Introduction: Peter Sutherland
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 Nation's 'special representative for 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 that 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 about 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 Council 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 a former Attorney General of Ireland and also a chairman of BP... Now what does 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 Economic or All About Politics/Ideology?
Peter Sutherland, last year, came out with the most extreme and blatant statements of prejudice - in regards to mass immigration - 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 that was even worse. He concluded:
"And that's precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine."
|Peter Sutherland at the Bilderberg Group (13 names down).|
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'. But that's strange because all the things which Leftists and Eurocrats usually wax lyrically about when its comes to other cultures and other ethnic groups should suddenly 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 most recent immigrants (as well as not-so-recent immigrants) are unemployed, and hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers aren't even allowed to work anyway (at least officially), as well as the fact that mass immigration actually destroys the UK economy overall, one is quite easily led to think 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 all really 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 political/ideological motives and dreams. All the economic stats and graphs are but means to affect these decidedly non-economic ends. I mean, there it was from one of the horse's 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. That is, these Labour MPs have admitted (now they aren't in power!) that their championship of mass immigration had very little – or virtually nothing - to do with “making our economy work”.
And what's with this quaint word – 'homogeneity'? It's strange, people like Peter 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 diversity, one culture and one ethnicity which must be systematically erased – the British people and their own cultures and traditions. 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. They do so because all Muslims must live according to sharia law and sharia law demands - as does the Koran in many passages - that Muslims must, as much as possible, stop themselves from being polluted by the 'unbeliever'. So Peter Sutherland must know that the homogeneity he wants may very well end in civil war, inter-communal violence and a distinct lack of homogeneity.
And just when you think that Peter Sutherland couldn't say anything more extreme and obscene, he also says that there should be a "shift from states selecting migrants to migrants selecting states".
Here's more politics from Peter 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 radical imams, more Muslim terrorists, more Roma criminals, more economic migrants, more Arab/north African/Egyptian doctors to carry out FGM, etc., then we risk not being a “tolerant, open society”. That is, we risk losing our tolerance and openness if we don't import foreign intolerance and criminality. In other words, Sutherland's 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 – as well as 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 stats and arguments in support of immigration (though not in support of mass immigration) may be true, but when multicults and the pro-immigration zealots voice any stats and arguments, you simply must beware. Since ideology and politics drives many of these people, it's safer not to believe them. Apart from all that, none of the economic arguments for mass immigration work anyway!
Two Bogus Arguments for Mass Immigration
In order to legitimize these political experiments in mass immigration, Peter Sutherland knows he must rely on suspect economic arguments. For example, there's the old 'aging-population' theory (the “pensions gap”). Apart from the fact that there are over a million unemployed recent (!) immigrants in the UK (600,00 recent immigrants from Europe alone, as well as a 80% rate of unemployment, to take just one example, of Somalis), as well as many native unemployed, Sutherland argues that mass immigration is"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 most don't!
In addition to that, the amount of children native peoples are having is, in fact, sustainable. The Cohort Fertility statistic says the the average figure of 2:0 children, across Europe, is indeed a replacement level. Consequently, most demographers agree that there is unlikely to be any population decline amongst native populations in the next few decades. Again, it's only relative to immigrant groups that the birth rate amongst indigenous populations is low. Taken on their own, there would be no big problem.
Another classic is the 'jobs-not-taken-by-Brits' one. The claim is that there are thousands of jobs which British people simply won't even consider. There are two arguments against this.
i) What is usually 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 Somalia would do them. But is that a good thing for Britain?) So here again we have pro-immigrationists saying that more immigration is a solution to a problem previous immigrants have caused. That is, an earlier batch of immigrants bring down wage levels to levels which are unacceptable to native Brits. And then pro-immigrationists say that importing yet more immigrants to do those low-wage jobs - which native Brits won't do - is the solution. But the wages are low in the first place because of immigrants!
ii) 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 simply results from the fact that many people are moving from job to job. This is also caused by “frictional unemployment” in that some jobs aren't taken up because of that movement. (Clearly, this doesn't account for the jobs not taken because the wages are so low.) So 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 easy to admit that economic arguments are never that simple and what I've just said (about the aging population and low wages) won't be that simple either. In other words, not being an economist, there may be flaws to my arguments too. Despite that, what is simple – unlike the economics - is what's happening now because of mass immigration and the fact that socially and politically – forget the economics – things are going to get a hell of a lot worse in the future.
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 these people.)
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.
Peter Sutherland at the House of Lords
This debate in the House of Lords is so fucking polite and inconsequential it makes you want to vomit! Is this the level of "heavy debate" in the Lords we hear so much about? It sounds more like a wine and cheese party or a conversation at a business lunch.
In this video Peter Sutherland says that we need more mass immigration in the UK and Europe, yet another Lord (at 5 minutes, 10 seconds) makes the true point that many immigrants don't even work! Yet instead of that being taken as a criticism of Peter Sutherland's economic views on immigration, the Right Honorable Lord seems to think that Europe and the UK needs to do something about this large-scale immigrant unemployment.
So in one breath, the Lords say we need more immigrants and do so for strictly economic reasons. And in the next breath, they also say that many immigrants are not, in fact, economically beneficial. Instead, European governments should use some positive-discrimination economics (funding, investment, etc.), as it were, to make sure immigrants are economically beneficial to the UK and Europe.
This is self-contradictory madness. However, if its not actually about economics in the first place, then that explains the madness and the obvious self-contradictions.
This is all political - from head to toe.
I made the point in the article that because economics is so complex and contains so many variables (sometimes hidden ones) that some of my own economic arguments may not be that good either – especially since I'm not an economist. But that very complexity means that, at least in theory, there could be solutions to most of our economic problems, including the pensions gaps, declining fertility, etc. That is, by rejigging the innumerable variables you can solve almost any problem – yes, if only to create another one elsewhere in the economy!
Which brings me to politics. In the end, the final arbiters have to be politics and the social implications of immigration precisely because saying that the economy needs X (e.g., more - or less! - immigration) is just too simplistic. In the end, it's the political and social reality of mass immigration that is paramount. There are always economic solutions to our problems even if other problems arise elsewhere.
I'm also well aware that the strange figure of 1.46 births – unlike the 2.0 in the article - per woman is an averaging out. Despite that, it surely means that native women must be having either one child or two children. If it means two children, then may not be such a big problem. From personal experience, almost all married couples I know have two children and sometimes more – rarely just one. (Even if they have the second child in their thirties.)
I've been aware of the problem of lower fertility rates in Europe ever since I read Mark Steyn's doom-laden, but excellent, America Alone. Despite the title, it is in fact one long book about negative European demographics. But even here everything Steyn says is in the context of the larger families of immigrants – specifically, in Mark Steyn's case, Muslim families.