Migration er godt. Altid. (punktum)

Og især hvis det handler om, at få skibet negere og muhammedanere til EUSSR, kunne man tilføje.

Både Steen på Snaphanen og Kim på Uriasposten har dem, men hver for sig. De fortjener at blive læst i sammen, fordi de viser, at ideen om et samlet europa gennem opløsning og destruktion forlængste er vokset ud af infatile læse- og skriveværelser. Islam er i den forbindelse blot det opløsningsmiddel, som de ledende sociopater anvender.

Og vi minder om Eurabia konceptet, som ikke er en sammensværgelsesteori, men et kompleks af aftaler mellem EU/europæiske lande og især MENA landene, som skal føre frem til stadig højere integration, med fuldstændig integration som endemålet mellem de to. Mht hvorvidt der er tale om en sammensværgelsesteori, skal man holde sig for øje, at de der påstår dette som oftest er folk, der i øvrigt er tilhængere af mere Eurabia. Hvad vi andre, der ikke ser noget behov integration med den muhammedanske Umma siger er ikke, at der sidder en mastermind et eller andet sted og styre showet. UH kan naturligvis ikke udtale sig om hvordan andre opfatter situation, men her på hotellet er den, at eurobiaprojektet ikke drives frem af naturlige årsager (natur= ikke skabt(afmennesker)), som når et marked konsolidere sig mod færre udbydere, men udelukkende drives frem af politiske ønsker, som oftest funderet i den blå luft eller direkte sociopati. Hertil det udtalte behov for, at belyve opponenter med begreber som der ikke kan redegøres for, såsom racisme og diverse fobier og som i sidste ende tjener som redskab for, at gennemføre “tiltag” mod opponenter.

Peter Sutherland aflevere en stribe statesment’s på BBC, den britiske løgnepresses flagskib. Via Snaphanen:

Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.

He also suggested the UK government’s immigration policy had no basis in international law.

He was being quizzed by the Lords EU home affairs sub-committee which is investigating global migration.

Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development , which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.

He told the House of Lords committee 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”.

An ageing or declining native population in countries like Germany or southern EU states was the “key argument and, I hesitate to the use word because people have attacked it, for the development of multicultural states”, he added.

“It’s impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them. Just as the United Kingdom has demonstrated.”

The UN special representative on migration was also quizzed about what the EU should do about evidence from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that employment rates among migrants were higher in the US and Australia than EU countries.

He told the committee: “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, 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.”

Vi sakser Kims uddrag af en tale, som EUSSRs udenrigskommisær, Federica Mogherini, har holdt:

“I will start with an anecdote. I graduated two years before 9/11 and it was hard at that time to find a professor who would accept that political Islam could be the subject for a dissertation in political science. Italy has a great university system, but I had to go to France with the Erasmus programme to find someone who would consider Islam as a topic not for history, or literature, or cultural studies thesis, but for political science.

A lot has changed since then. In the following years the idea of a clash between Islam and ‘the West’ – a word in which everything is put together and confused – has misled our policies and our narratives. Islam holds a place in our Western societies. Islam belongs in Europe. It holds a place in Europe’s history, in our culture, in our food and – what matters most – in Europe’s present and future. Like it or not, this is the reality.

As Europeans, we should be proud of our diversity. The fear of diversity comes from weakness, not from a strong culture.

I shall be even more clear on that: the very idea of a clash of civilisations is at odds with the most basic values of our European Union – let alone with reality. Throughout our European history, many have tried to unify our continent by imposing their own power, their own ideology, their own identity against the identity of someone else. With the European project, after World War II, not only we accepted diversity: we expressed a desire for diversity to be a core feature of our Union. We defined our civilisation through openness and plurality: a mind-set based on blocs does not belong to us.

Some people are now trying to convince us that a Muslim cannot be a good European citizen, that more Muslims in Europe will be the end of Europe. These people are not just mistaken about Muslims: these people are mistaken about Europe – that is my core message – they have no clue what Europe and the European identity are. …

This is our common fight: to make this concept accepted both in Europe and beyond Europe.

For Europe and Islam face some common challenges in today’s world. The so-called Islamic State is putting forward an unprecedented attempt to pervert Islam for justifying a wicked political and strategic project. … Da’esh is Islam’s worst enemy in today’s world. Its victims are first and foremost Muslim people. Islam is a victim itself.

[…]

We need to show some humble respect for diversity. Diversity is the core feature of our European history, and it is our strength. But we should also show respect for diversity when we look outside our borders. We need to understand diversity, understand complexity. This is difficult, but maybe a bit less difficult for us Europeans. We know diversity and complexity – especially here in Brussels – from our own experience.

For this reason I am not afraid to say that political Islam should be part of the picture. Religion plays a role in politics – not always for good, not always for bad. Religion can be part of the process. What makes the difference is whether the process is democratic or not. That is what matters to us, the key point. …

Inclusiveness can be the key to our success – both when we talk foreign policy and when we deal with our home affairs. … We need to pass a cultural message, to lay the basis for our political message: any attempt to divide the peoples of Europe into ‘us’ and ‘them’ brings us in the
wrong direction. The migrants and us. The Muslims and us. The Jews and us… We learnt from our history that we all are someone else’s ‘other’. The fear of the other can only lead us to new conflicts.

I hope we can work together to increase our self confidence. When we say we are European, we should also remember what is the root of our European culture: our diversity. That is our strength, and we should learn to be proud of it.”

Der er adskillige logiske brister i spil i citaterne her. (og forvansket fakta, men det lader vi ligge)

Sutherland påstår, og får lov til det uden kritisk modspørgsmål, at heterogene samfund sikre økonomisk vækst. Det må være op til Sutherland og dem der deler påstanden, at bevise den. Der findes eksempler på, at import af mennesker har en positiv effekt, Barcelona området omkring 18/19 århundredskiftet og nu om dage Singapoore. Begge steder har der været tale om stærkt selektiv import, og konsekvent eksport af dem der ikke havde noget at byde ind med. Japan er forsat og de skandinaviske lande har været, stærkt homogene som har klaret sig ekseptionelt. Filippinerne og visse lande i sydamerika har har stærkt heterogen befolkninger, og naturressourcer i overflod, og har klaret sig ad h til. At man kan diske op med eksempler på det ene og andet, beviser nu en gang ikke noget i sig selv.

Federica Mogherini påstår (også her er det hende der så må føre et bevis) i to på hindanden følgende sætninger, at 1) årsagen til tidligere krige i europa har været forsøg på at tvinge en samling igennem, men 2) at denne gang er det nødvendigt netop for at undgå krige og 3) denne gang vil det gå godt, fordi dem der står for projektet er drevet af særligt ædle motiver og er særligt ædle mennesker, samt 4) ikke mindst har de et samarbejde med islam. Det er en logik der høre hjemme i en ægteskabelig diskussion om opvask kontra bilvask. Federica Mogherini fremtræder da også som kvinde…

Desuden; hvis projektet er så selvindlysende godt og fornuftigt, hvorfor så ikke tage debatten og beslutningen, inden projektet sættes i værk?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s