Mass Migration - Behind the Scenes (the Fabian Society)
23rd November, 2015
This article is not about migrants or refugees per se, rather it is about the ideology behind mass migration of people from underdeveloped countries into Europe and across the EU, and it is also about some of the various players who are behind the programme. The purpose of the article is to inform anyone bemused and/or concerned that the West is a target for cultural and political change not seen since the Russian Revolution, and that this mass migration is not accidental, but deliberately engineered.
In 2012, Peter Sutherland, the UN Special Representative for International Migration made the following statement to the British House of Commons: “The EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states”; in order for them to become multicultural to counteract the declining birth rates in Germany and southern Europe. Mr Sutherland went on to say that “… unlike America and Australia, we (in Europe) still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others, and that’s precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.” Mr Sutherland also 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."
Wearing his hat as Chairman of Goldman-Sachs, when interviewed in a broadcast on RTÉ radio, Ireland June 2015 about EU migration, Mr Sutherland stated that “unlimited African immigration is a benefit to Europe.” However, Sutherland would not dare make any such similar comments directed at immigration into Israel, Saudi Arabia or other Middle Eastern monocultures, who refuse to take immigrants; so this mass migration programme is quite deliberately directed against modern western civilisation.
The EU was setup in order to bring together the diverse cultures and identities within European nation states; so Sutherland's argument that European nation states of the EU needed to be "multicultural" is entirely bogus and his arguments speak to a darker desire for the destruction of European culture and identity, which is being facilitated by Merkel. Essentially, whereas limited migration of skilled individuals may be of great benefit and present few real problems, attempting to absorb new arrivals enmasse is a disaster for the host countries. This may not be obvious in the short term where governments distribute the migrants in order to hide their true effect upon society, but it will lead to major conflict in the longer term.
Moving back slightly to the period 1997-2010, New Labour misled the British public by carrying out a deliberate policy of mass migration into Britain, whilst lying about its true extent (“Labour lied to public about immigration, says Ed Miliband’s aide Lord Glasman,” Daily Telegraph, April, 2011).Such mass immigration was used to support the interests of private companies and institutions by driving down wages and thereby operating against the best interests of the British working class. For the Labour party itself this mass migration was regarded as importing New Labour supporters happy to vote to keep them in power as long as they could offer continued welfare benefits. Gerhard Schroeder’s re-election in Germany in 2002 is an example of a politician benefitting from the votes of the minority Turkish population in Germany to return that unpopular politician to power against the wishes of the native German population.
Mass migration to control and maintain power is nothing new though. In Tibet, Tibetans became a minority under the 1950’s Maoist occupation, (Chinese Communist Party under Mao Zedong), following the mass migration of Chinese into their country. In Soviet Russia under Stalin mass migration was used for the “Russification” of neighbouring states, for example in Latvia and Estonia, in order to force the populations to relinquish their own culture and language in favour of the Russian equivalents. Although this works temporarily to keep law and order generally, but in the end national identity wins through when the controlling power declines, as with the Soviet Union and elsewhere.
Meanwhile, in the EU Merkel seems to have succumbed to her instinct and the training by her former Communist colleagues in attempting to undermine the national character of the EU member states (as advocated by Sutherland) with attempts to “force” the redistribution of refugees from Syria to other locations within the EU; refugees which she had specifically invited into Germany. This initial invitation to Syrian refugees by Merkel was quickly extended to any foreign national to come to the EU for any reason (not restricted to refugees or asylum seekers) by Juncker on the 9th September, 2015, who offered EU passports to anyone who wanted to travel to Europe. This was by far the greatest opportunistic move by Merkel since the inclusion of the previously rejected Constitution for Europe (2004); hidden within the texts of the Lisbon Treaty (2007).
That invitation to Syrian refugees allowed the EU to expand its borders under the pretext of the "Migration Crisis" and allowed Merkel to get Turkey into the EU (visa access) with minimal opposition from other member states; in addition, allowing the EU to claim the moral high ground related to migration from war torn and economically depressed regions of the world. A moral stand for which they entirely lack credibility. The EU lack of morality is exemplified by the fact that many of these regions have been manipulated by Germany and the EU (Troika) into providing migrants to Europe, including Syrians, through implementing economic sanctions or austerity measures applied in former EU colonies via the Cotonou Agreement (2000) (between the EU and 79 countries in Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific (ACP); whilst also continuing to apply austerity measures to areas within the Eurozone, such as Greece and elsewhere in southern Europe, in order to encourage the migration of the youth of those countries to Germany and elsewhere in northern Europe.
At this point a small digression is warranted - It is worth pointing out that it is undisputable that the recent attacks on Paris (13/11/15) by Muslim fundamentalist elements have been facilitated by the illogical adherence to the ideology of an open, unrestrained EU with a borderless heartland, designed to help destroy national identity of the member states, under the guise of free trade and free movement of workers.
What is fundamentally flawed about the internal EU organisation is that the lack of internal borders offers no protection within EU from trans-national crime and corruption; including terrorism, people trafficking, prostitution, arms and drug smuggling to name only a few, and that is exacerbated by the fact that its external borders are just as porous to international crime. In reality this could also facilitate the presence of a fully equipped army of trained extremists within the minority enclaves in all the major cities within the EU, able to act independently or in unison without hindrance across the uncontrolled borders which were required in order to undermine the homogeneity of the EU member states.
The EU acts as a metaphorical sponge, soaking up honest migrants and criminals alike from all surrounding areas. A situation perfectly at ease with the EU hierarchy whose modus operandi is the absorption of neighbouring states through a manic obsession with ever greater expansion of "their" EU “Empire” - a modern day “Lebensraum” by economic means, rather than force of arms. To cite one example of the porosity of the EU outer borders, on the 5th of October, 2015 RT reported that "Poland was importing Ukrainian cheap labour to replace the Poles who have migrated to Britain, and has issued some 400,000 Polish (EU) passports", thereby allowing the mass transit of non-EU migrants across the EU; which seems to be perfectly at ease with this lack of security within western Europe.
The Labour Party, the EU and Mass Immigration
New Labour has quite a history with the EU and with mass immigration into Britain in particular. In 1966 Labour Home Secretary and future President of the EU Commission, Roy Jenkins initiated a policy of Multiculturalism and this has been the Labour Party policy ever since. The policy is nearly identical to that currently being promoted, albeit on a grander scale than just in Britain, by Sutherland, and implemented most recently by Merkel/Juncker in the EU; advocated, in fact, for the whole of the Europe and its near neighbours.
This was, of course the policy promoted by Blair/Brown and New Labour. The publicly announced reason for the policy is to enrich British culture, make British society better, more competitive and more successful. However, the real reason was to “rub the noses of the Right in diversity” and to import a large proportion of new Labour supporters to keep Blair and his ilk in power. (Andrew Neather, former New Labour speech writer, in an Evening Standard article in October, 2009).
New Labour also brought in policy of treating the host population as inferior to the immigrant population and used the tried and tested Trotsky technique of claiming racism against anyone opposed to mass migration. As part of its immigration policy and desire to increase its popular support with minority groups, New Labour, in particular promoted the interests of Muslims, with widespread sponsorship of Islamic schools, mosques, cultural centres and charities, including the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB); which in 2011 reported that ".. only 20% of Muslims in Britain were economically active." New Labour also appointed Muslims to key positions within the Labour Party.
The attitude of New Labour to the expansion of the EU and the assimilation of Islamic States was clearly expressed by Labour Foreign Secretary David Miliband who spoke in favour of the “unbreakable ties” with Europe’s Muslim neighbour countries and the inclusion of Turkey, the Middle East and North Africa. He went on to point out the need for developing shared institutions to overcome religious and cultural divides between Europe and Muslim countries(“EU ‘should expand beyond Europe’”, BBC News, 15 Nov. 2007)”.
Actually Miliband also included Russia in that speech on EU expansion. Whilst Russia does have a strong interest in trading with Europe, it does not want to be part of an EU superstate - Russia has no desire to be controlled by Brussels (Berlin) - Russia has lived through what the EU will bequeath to our grandchildren. New Labour’s policy regarding Islamic extremism has always relied upon appeasement, rather than confrontation as witnessed by the tolerance of hate preachers promoting Sharia Law in Britain and the destruction of British society. The policy of appeasement persists today with the new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and many others. More worryingly the appeasement of Islamic extremism is rife within the EU.
Common Link - The Fabian Society
The Labour Party was set up by the Fabian Society in 1900 and it has controlled it ever since, all Labour Party Prime Ministers were members with the exception of Ramsey MacDonald who fell out with the Fabian Society over British Foreign policy in the Boer War, which he opposed. Every one of the New Labour Cabinet were Fabians and numerous Labour Party members and politicians have written articles (called Tracts) for the Fabian Society, which are held in an archive at the London School of Economics (LSE). The LSE was set up by the Fabian Society. The Fabian Society has set up or has been intimately involved with numerous organisations since its inception, including the United Nations, Bilderberg Group, NATO, Socialist International, the European Union, and the National Union of Students, to name only a few.
“The Fabian Society is Britain’s oldest political think tank and has been at the forefront of developing political ideas and public policy on the left” (according to its website (www.fabians.org.uk) It was named after the Roman general Quintus Fabius who defeated the Hannibal’s Carthaginians, not by direct confrontation but by patiently waiting for the right time to strike. The crest of the Fabian Society is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and its logo is a tortoise, reflecting the society’s goal of the gradual expansion of world Socialism. This method has been, and continues to be, the precise method of the evolution of the EU, over the past 59 years since the Treaty of Rome (1957) laid the foundations of the EU. Which included the “Four Freedoms”, the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers, and the Courts.
However, these were never the main selling points, and the EU has evolved by stealth (the Fabian Way), mostly by promoting free trade, through the European Economic Community (EEC), and not by the promotion of the EU. The EU is unnecessary for the working of the EEC and was established for an entirely different purpose and legal significance (TTIP and other international financial interests)
The idea that a European Union would maintain peace and security were also used to sell the EEC, just as the EU is promoted today, however, peace and security were derived from the presence of occupying forces in the Axis countries, NATO and the fact that most countries in Europe after the war had little infrastructure capable of re-arming, particularly Germany, which had had its main armaments facilities destroyed.Continued on the next page
Copyright © 2015 - 17 euexit.com. All rights reserved.