33 4 mins 9 yrs

This is the global Power Elite talking.

When Peter Sutherland speaks the rest of us would do well to listen: he’s the Chairman of Goldman Sachs International, an ex-Chairman of BP, an ex-director of the Royal Bank of Scotland, a current Steering Group member of Bilderberg and a long time Chairman of the Trilateral Commission. That’s just a tiny sliver of his CV.

He recently told the House of Lords that the EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states. It was a statement made ostensibly in his role as the UN’s special representative for migration, but this is a meaningless designation. It’s not about the EU or the UN. He’s talking on behalf of powers who control the institutions.

Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural, and that 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 is drivel of course. The idea that European peoples cannot be prosperous without smashing their culture apart under a tide of alien immigration is too ridiculous to contemplate seriously. So what is the Power Elite designing? Two possible explanations spring to mind.

The first is tax. The modern regulatory-state is a tax farmer for the banking elites which fund mega-deficits. Their puppet governments load up the debts and make the peasants pay it back again with interest. More immigrants means more welfare, more infrastructure spending, more deficits, more debts and ever greater slavery to the banking creditors who fund it.

The second is power and culture. That the aim of the Power Elite is to smash the nation-state, subsuming peoples into regional political/economic blocks such as the EU and NAFTA, is no secret. These blocks are then easily controlled by the globalists and resistance from the poeple is irrelevent. One global structure of governance is the end point. United societies, which are broadly homogenous in themselves but different from each other, can act as a powerful break on these global forces. Culturally conservative and patriotic peoples are much harder to push about and control than societies which have been seperated from their heritage, are ignorant of their past and atomised socially by mass immigration. In the end, a country just becomes a piece of land where disaparate peoples from around the world live at any particular time instead of being the ancestral homelands of distinctive people who would resist enforced change.

Whether we vote Tory or Labour, or GOP or Democrat is clearly irrelevent. All elections are irrelevent.  Peter Sutherland has lifted the lid on globalist plans and revealed what they intend – to smash patriotism and national identity completely.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

33 thoughts on “HOT: PETER SUTHERLAND – IMMIGRATION MUST SMASH “NATIONAL HOMOGENEITY”

  1. Pingback: Before It's News
  2. If the native populations of the EU’s constituent nations can be smashed under a tsunami of 3rd-world immigration with huge ‘encouragement’ for miscegenation targetting white women in particular, everywhere will be the same with a huge, dumbed-down, mulatto population outnumbering the indigenous. This is intended for all white countries (except Israel, for some reason).

    The ‘left’ will (and do) support the destruction of distinct countries because they are stupid enough to wish their own destruction, and the ‘right’ will support it because there might be some money in it even though they too will be destroyed. Only a tiny clique will have power and you aren’t in it:

  3. Very interesting. Whilst on holiday in France,
    (you know,
    where the Norsemen lived.. ;))

    I found myself mulling over this very issue with Mrs Agit8ed, as we observed the huge numbers of north african immigrants appearing almost everywhere.
    We were saying that it is a widespread phenomenon, and I began to reflect that perhaps we are seeing the deliberate demise of capitalism and free enterprise in the face of shrinking resources such as drinking water, food production and fossil fuels. Perhaps the intention is to destroy homogeneity by spreading multiculturalism, with a longer term aim of more state control of populations.
    There is no reason that the peoples who gave the world science, technology, mass production of food and goods, medicine and health services, couldn’t continue to manage their own economies, and still thrive. It is nonsense to declare otherwise.
    As I have said before I am against muliculturalism, because inevitably we sink to the lowest common denominator, as the advanced host cultures ttempt to accommodate those from less developed countries. It is always the host culture which loses out.

  4. Agit – wtf!!! You began to reflect? You began to think for yourself based on the evidence of your own eyes!!?? The link which I posted above is meant for you. Please view…..and ‘reflect’.

  5. My BT connection is too slow. I will look at it when the connection improves. But what do you mean,
    “You began to think for yourself based on the evidence of your own eyes!!??”

    Of course I reflect and I think. It’s not the analysis I necessarily disagree with. It’s your nasty attitude that turns me off.

  6. This is not an argument that any libertarian is entitled to make, for a hundred reasons.

    Including that protecting the borders and expulsion of all illegals requires tax and government muscle, and your dumbed down arguments preclude any of this.

    Very many libertarians support free immigration and the absence of governmental borders. This immoral position actually can be argued. Defense of border controls by someone who has made the ludicrous arguments that Pete has made is illogical in the extreme. Pete’s major argument – against the legality of any tax – only can be consistent with an open borders and unrestricted immigration position.

  7. Phantom,

    “This is not an argument that any libertarian is entitled to make, for a hundred reasons.

    Including that protecting the borders and expulsion of all illegals requires tax and government muscle, and your dumbed down arguments preclude any of this.”

    Yes very true. Not only that but free trade and the economic argument behind it implies anyone should be entitled to contract with anyone else for labour or living accommodation etc – an argument I happen to agree with but true it is inconsistent to argue for draconian border controls at the same time. (Which is why i personally don’t).

    At the very least it must be recognised by libertarians that any benefit of border controls must be weighed against the destruction of wealth and the constraints on individual liberty that are implied by them.

  8. And-

    There is more to life than money and economic growth

    These would never be my first values.

  9. Phantom –

    I’ve said in here many times that national defence, under which I would include the matter of immigration, is one of the few legitimate functions of the collective.

    There’s no libertarian position on immigration. That would be quite unlibertarian. Some prefer few controls, some (including me) believe that tight controls are necessary because mass immigration always results in a loss of liberty in the long run.

    Walter Block is not a libertarian. He’s an anarchist.

    Please stick to the topic instead of (yet again) interjecting merely to catch me out or have a dig at me. Talk about Peter Sutherland, or the global Power Elite or mass immigration instead.

  10. the native populations of the EU’s constituent nations can be smashed under a tsunami of 3rd-world immigration

    But the native populations of the ‘Third World’ were smashed under a tsunami of colonial plunder, murder, and genocide.

    So fair is fair, surely?

  11. Frank – thanks

    Petr – when you go to the 3rd-world, the indigenous populations are very much intact and growing. In North America, there very good reasons for wishing the end of white domination as I do, and in Africa the corporations are re-imposing the 19th century policies of plunder, this time using native ‘big men’ as the pawns. Rather than mutual-destruction of 1st and 3rd-world, would it not be better to overthrow the corporatists for whom Sutherland is a mouthpiece?

  12. Pete

    Your position remains incoherent in the extreme.

    Efeective enforcement will require tax, a lot of it, and a muscular government presence. And you are virulently against ALL tax and ALL ” intrusive ” government — you’ve said it dozens of times – so in practical terms, you oppose the things that you pretend to be in favor of.

    How would you fund effective border enforcement? How would you find out who the illegals are? What steps would you take to expel them? How would you deal with the Human Rights industry who would seek to tie your legal system in knots?

    The things you are for – toothless govenment and no funding for what it seeks to do – leads
    to open borders and nowhere else.

  13. Lets stay away from the communist stance of murdering one’s political opponents if we could

  14. Phantom – these corporatists are responsible for most of the death and misery in the world, and they make a great deal of money from it hence the death and misery. Through their ownership of money and its creation, they own everything and everybody worth owning – see my link at 2.37 – so they can do whatever they want.

    There was a recent study by a Swiss university which created a nodal model showing corporate interlinks, and it was quite revealing. But what the academics didn’t do was take the plane of view one level up to see who owned the corporates. Perhaps that is not permitted?

    On the matter of borders and government, the analogy is that I’m holding a children’s party in my garden and I’m only allowing in the kids who are peaceful and playful. Because I’ve controlled who gets in, I don’t need to police the party. If however, I abandon border control and let in the hoodies from the vicinity, I would need CCTV and police at every point because peace(?) would have to be imposed by policing. This is in fact what is happening on the streets of the UK and Europe.

  15. I see an unholy alliance of big business and the left, in Europe and the US in support of cheap labor and open borders

    There are many areas where the far left and far right meet, and this is one of them.

  16. Phantom –

    “How would you fund effective border enforcement?”

    There are many ways. I’d donate under the right circumstances, for example. The ideal State would be so small and so cheap that, I suspect, many would donate instead of, as now, putting their efforts into minimising their tax liabilities (indicating that tax levels have exceeded the “moral” standard of many).

    We could tax visitors, holidaymakers, foreign business. None of it is ideal, but the British State must exist to benefit Britons. If that means making foreigners stump up for our protection when they come here then so be it.

    “The things you are for – toothless govenment and no funding for what it seeks to do – leads to open borders and nowhere else.”

    But we have open borders now! We have an omnipotent, omnipresent State yet our borders are effectively useless and don’t exist at all to 400 million foreigners from the Atlantic to the Black Sea. Because you didn’t look at the Peter Hitchens piece I linked to earlier today, here’s an extract:

    People who can afford to do so avoid the wretched ‘services’ the state arranges in return for this legalised theft. What are these? Schools that teach sexual licence but not times tables or proper reading; police who are never there when you want them; hospitals plagued with inexcusable dirt and neglect; a welfare system that punishes thrift and encourages sloth.

    Meanwhile, the real essentials – the absolute vital duties of any government – are neglected or destroyed. Our borders are abandoned, our roads potholed, our Navy sunk, our Army soon to be small enough to fit into Wembley Stadium. As for criminal justice, where do I begin?

    The British State has never been more present in our lives, never more intrusive into civil society and never more rapacious in the tax it loots from us, and never have those basic essentials, which most would think the State ought to do, been more neglected.

  17. Donations and taxing someone else.

    No, that won’t get you where you need to go.

    But you now agree on the need for taxation, so progress has been made.

  18. Phantom – ‘left’ and right’ is a fake system set up to have us “arguing about matters of no importance”. What Sutherland has expressed has been around for a long, long time. Now that I think of it, I’m surprised that you haven’t challenged whether Sutherland actually did say what he is reported to have said. After all, it’s not as if Montague Norman (Head of the Bank of England 1920 – 44) would not have said the same things in effect?

  19. Phantom, I think Pete’s making the point that despite the current sky-high punishing levels of taxation in the UK, it’s unable to perform the basic functions of a state.
    So why should the little man hand over his hard earned cash to be pissed away into money ‘black hole.

    Clearly the current system of taxation & government is fatally flawed where so little benefit is derived from the ample funds sucked in by the state.

  20. @ Allan – unfortunately, many here, (including the blog owner in particular) seem to be preoccupied with the ‘left vs right’ diversionary red-herring, considering how often people here attempt to shoehorn other contributors into politically labelled boxes on a regular basis.

  21. Bernard – agreed on all points. For anybody not sure, simply ask yourself whether it is conceivable that the ‘connected’ arch-corporatist Peter Sutherland could be of the ‘left’, and then ask yourself whether the ‘left’ is supportive of mass-immigration.

    The answers are self-evidently that it is inconceivable that Sutherland is of the ‘left’ yet here is this man of the ‘right’ arguing for a key point of the ‘left’. The ‘left’ and ‘right’ are one and the same: they share the stage of the same puppet theatre – Blair, Brown, Heath, Thatcher, Cameron, Bush, Clinton, Obama, van Rompuy, Barosso, Merkel, Sarkozy, Hollande – all the same. Carlin got it exactly right.

  22. Well said Allan, all comments. And great link at 2.37 pm.

    Sutherland has always been a shameless federalist. He is among the elite of the elite, and of course he will never have to worry about “south Asians” moving in next door and undercutting his wages. He is for the multi-nationals whose profits are boosted by falling real wages and those extra profits are then exported to a “tax haven” where UK corporation tax is not an issue. His type were rampant in France until 1789 and they deserve to suffer the same fate.

  23. The most important question here is how do we eliminate Sutherland and his ilk.

    When I see a picture of the slug above, I always think of Jabba the Hut from starwars tbh…

  24. George Carlin:
    I listened to most of it, spasmodically. My ISP (BT) is cwap most of the time, much like the England football team.
    Anyway, for what it’s worth…
    George Carlin says,
    “the politicians are put there to give you the illusion of choice”
    Wrong!!
    Political parties developed way before anyone got it into their heads to manipulate them.
    America for example did not come about because some wealthy intelligent group decided it should be so. It came about because some religious people decided that they wanted to escape and establish a better and free society.
    IMO Carlin is only right in that there are now groups of cynical people out there who want to control how human society will develop.
    But even now, powerful cliques will always be afraid of the mood of the people. It will only ever take an intelligent man or woman to come along and be willing to die for the cause of freedom.
    Humans will always need a hierarchy. That’s how we function best. But there is something within the human spirit which yearns for true freedom within accepted parameters.
    So yes, Carlin makes some valid points, but fails to make the correct analysis.
    And no matter how many times you use the word “fuck”, he is still wrong.
    That can only come through Christianity. If you study the Bible you will see that God knew that if Adam used his God given free will wrongly, it would inevitably lead to rebellion and the enslavement of the human race to Evil.

  25. “the politicians are put there to give you the illusion of choice”
    Wrong!!

    Wrong? Why don’t you point out the salient and meaningful differences between the corrupt Establishment parties? There’s an election coming up right now in the world’s key ‘democracy’: differences between Obama and Romney please!

  26. Allan,
    I just explained that political parties were established before anyone thought of manipulating them for sinister global purposes. Since then things have changed, but they weren’t established as part of a global conspiracy.
    What is happening now is almost inevitable. You must have read Orwell’s 1984?

  27. Who Sutherland works for, courtesy of Henry Makow (who’s jewish btw):

    There should be no such thing as “sovereign debt.” Currency (credit) is just a medium of exchange like a coupon. Governments can create as much as they need to make the economy hum. Markets will determine their value relative to other currencies.
    But the Illuminati bankers have created all currency in the form of a debt to them. Our society is wholly complicit in this fraud.
    It is not Greek or German or French or Spanish banks that are getting the bailouts. They all got the virtual “money” from the Illuminati families. The banks are just a front for these families.
    These families don’t need the “money” back. It was created out of thin air. This is just a mechanism for plundering what’s left.
    The taxpayers of these countries are being saddled with this fictional debt and becoming debt slaves.

Comments are closed.