "undermine" any sense of British unity and communality, as well as its traditions, history and, as he puts it, its "homogeneity". In other words, all the things which leftists and Eurocrats usually wax lyrical about when it comes to other cultures and other ethnic groups should be "undermined" when it happens to be British culture and ethnicity. How much more blatant can the political and ideological reality behind the economic bullshit actually be?

Of course the arguments in favour of mass immigration could be both economical and political. But considering the fact that many recent immigrants (as well as not-so-recent immigrants) are unemployed, and tens of thousands of asylum seekers aren't even allowed to work anyway (at least officially), as well as the fact that mass immigration actually damages the UK economy overall, one is quite easily led to conclude hink that it's just plain politics/ ideology – not economics – that's behind all this.

You see, it's not really all about economics at all. It's not really about immigrants taking jobs which native Brits won't do or the 'pensions gap'. It's really all about undermining – to use Peter Sutherland's own word – our culture and ethnicity. It's all about carrying out a political experiment designed to change the social, political and ethnic landscape of Britain.

Yes, behind the bullshit economics are purely ideological motives and dreams. All the economic stats and graphs are but means to effect these decidedly non-economic ends. I mean, there it was from one of the horses' mouths. And, let's not forget the various Labour MPs who've also now come clean about their party's own experiment in mass immigration. These Labour MPs have admitted (now they aren't in power!) that their championship of mass immigration had little or nothing to do with making our economy work.

In fact, why is a person who's supposed to be some kind of expert on economics/ business making such blatantly political – and indeed ideological – statements in the first place? Why does an expert in economics/ business think he has the right to state that the British people "still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others"? Remind me again, did the British people – or anyone else – ever vote for Peter Sutherland? No! Who, then, is he speaking for and what gives him the right to speak on these issues?

This man still has immense political power, care of both the UN and the EU, those two vast bodies of unaccountability. Sutherland will do whatever he wants because he knows that no one can stop him, least of all British voters.

And what's with this quaint word, 'homogeneity'? It's strange, people like Sutherland – as well as leftist academics galore – stress 'diversity', 'alternative cultures' and 'the Other' in one breath, yet in the next they say – or imply – that there is one aspect of diversity, one culture and one ethnicity that must be systematically erased, namely the British. That's what Sutherland's glorious 'homogeneity' would result in.

Not that there will be homogeneity anyway. That's another part of this big con. Take the Muslim population of this country. They are systematically forming their own enclaves/ ghettos and living separately from the rest of us. Indeed, as Muslims, they must do so, because all Muslims must live according to sharia law and sharia law demands – as does the Koran in many passages – that Muslims avoid being polluted by the 'unbeliever'. So Peter Sutherland must know that the homogeneity he wants may very well end in inter-communal violence, civil war and a distinct lack of homogeneity.

And just when you think that he couldn't say anything more obscene, he adds that there should be a "shift from states selecting migrants to migrants selecting states".

Here's more politics from Sutherland; again, not a word about economics. He said that if we don't endorse a policy of mass immigration, then we risk our status of being a "tolerant, open society". That is, if we don't import more foreign intolerance and criminality, more radical imams, more Muslim terrorists, more Roma criminals, more economic migrants, more Arab/ north African/ Egyptian doctors to carry out female genital mutilations, etc., we risk our tolerance and openness. In other words, Sutherland thinks that we risk our tolerance and openness by not bringing communal conflict and even civil war closer. Has this man no knowledge of what's going on in the world today or does he spend his entire time sitting in the offices of the UN and EU?

You see, I don't believe a word of any of the economic arguments offered by Peter Sutherland – or by people like Jonathan Portes – for mass immigration. It's plain to see that politics and ideology are behind every word they say. Thus there's no reason to believe any of it, at least not when it comes from known leftists/ Marxists/ 'progressives'. Some of the economic statistics and arguments in support of immigration (though not mass immigration) may be true, but when multicults and pro-immigration zealots voice stats and arguments, you simply must beware.

Two Bogus Arguments for Mass Immigration

The 'ageing population' argument

In order to legitimise these political experiments in mass immigration, Peter Sutherland knows he must rely on suspect economic arguments. For example, there's the old 'ageing-population' theory (the 'pensions gap'). Setting aside the fact that there are over a million unemployed recent (!) immigrants in the UK (600,000 from Europe alone, as well as a 65% rate of unemployment, to take just one example, among Somalis), as well as many native unemployed, Sutherland argues that mass immigration is a "crucial dynamic for economic growth". How is paying billions of pounds in welfare benefits to immigrants crucial for economic growth? Sure, some immigrants do find jobs – but huge numbers don't!

In addition to that, the average fertility rate across Europe is 2.0 children, which is replacement level. Consequently, most demographers agree that there is unlikely to be any population decline of native Europeans in the next few decades; it's only relative to immigrant groups that the birth rate amongst indigenous populations is low.

The 'jobs-not-taken-by-Brits' argument

Another classic is the 'jobs-not-taken-by-Brits' argument. The claim is that there are thousands of jobs which British people simply won't even consider.

What is really meant by this is that there are jobs which offer wages which are so low that British people won't accept them. It isn't the case that Brits wouldn't do these jobs no matter what. And why are the wages so low? Because of the masses of immigrants we already have who will happily accept such low wages. (Of course a poor peasant from Pakistan or Bulgaria would do them. But is that a good thing for Britain?) So here we have pro-immigrationists saying that more immigration is a solution to a problem previous immigrants have caused!

Secondly, the jobs-not-taken-by-Brits argument seems to completely ignore – often intentionally – a basic economic fact. In every national economy, at any given time, there is something called a 'churn'. That is, there is a fairly high level of job vacancies which results simply from the fact that many people are moving from job to job. Either the pro-immigrationists are ignorant of this basic economic fact or they know about it but still over-emphasise these jobs-not-taken in order to sell mass immigration to the public.


It's clear that Peter Sutherland has a large degree of contempt for the peoples of Europe. That is why he can't – and doesn't want to – rely on any kind of vote or popular legitimation in order to do what he does. Indeed he once said (to a House of Lords committee) that "however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states", mass immigration must continue. Or, to put that another way: social/ communal conflict, the proliferation of enclaves/ ghettos, Islamisation, Muslim grooming, terrorism, mass Roma fraud/ antisocial behaviour, increased levels of unemployment and lower wages for native Brits, etc., must continue.

Sutherland also believes that it's vital that the Eurocrats and our very own British social engineers – from leftist academics to Labour Party MPs – carry on with their massive social experiment on the nations and peoples of Europe. (Stalin would have been proud of them.)

Sutherland argues that the future economic well-being of all EU states depends on all of us becoming even more "multicultural". That is, it depends on us importing yet more immigrants who can't even speak English, who often hate the kuffar or Western society generally (though they like our welfare benefits and freedoms) and who often won't end up working anyway.

It's standard, as I said, that social engineers offer economic arguments to rationalise or legitimise mass immigration. In fact they often state – or hint – that it's all about economics. However, when you scratch the surface, you'll soon seen that economics is not what it's all about at all, as Peter Sutherland himself admits.


Un comentariu :

Riddick spunea...

George H.W. Bush New World Order Speech


The New World Order is an unofficial name for certain types of organizations, globalists, and people in and out our government that want to destroy our US Sovereignty and get rid of our constitutional rights.


Distrugerea națiunilor din UE

West Sussex Gazette: Destruction of EU nations

Pe 13 iulie 1960, preşedintele francez, generalul de Gaulle, l-a convocat pe Alain Peyrefitte să vină şi să-l informeze despre maşinaţiunile Bruxellesului. Iată ce a spus Peyrefitte:

"Este sistemul Monnet. El constă tocmai în crearea de situaţii din care se poate scăpa doar prin creşterea dozei de supranaţionalitate. Fiecare nouă dificultate ne duce într-un mecanism care ne împinge un pic mai departe spre un stat federal şi mai slăbește guvernele naţionale".

Cu alte cuvinte, împreună cu regionalizarea şi privatizarea, sistemul Monnet este un instrument pentru distrugerea naţiunilor din Europa. Îl putem vedea acum, în toată splendoarea sa, cu oameni nealeşi care înlocuiesc guvernele democratice în Grecia şi Italia, şi Germania dând tonul.

La începutul anilor '90, când au început discuțiile privind uniunea monetară, cei care au ştiut despre astfel de lucruri au explicat de ce nu ar funcţiona, dar cu toate acestea federaliştii au mers mai departe.

Intenţia lor era de a crea tocmai acea situaţie la care s-a referit Peyrefitte în cadrul discuției sale cu de Gaulle; obiectivul lor este de a finaliza procesul de transformare a ţărilor din UE din naţiuni libere și suverane în provincii dependente ale unui stat totalitar.

Peyrefitte a scris despre întâlnirea sa cu de Gaulle în aceeaşi zi, astfel că, deşi cartea sa a fost publicată abia în 1994, pasajul citat mai sus a fost scris cu mai mult de cincizeci şi doi de ani în urmă.

Cât va trebui să mai așteptăm până când cei învestiți cu autoritate ne vor spune adevărul ?


Soros: National Borders Are The Enemy


Unmasked: The Mastermind behind the Mass Invasion of Europe and His Plan in 8 Steps


Citate din gândirea profundă a europeiştilor RO

Toader Paleologu, 2011 (regretă că pentru schimbările introduse în Constituție este necesară consultarea cetățenilor, pe care-i mai consideră și proști): "Cred că, într-adevăr, e necesară integrarea în Constituție a acelor prevederi privind deficitul. Constituția noastră e rigidă, nu e ca alte Constituții care pot fi amendate de către Parlament sau de către un congres mai larg. În Franța se convoacă congresul constituțional și se face o reformă. Nu e necesar referendumul. La noi, din păcate, din câte înțeleg, va fi nevoie și de un vot în Parlament și de un referendum. Frica mea e că un referendum cu o întrebare atât de tehnică nu poate suscita mare interes din partea publicului. E o chestiune tehnică, pe care nu o înțelege toată lumea sau pentru care nu se pasionează toată lumea".

Postări populare (nu P.P.E. !):