Migration and Globalism

90 second video. The full madness of the new imperialism. National leader mandates the end of national identity; sees no contradiction in mandating a society based on both shared values and diversity of views (surely, this must include about what is valuable?); patriots must be re-educated:

http://globalnews.ca/video/2340418/trudeau-says-world-migration-will-be-the-norm-not-an-exception

On the left, it is quite well understood that America and its western lieutenants have used fanatical Islam to destroy socialist or independent states - Afghanistan in the 70s & 80s, Yugoslavia in the 90s, Libya, and now Syria. No serious consideration is given to the idea that western governments are now using Islamic immigration to destroy, meaning demoralize, undermine the unity and identity and self confidence and sense of agency of, their own citizens.

Trudeau, 2015. “Canada figured out a long time ago that differences should be a source of strength, not a source of weakness and the more we can do to bring in diverse perspectives, diverse points of view, and indeed to define a country not based on a national identity or ethnicity or language or background, but on values shared by all people in our country, values of openness, respect, compassion, a willingness to work hard, the desire to be there for each other.
“It is truly how countries in this globalized world where migration and immigration is going to be the norm rather than the exception. This is a lesson that we all need to learn.”

Milosevic, 1989.

"Serbia has never had only Serbs living in it. Today, more than in the past, members of other peoples and nationalities also live in it. This is not a disadvantage for Serbia. I am truly convinced that it is its advantage. National composition of almost all countries in the world today, particularly developed ones, has also been changing in this direction. Citizens of different nationalities, religions, and races have been living together more and more frequently and more and more successfully."

Out of a mish mash of propaganda and selective moral attention in the service of geopolitical interests, what is the last 25 years of American led European political culture, described time and again in the plainest terms by American and western European leaders and elites, and promoted by every mainstream western media, with not only opponents but polite doubters demonized and dehumanized?

That all European nation states must be 'multicultural' (actually meaning, have very large Islamic - not Chinese, Hindu, Arabic Christian, other Christian European - populations); that native Europeans must at once regard this change as inevitable and assent to and agitate for government engineering to secure it; that native Europeans must self censor any preference for their own culture and people, identify this preference as retrograde and wicked, celebrate 'diversity is strength' while denying the existence of human differences, and embrace specific types of inter-racial marriage. The national borders of eastern Europe (drawn up by Hitler in Yugoslavia, and by Stalin everywhere else), and the national borders of the middle east (drawn up by the European powers in their classical imperial period), must remain intact at the cost of war and hundreds of thousands of lives, and not be peacefully changed or populations exchanged to prioritize ethnic self determination; the hidden outcome, in formerly multi ethnic states kept more or less stable by rule of law, is the domination of western favoured ethnic groups and the butchering of others.

This new morality, from the same leaders and elites who have promoted imperial war and destruction against every independent regional state which declined to become an outright slave of western interests, is promoted as a self evident good which no decent person could question, and is therefore a top down denial of human liberty in feeling and thought. What will happen when leaders and elites become more and more, like activists and journalists* and university graduates, mental products of this ideology rather than conscious exploiters of it? Perhaps this has already happened:

A short video and a glimpse into the insane mind of a lieutenant for American led globalism. German woman asks Merkel what is she doing to protect the German people and identity against domestic Islamic domination, Merkel's response is bizarre: it's Germany's fault there are terrorists; don't be afraid; Islam is part of German culture; go to church and then explain Christianity to Muslims; remember you are guilty and arrogant and must redeem yourself.

https://www.therebel.media/did_merkel_just_read_out_germany_s_suicide_note

Ordinary Europeans react to state mandated national dispossession with anger and confusion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXVycEbJn60

No establishment figure admits their domestic concerns; in international relations, leftover elites - leftover because of their attachment to the nation state and ethnic European culture - especially in Germany, like ex-Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, critique the present slow war against an independent Russia, but they may not understand that the question of national integrity and interest has been made obsolete by deference to integration with an American led global agenda.

In Hungary, the present elite does protest African and Islamic immigration, but the protest is still feeble and deferential, because it criticises dispossession without naming its state promoters, and does not clearly critique the basic pro-immigration premise - that all human cultures and races and the same and interchangeable. A critique which doesn't strongly affirm a contrary premise is more easily dismissed as reactionary and bigoted. The rest of eastern Europe, not wanting to displease the United States and Germany, needed to wait for the excuse of the Paris terror attack before suggesting it will decline to take in migrants.

To sum up,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/08/19/slovakia-will-take-in-200-syrian-refugees-but-they-have-to-be-christian/

"we're not the ones who bombed Libya", says Slovakian PM. Indeed. By means of war, Obama, the Democratic Party, and most of the real power in the Republican Party, extend something of their agenda for a globalist and minority white future America to their European vassal states; and the 'left', opposed to 'racist' ideas of nationhood and nationality and national unity and national culture, understands nothing about this novel imperialism, and only concerns itself about the 'rights of refugees'.

Personally, I prefer Assad, because sometimes, dictatorship is a better protector of liberty than democracy, and as for our British media, well - we can fairly say that maybe half, or more, the Syrian population expresses a pro Assad view that it simply ignores. Where are the interviews asking Syrian refugees, under protection of anonymity, who they blame for war or what they think about Assad?

* http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/sam-leith-after-denial-and-anger-what-next-for-the-refugees-a2928466.html

Ukraine.

 A common western cultural assumption is that: if people are protesting, it must be because they are oppressed. Therefore western leaders are careful to describe war in Ukraine as a question of a bullying big Russia and a plucky violated Ukraine, and not as modestly equipped rebels fighting defensively for self determination against central government.

In multi ethnic and federal communist states, communist ideology held that, to prevent 'domination' by the largest ethnic republic and to engineer 'brotherhood and unity', internal borders should not reflect ethnicity. For example, in communist era Yugoslavia, over a million Serbs found themselves living in majority Serb areas, but outside the borders of Serbia. The borders between the various Yugoslav republics were artificial and internal administrative borders, but borders, in the war years of the 1990s, which Washington strategists and politicians insisted on maintaining, on the declared basis that borders are inviolate and that nations must be multicultural and multiracial.

In the former Yugoslavia, Bosnian, Croatian, and Kosovan ethnic leaders selected by and loyal to Washington received massive military aid, silenced any co-ethnic opposition or voices for dialogue and peace, slaughtered or expelled Serb ethnic minorities, and came to control the largest possible geographical space. The largest American military bases in the world are now in Kosovo and Bosnia. Bosnia is split entirely in two between a Muslim and Serb sector, and ruled by an American selected UN overlord, but the Serb sector is not allowed to reunify with Serbia, which it borders.

East Ukraine is Russian. Re-unification with Russia would make a very just resolution to civil war. If this is not achieved, it is only a matter of time until the larger, and directly USA backed Kiev forces, push out rebel groups and millions of refugees flee to Russia, in a parallel fashion to the 1995 Croatian Operation Storm, planned by American generals, and which expelled hundreds of thousands of Serbs.

Recent precedent and history has no place in the western version of events. Ideology moves forward in a straight line, the past is something tainted that should be left behind. There is only a mish mash of 'European integration', 'globalism' and 'multiculturalism': ethnic self determination is a racist evil; non-allied nations which seek to maintain their separate identity are suspect. The ideas of the past do not need to be engaged with, only rejected or ignored, and those who will not reject, must be damned.

When narratives that support western allies must be promoted, but the truth about these allies would undermine public assent, facts are also disregarded, or awarded secondary moral importance. For example, a research article on the rise of and Kiev government backing for outright fascist groups in Ukraine starts with a  qualifying paragraph reminding the reader that anything Russian is a ridiculous lie, and that what follows about Ukraine are only 'traits' and 'tendencies'. That's the worst part - a research article, but the writer won't present his research until he says 'I'm a good boy really, I told them Russia is the nasty one!' 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nikolas-kozloff/note-to-ukraine-stop-whit_b_6535316.html 

The BBC specializes in publishing review articles which confine themselves to the limits of and so reinforce a Nato moral narrative, the one where there is no what happened before, and where things were just fine until some dictator suddenly committed abuses to rouse western 'concern'. For example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30278606 

'Russia badly overplayed its hand last year when it tried to bring Ukraine into the Eurasian Union against the passionate opposition of many Ukrainians.'

The first paragraph is duplicitous. Russia did not bring Ukraine into any such union, the Ukrainian parliament decided upon a favourable package of economic aid and agreements. Certainly many Ukrainians opposed the decision, but there is no evaluation of what percentage, and no acknowledgement that many supported this. A gross omission is the lack of historical context that Ukraine was already a country divided into opposed and geographically cohesive blocs - and lack of reference to American interference and support for the violent overthrow of an elected government.

 

'The European Union is now risking the same thing by trying to bring Ukraine into the West without reference to economic reality or the willingness of European publics to bear the enormous costs involved, and at a time when the EU itself is in deepening crisis.'

The second paragraph refers to western actions of well over a year ago as if they had just occurred, exculpating the west of any responsibility for the pro-EU / NATO coup in Kiev and for the present civil war. There is no consideration of any costs to Ukraine, only of costs to Europe.

However, with the EU the subject of the sentence now and not Russia, the writer swaps the language of malign domination of one country by another for the neutral language of economic calculus (and by juxtaposition, benign intention). Russia the bellicose actor, the west the peaceful responder. The propaganda is first rate.

They asked that their government help

Those brave people

They read were fighting dictatorship

The government had already been helping

And now spoke out in public

Those who asked were reassured

When they looked again

They saw those brave people

Kill hundreds and say 'no' to millions

This time, they didn't ask anything of the government

The dead confused them

They didn't want to wonder if those brave people were dictators

If they themselves had been comfortable fools

And least of all

That their government was the dictatorship.

 

Rotherham.

Once again it is the Daily Mail, in reality the only popular newspaper which would give a foreigner some idea about everyday life in the UK, that publishes full details of council and police complicity in Pakistani sex gang abuses.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2939129/Two-local-councillors-corrupt-police-officer-accused-having-sex-victims-Rotherham-abuse-scandal.html
 
The strength of self censorship and fear of being labelled 'racist' in the UK can be heard here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-31130750 

In a 3 minute interview with the BBC, Louise Casey, the chief author of the report which condemns Rotherham Council and Police, does not mention the word 'Pakistani' once. When asked why local authorities so failed, she can only manage a vague and coded *an issue of not being comfortable dealing with race and ethnicity*. 

In the same way as politicians and media were so reluctant to use the word Asian and then even more reluctant to use the words Muslim and Pakistani, the identity of the abuser group is generalized out of existence. Worse still, local institutional failings are explained by reference to a supposed lack of familiarity with race, rather than by a preoccupation with race and by reference to the corrupting effect of a fanatical anti racist ideology which over decades meant that police and council members and employees did nothing to stop the enslavement of thousands of white children.

Not an old story but an ongoing phenomenon all over Britain despite mass media attention and criminal convictions. White child sex slaves, Pakistani Muslim Sex Gangs, complicit councils and state institutions. Driven by an unwillingness to offend Pakistani voters, and by an ideology of anti-racism which demands that selected ethnic minorities should be thought of as victims and never abusers in minority-white relations, local democracy leaves no consideration for the human rights of non-Pakistanis, and the government mandated solution is dictatorship.