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.

There is a gap between the opinion of the people and the policy pursued by the elite

Discursul rostit de premierul ungar Viktor Orbán în faţa ambasadorilor Ungariei este foarte lung, şi se concentrează în special pe criza "refugiaţilor". Două pasaje tratează chestiuni-cheie: democraţia reală, reprezentativă, instrumentarea mass-mediei, şi frontierele statului suveran. Orbán se referă în mod ironic la "imperfecţiunea" democraţiei ungare, în care politicienii (încă mai) ţin cont de opinia publică, spre deosebire de cei din statele din Vest (Those countries are more developed democracies than we are, and therefore their leaders are able to distance themselves more from the people. This is less possible in a less developed democracy such as Hungary; here, we must immediately integrate public opinion into our policies: there is less tolerance, and if we pursue a policy contrary to their view the public show tolerance for a much shorter period).

I feel compelled to say that in most European countries – I could honestly say in ninety per cent of European countries – there is a gap between the opinion of the people and the policy pursued by the elite. (I am not going to mention which countries – not a single one – to spare our Foreign Minister the time-consuming task of having to receive ambassadors.) In a democracy this is a serious problem. This difference may be covered up for a while with, say, orchestrated journalism. And if you look at the press of one country or another (I myself check it every day), no one could reasonably claim that there is no orchestrated journalism. We stand accused of causing problems for press freedom; but if one surveys the entire Hungarian press for its depiction of the migrant crisis, if one examines the various voices and tones, if one looks to see how opinions diverge, one finds a much broader spectrum than in the press of the countries which believe themselves to be – entirely without foundation – more advanced than our own. This is not a philosophical question, or a question of media law; this is a question of facts. Every morning more proof emerges that there are orchestrated opinions on these issues. I am not accusing anyone of personally controlling the press or public opinion; I am not even claiming that political leaders guide these opinions. I am merely pointing out that western societies are constructed in a way that makes it possible to pursue policies there over a longer period – I mean weeks, rather than years – with apparent public support, which the majority of the people do not actually support; but even there, this cannot go on indefinitely. Those countries are more developed democracies than we are, and therefore their leaders are able to distance themselves more from the people. This is less possible in a less developed democracy such as Hungary; here, we must immediately integrate public opinion into our policies: there is less tolerance, and if we pursue a policy contrary to their view the public show tolerance for a much shorter period. There is a limit everywhere, however, and this is what is creating internal tensions within European politics, because everyone feels that things cannot go on like this forever. The public’s voice will have to be heard sooner or later. The people of Europe will regain their ability to influence politics sooner or later, as this is their constitutional right – it is just a question of time. I am certain that, sooner or later, there will be a different migration policy in Europe – one that will stand on different foundations. Such a policy must be developed, as a democratic system cannot live with this internal contradiction for long, and Western Europe is unquestionably a democracy. It will therefore have to resolve this internal contradiction, too, one way or another.