In the previous article, it was argued that Human Rights legalism already meets all the criteria of a religion, and similarly, that the institutions of global capitalism are well on their way to meeting all the criteria of the sort of superstate that the European Union sought unsuccessfully to become. Further, that the Church of Human Rights, with its clergy of lawyers and its vast supporting laity both inside and outside national governments, is the established church and jesuitical instrument of the emerging global superstate. Only the residual leverage over national governments that remains in the hands of Western electorates — the vote for Brexit is a rare example — can, in theory, limit the freedom of global capitalist power. It is yet to be seen whether national governments will be willing or able to apply this kind of restraint in turn to the autonomy of international markets. If the present course of events cannot be deflected, then eventually the demographic-political model for the whole of Western Europe will be Bosnia.
“[We Europeans] still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others. And that’s precisely what the European Union […] should be doing its best to undermine”.
The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) recently chided the Australian government for its effective border protection policy, which created a migration “bottleneck” in Indonesia.
In June, 2012, the BBC reported comments made by Mr. Peter Sutherland to a House of Lords home-affairs committee. Sutherland was at that time the non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International. He is a former chairman of BP, a former Director-General of the World Trade Organization, and was appointed UN Special Representative for International Migration in January, 2006. Sutherland’s wide-ranging remarks included these:
“The United States, or Australia and New Zealand, are migrant societies and therefore they accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves [Sutherland is Irish], who 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”. 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”.
Quoting again from the BBC’s article, “Sutherland recently argued, in a lecture to the London School of Economics, of which he is chairman, that there was a “shift from states selecting migrants to migrants selecting states” and the EU’s ability to compete at a global level was at risk”.
In October, 2009, The Telegraph reported on the Blair government’s immigration policy, in an article entitled, “Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser“. It is worth quoting at length:
“The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity […] and render their arguments out of date“, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett. He said Labour’s relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to “open up the UK to mass migration” but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its “core working class vote”. As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants. Critics said the revelations showed a “conspiracy” within Government to impose mass immigration for “cynical” political reasons.
In another Telegraph article from May, 2013, the phenomenon of “white flight“, first seen in mid-20th century America, was identified in Britain. Integration, ironically and predictably, turned out to be straightforward demographic replacement.
Not that it was ever unclear who were the enemies of Europe, but authentic confirmation should never be discounted.
The scenario painted by these open conspiracies gives human rights activists the complexion of earnest dupes, easily suborned by global power-players. Noble intentions notwithstanding.
The scenario painted by these open conspiracies gives human rights activists the complexion of earnest dupes, easily suborned by global power-players. Noble intentions notwithstanding. The argument for mass migration might be less specious than it is, if it could be shown to produce the claimed economic benefits. But global capitalism, if Thomas Piketty’s magisterial analysis is to be believed, just seems to carry on regardless, evacuating the American and European middle classes. The much vaunted lifting of “hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants” out of rural poverty could mean that they have merely been delivered into urban poverty — with air pollution as a gratuity — where their concentration makes for greater efficiency of exploitation.
Viewed from these perspectives, Angela Merkel’s open invitation to Syrian migrants — and by extension, to all migrants — can be seen as ambiguous and questionable: part earnest and compassionate, part cynical and exploitative, part avoidance of international opprobrium; this last of enormous weight for a successful career politician.
Sutherland, the wannabe puppet-master and rail-roader of whole populations, would not be pleased by the popular, disobedient vote for Brexit: even though it is far more likely to produce messy common-sense adjustments to the EU’s structure, than a mutually harmful separation. Brexit probably means Fudgit.
The World Trade Organization and the European Union as its local franchisee, would share the same anti-democratic ideals. Nor are religions noted for their democratic reflexes: the case being rather, believe or be damned! So it is with the religion of human rights, whose signs, symbols and relentless proselytizing can be seen and heard everywhere. Moreover, disguised as a purely humanitarian movement, it has in particular escaped the French law on laïcité to become in effect — irony of ironies — the established religion of the Republic. A similar arrangement exists also in Germany. As the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung recently intoned, whoever has a problem with Islam, also has a problem with the Constitution. Values must be preserved, even if the Republic disappear as a consequence.
If Europe is not to end up as a kind of Bosnia-on-Rhine, it is important to show how this and worse will almost certainly eventuate, if current policies are not hardened.
Continued: “The Other Inconvenient Truth“