Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Obama v Putin - A Conscious Uncoupling Or Abdication?

Nothing generates more pity than seeing something that was once noble and respected reduced to a beaten, humiliated mockery of its former self. The pathos is not shared by everyone however as the humiliated party often has plenty of enemies who rejoice at the fall from grace.  

Like the bull awaiting the tercio de muerte after hours of torment in the bullring, President Barack Obama and the United States of America are in the final stages of destruction, joining Great Britain among those once great nations that have descended first into mediocrity then into degradation followed finally by cultural oblivion.

What makes the fall of these nations more pitiful is that it was not brought about by external enemies bent on military conquest but slowly and deliberately by internal enemies bent on ideological conquest on their enemies' behalf.

It amounts to the same thing; the culture, the way of life and the very standards of civilisation are irrevocably changed for the worse and downgraded for the majority of citizens.

If revenge is a dish best served cold then this particular offering is at absolute zero. Having put down his internal enemies and rebuilt his military strength, President Putin set about restoring his beloved Russia's former glory. To an experienced political operator like Vladimir Putin, the advent of the Obama administration was like a gift from Heaven after the Reagan/Thatcher era with their defeat of communism and consequential fall of the Russian empire.

President Obama's recent press conference in Antalya, Turkey was so inept and embarrassing it confirmed once and for all that he has conceded America's global leadership in the various spheres of influence to Putin and Xi Jinpin of China, especially the volatile middle east.
(Watch it here with a transcript here)

This abdication of America's traditional global role is by design as opposed to a failure to act in response to events.

His words and actions from the beginning of his Presidency, along with those of his wife, Michelle, demonstrated their hatred primarily of white people but also of the United States of America itself, together with it's history, it's Judeo-Christian heritage and it's way of life. They are dedicated to the destructive teachings of Saul Alinsky and Marx as opposed to individual liberty and the free enterprise system espoused by the Founding Fathers.

As the 'apology tour' confirmed, they do not believe in American exceptionalism, rather that America is evil and the root cause of the world's problems. As a consequence he has devoted his entire Presidency to the now infamous 'fundamental transformation' of America.

Obama and his handlers deliberately conceded the global leadership role in order to give total focus to the destruction of the United States and its replacement with an egalitarian, downgraded nation where the instruments that made America free and prosperous at home and envied abroad were erased.

Instruments such as Christianity, democratic government, free enterprise and the Constitution to name but a few.

The most shameful behaviour of Obama and his administration is the consummation of their hatred of white people using phony movements such as 'black lives matter' and 'white privilege' while excusing the overtly racist antics of organisations such as the Nation of Islam, the New Black Panthers and the Church of Jeremiah Wright.

When Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, presented her counterpart with a plastic toy reset button to indicate the administration's new direction for Russo-American relations, one could not only sense the embarrassment in the room at such a juvenile publicity stunt but it also confirmed to Putin and the Russians that this administration is not serious.

It only got worse when John Kerry replaced Clinton as Secretary of State. What did the administration imagine Putin and the rest of the world were thinking when Kerry outdid the banality of the reset button by co-opting superannuated crooner James Taylor to sing "You've Got A Friend" to the French nation who were recently traumatised by the Charlie Hebdo massacre?

In conclusion its worth noting that in past years the first contact after a serious national tragedy would have been the President of United States but after the recent Paris massacre President Hollande contacted President Putin first, followed by a meeting with Obama pencilled in for next week.

This suggests that President Obama has indeed abdicated the role of free world leader in order to dedicate the remaining months of his Presidency to finishing off the fundamental transformation of America from greatness into mediocrity


Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Paris Slaughter - The Real Guilty People Will Go Unpunished

When the class bully made it known he was going to give me a beating on the way home after school I believed him for the simple reason he had done it before to others. He never made idle threats for effect or to instill fear or for reasons of ego or bravado. Whatever his reason he always dished out the beating as promised.

Bearing in mind the fanatical commitment to their cause, along with their history of following through on their threats of violence, when radical Islamists threaten to bring their jihad to Europe, America and the rest of the civilised world, it would be the height of irresponsibility not to take them seriously.

As recently as a week ago they were using social media to announce that not only were they going to bring their jihad to Europe, they would use the the so called 'refugee crisis' as a Trojan Horse to smuggle in their fighters to join the thousands of home grown fanatics already embedded.

To avoid a beating I took an alternative route home which was used by a rival gang who were no friends of the school bully. In other words I took the threat seriously and as a result took positive action and used a superior force to save my skin.

While the civilised world joined the French people to mourn the deaths their innocent compatriots, the guilty leaders who's refusal to take action to protect their citizens in the face of threats facilitated the atrocity.

Their reaction to the merciless slaying of their citizens is depressingly predictable; the perfunctory trotting out of the usual spin doctor authored platitudes.

In the recent past we heard the same platitudes trotted out after the Ottowa Parliament atrocity and again after the Lindt cafe in Sydney, Australia; they were broken out again and dusted down for use after the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris.

With minor variations it's the usual litany of soundbites: 'sympathy for the victims, dastardly acts, savagery, extremist minority, nothing to do with Islam, shoulder to shoulder with our staunch ally, no stone left unturned to bring the perpetrators to justice' etc.etc. ad nauseam.

These platitudes will be returned to the shelf ready to be brought out and used again after the next atrocity with the name of the town, city or country altered accordingly.

The guilty people who's agenda driven inaction facilitated this atrocity and who's hands are soaked in innocent blood are:

German Chancellor, Angela Merkel

French President, Francois Hollande

British Prime Minister, David Cameron

European Union President, Jean-Claude Junker

Another EU President, Donald Tusk

UN Special Representative for Migration, Peter Sutherland

Aided and abetted by the President of The United States, Barack Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry, along with all the right-on celebrities and their dumbed down followers who agitate for open borders.

They will take no practical steps to protect their citizens from murder and mayhem by radical Muslims if it compromises the projects to which they are totally committed and which they have sworn to complete.

With the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, the transfer of sovereignty from the democratically elected parliaments of the nation states of Europe to the appointed bureaucrats of the European Union is for all intents and purposes complete.

The cultural replacement agenda to create a generic European citizen, loyal to the EU as opposed to the individual nation states, is effected by imposed 'multi-culturalism' which is continuing apace. Open border mass immigration and the so called 'refugee crisis' is a visible manifestation of this perverted project.

To the obvious glee of the UN's ethnic cleanser, Peter Sutherland, the souls of the murdered innocents had barely departed before Merkel, Junker and Tusk confirmed that this atrocity will not stop, slow down or hinder in any way the open border mass immigration disaster currently engulfing the peoples of Europe, including unvetted refugees from Syria.

David Cameron and Francois Hollande are the junior team with regard to the others and they will duly trot out similar sentiments as the tragedy is slowly replaced in the news cycle.

If proof were needed that a parallel fundamental transformation is continuing apace in the USA; President Obama steadfastly refuses to enact border controls and against the advise of the intelligence and military experts, his administration will go ahead regardless of the danger and welcome tens of thousands of Syrian refugees in addition to giving amnesty to millions illegal immigrants by Executive Order.

In conclusion, it's worth adding that in a display of utter contempt for their vulnerable citizens and the victims of the latest outrage; despite all agreeing that further attacks are inevitable these same politicians will be indulging in an expensive jamboree in Paris, of all places, to proclaim that the biggest threat to our safety and security is climate change, with the imposition of global socialism as the only possible solution.

Citizens of the civilised world beware, hang on to your heads and your wallets because both sets of criminals are coming for you.

Monday, November 16, 2015

Hollande: Revenge Without Mercy But Labels Netanyahu A Terrorist

Apart from the Israeli President, Benyamin Netanyahu, Russian President, Vladimir Putin and to some extent German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, the current batch of world leaders are not only weak and indecisive but hypocritical in the extreme; it must also be noted that we the people must bear some of the responsibility for voting them into power.

While civilised people across the world mourn the victims of the Paris atrocity and express sympathy with their loved ones, one mustn't lose sight of the fact that this outrage was thoroughly predictable. It happened because the leaders of the so called 'free world' - especially the leaders of the European Union - put their fundamental transformation agenda before the safety and security of their respective citizens.

In pursuance of their United States of Europe and its new citizen, which is being created using imposed multi-cuturalism, these leaders have adopted anti-citizen positions, along with high moral stances, as they lecture and bully their respective populations into acquiescence.

In Europe there is no one more risible or hypocritical than French President Francois Hollande. A doctrinaire socialist, he adopts all the positions of the 'progressive' left including punitive taxes (seventy-five percent for the 'rich'), expanding welfare entitlements and dependency, EU integration, climate change, multi-culturalism, phony pacifism and most importantly the visceral hatred of Israel and the Jewish people.

Listening to the war-like language issuing forth from Hollande after the Paris massacre, one would be forgiven for confusing this Hollande with the one that regularly excoriates Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu for defending his people against the daily onslaught of the murderous Hamas and other Islamic terrorist groups.

Now that the Muslim jihad has arrived on the shores of France, it appears to be acceptable to promise a war of revenge, executed without mercy, upon inhuman barbarians regardless of the high possibility of collateral damage to innocent civilians.

One has to remember the reaction by Hollande and the rest of the world leaders - including President Obama and John Kerry - when Netanyahu defended his people against the four thousand rockets fired into Israel from Gaza which deliberately targeted innocent civilians.

Taking out the rocket launching sites and the terrorists snatch squads who used tunnels to abduct and butcher innocent Israeli citizens was labelled 'disproportionate' and Netanyahu was harassed on a daily basis by Hollande and the rest to 'show restraint' while protecting his citizens.

After the Charlie Hebdo atrocity in Paris, Hollande invited the Palestinian Authority terrorist leader Mahmoud Habbas for the solidarity 'Je Suis Charlie' photo shoot but publicly displayed his contempt for Israel and the Jewish people by snubbing Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Along with the rest of the cowardly EU leadership, Hollande is at the forefront of the various campaigns to isolate Israel including the vile Boycott, Disinvest and Sanctions favoured by the ever-so-trendy celebrity community and their army of useful idiots.

While Israel is roundly condemned for building a security wall to protect itself against the same savages that attacked France, front line EU countries are erecting security barriers of razor wire to protect themselves against terrorist incursion during the phony 'refugee crisis' without comment.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds when terrorists bring their murder and mayhem onto home soil.

Since the leaders of the free world, including the USA and the EU, are standing by and supporting France as it executes its 'war of revenge, waged without mercy', upon the Muslim 'barbarians' of ISIS, it is now incumbent upon these same leaders to give equal support to Israel and its Prime Minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, who are the biggest victims of Islamic terrorism on the planet bar none.    

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Lost Briton Of Gitmo - A Saudi Citizen Who Refused Release Twice

While the British political class pat themselves on the back in congratulations and wealthy right-on celebrities quaff champagne to celebrate the release of the so-called last British inmate of Guantanamo Bay, a Mr.Shaker Aamer; his lawyers will be preparing the inevitable lawsuit to relieve the British taxpayers of millions of their hard earned money in compensation.

If Mr. Aamer is a victim of an injustice by the representatives of the British people then his millions will be deserved; but, however one looks at the entire saga something stinks to high heaven. It is only right and proper therefore that before the British taxpayers hand over their hard earned cash they get an explanation for some of the more incredulous actions and behaviors of Mr. Aamer and the governments involved.

The deceit begins right off the bat when the government-media complex initially kept referring to Mr. Aamer as British or a Briton. That was a deliberate distortion,  known in the real world as an outright lie. He is, in fact, a Saudi Arabian citizen given leave to remain in Great Britain by virtue of his marriage to Zin Siddique, a British documented Muslim.

Born in Medina, the second holiest Islamic site on the planet and burial site of their prophet Mohammad, Shaker Aamer would unlikely be a common or garden Muslim but most likely a fervent adherent of the virulent Wahhabi strain that is financing mosque building and organising jihad across the civilised world.

As the story goes Aamer was educated in various middle eastern countries, followed by the USA and Europe and therein lies the first question; how does a seventeen year old from a fractured family in a medieval country organise travel, accommodation, education and the required finance of such, thousands of miles from home in the developed world?

Following on from his education and global travel, Aamer finds himself in London and establishes residency by marriage to the aforementioned Ms.Siddique. The narrative continues that the Aamer family, now four strong with another on the way, are happy, contented and settled. So settled was Mr.Aamer he was in the process of applying for British citizenship.

Meanwhile half a world away in Afghanistan the medieval savages of the Taliban and al-Qaeda are in full bloodletting mode, mutilating and butchering all and sundry for the pettiest of crimes, including dancing and flying kites, as they imposed their brutal Islamic regime.

Also at this time the world was holding its breath in trepidation as the United States was about to unleash hell fire on Afghanistan to root out and destroy the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Incredulously, we are being asked to believe that Shaker Aamer abandoned his application for British citizenship and sacrificed his career as an Arabic interpreter, to uproot his pregnant wife and their children from the safety of London to work for an Islamic charity in about-to-be bombed Afghanistan where Arabs are treated with suspicion by the locals.

It needs to be verified to the British taxpayers, the name of the charity, how was it financed and by who, and what did this charity work entail?

The Aamer family reportedly traveled unmolested between towns and places with names that curdle the blood of westerners. Places such as, Kandahar, Jalalabad and Tora Bora, fearsome places that were war torn, lawless and infested with brutal Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters.

Bearing in mind the Taliban/al-Qaeda attitude to Great Britain and the west, how was this unmolested travel accomplished by a British resident with his British wife and his British kids in tow?

Captured by the Northern Alliance allies while trying to cross into Pakistan, Aamer was handed over to the US military who suspected he was an al-Qaeda operative involved in recruitment, financing and planning.

The veracity of the evidence against Shaker Aamer, and whether it was gathered using torture is for the legal experts to verify and for the politicians to decide if he is safe to release.

The main stream media narrative is that the evil Americans were holding an innocent Brit in appalling conditions either to save face because the lack of evidence indicated incompetence or because he harboured sensitive information about both the British and American intelligence communities and their methods.

If that is the case, why did the British government lobby Presidents Bush and Obama for his release?

Increasing numbers of people do not believe Aamer's incredible explanation for his presence in Afghanistan. Also, they want to know why the British government lobbied for the release of a Saudi citizen but joined the European Arrest Warrant which has left British citizens languishing in appalling conditions in foreign jails without evidence and for issues that are not offences in Great Britain.

The questions accumulate but the government remains silent and will most likely declare the American and British intelligence services guilty of abusing Mr.Aamers' human rights and hand over a shed load of taxpayer's money then hope the issue will go away.

The truth is that eight years of his incarceration were voluntary, President Bush offered to release him to his native Saudi Arabia in 2007 and President Obama did the same in 2009, both offers he refused to accept.

He had committed no crimes in SA and it appears he was not wanted for any crime or misdemeanour against the country or Islam.

His marriage to a foreigner is being used as an excuse because her status would prevent her living in SA (it didn't prevent an infidel like me from living there but I digress). However one would think that Zin Siddique's status could be rearranged at government level so that Shaker Aamer could be freed from the hell hole in Guantanamo Bay and his family could be reunited at last and live happily ever after, not in the bacon and beer culture of Great Britain but in the spiritual home of their religion.


Tuesday, November 10, 2015

Tom And Dick

Five weeks down since hand surgery and recovery is on track; slowly regaining the use of my fingers.

Still unable to type with more than one finger but hopefully I will be able to put my own socks on in the near future. I'm disappointed that I'm missing all the big stories at this critical moment in history. Hanging in there.

Thanks for your understanding and messages.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

The UN And Cultural Genocide - The Puppet And The Puppet Master

Let's be clear and unequivocal from the outset, an integral part of the post war reordering of the planet by both the United Nations and the European Union includes the removal from power and influence of predominately white people who share a Judeo-Christian heritage.

It should be obvious by now that the so called refugee crisis which has dominated the global bought-and-paid-for media has been long in planning; it has been brilliantly coordinated and flawlessly executed.

This mass influx of third world, mainly Muslim, economic migrants into Europe combined with imposed quotas for each country guarantees that the generational project to replace the individual cultures of the European nation states, along with their Judeo-Christian heritages, with artificially constructed 'multi-cultural societies' will pass the tipping point and become irreversible. 

Even now as the truth emerges that only one in five of those swarming into Europe are refugees fleeing the Syrian civil war - the rest being economic migrants from a variety of countries and continents including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Africa - they persist with calling it 'the refugee crisis'.

One only has to follow the agenda of the de facto world government at the UN, along with its European subsidiary in Brussels, to see this tragedy for what it is. It also reveals the callousness and the fanaticism of the key players along with the depths they will plummet to achieve their goal.

The UN/EU bureaucrats and their propaganda machine use the politically correct term of 'unhomogenising' to describe their cultural replacement agenda. To that end they dispatched their super bureaucrat and senior Bilderberger, Peter Sutherland, to tour the capitals and legislatures of Europe advising the various political establishments to "undermine national homogeneity".
(See here)

Even by the UN's own criteria this undermining of national homogeneity is in fact cultural genocide, at least within the spirit of its Articles and Declarations.
(See here)

Great Britain's Prime Minister, David Cameron, is the archetypal modern politician. He possesses all the attributes he needs to deceive enough of the electorate into believing he represents their interests and can be trusted with their safety and well being.

In actuality Cameron is a self confessed 'progressive' who is totally dedicated to the UN and the EU, along with their cultural replacement agenda. He represents the UN and the EU in the Westminster Parliament, not the British people.

When UN or EU bureaucrats make any demand on Cameron, whether it be increased contributions, an increase in immigrant quotas or welfare entitlement policy, he makes an initial high visibility pretence at being tough for the benefit of his home audience before quietly complying at some later date.

Instead of asking the obvious questions regarding the unhomogenising propaganda of Peter Sutherland and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Cameron merely repeats their nonsense, almost by rote.

( David Cameron on unhomogenising here)

Sutherland and the UN/EU propaganda machine push the line that the future progress, security and and prosperity of the British people, and those of the other European nation states, is being hindered by their lack of diversity and their homogeneous, mono-cultural societies.

This justification for cultural genocide of the nations that advanced civilisation from the dark ages to the modern world, raises multiple questions that need to be addressed by Ban Ki-moon, Peter Sutherland, David Cameron along with all the other advocates of the UN/EU cultural replacement agenda.

If progress, security and prosperity is impossible to achieve in the homogeneous, mono-cultural nations of Europe, how is it that the same doesn't apply to homogeneous, mono-cultural nations such as Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Ban Ki-moon's own country of South Korea?

Also, if these same immigrants are essential for the future prosperity of the developed world, how is it that their home countries have not progressed but remain backwards and undeveloped?

It is now universally accepted that imposed multi-culturalism using open border mass immigration has been a complete and utter disaster for the peoples of Great Britain and Europe. Cameron, Sutherland et al, need to explain how tens of thousands of impoverished, crime ridden, welfare funded, mono-cultural ghettos, with their violent turf wars could possibly be vital for the security or the future prosperity of the European people?

How can the barbaric customs of incompatible, backward cultures from the undeveloped, uncivilised world add anything to western civilisation let alone guarantee their future security and prosperity?

How can importing female genital mutilation, paedophilia, incest, child marriage, honour killings, spousal abuse, homophobia, beheading and mutilation complement British or European culture?

How can Sharia law or the violent exhortations to dominate all other cultures, as written in the Koran, be compatible with the European people, their way of life or their Judeo-Christian heritage?

They are obviously not compatible and never will be therefore the UN/EU elites have decided, without consultation, that Islam will gradually supersede the Judeo-Christian heritages of Europe as part of their cultural replacement agenda.
(Listen to David Cameron on Islamification here)

If, as the UN and the EU claim, that this is a humanitarian crisis of Biblical proportions, why is it that the burden is being put solely on the people of Europe and the Anglosphere to take the brunt of it?

Admittedly it was exacerbated by western interference, but this remains a Middle Eastern problem concerning mainly people of the Muslim faith, therefore why aren't the oil rich countries of the Middle East, including the Gulf States, dealing with it or at the very least alleviating the suffering of their coreligionists?

Why is the UN's Ban Ki-moon putting pressure on Europe and not the rest of the nations that make up his organisation to take their 'fair share' of refugees?

Why is Saudi Arabia offering to fund mosque building in Germany and Europe but refusing to take their fair share of immigrants or to fund their rehabilitation in Europe?

The answers are blindingly obvious; the cultural genocide by mass immigration being imposed by the UN/EU has caused opposition to the European project putting it's continuation at risk. The lack of democratic means to address this disaster has seen an increase in violence and the rise of patriotic and nationalist parties.

This threat to their generational project was viewed with horror by the UN/EU elites with the distinct possibility that their prize could be lost at this late stage. Something needed to be done to push cultural replacement past the tipping point and what better way was there than opening the borders to all and sundry.

The usual tactic of demonisation and smear is being deployed with venom against any person or party that questions or opposes this cultural genocide and open border mass immigration. The rising tide of opposition is being labelled as the rise of the 'far right' and adherents are smeared as bigots, fascists, xenophobes and Islamophobes along with the overused but predictable favourite 'racist'.

Everyone outside of the agenda driven, global 'progressive' establishment, along with their collaborators in the media and the self loathing community, see this crisis for what it is; a deliberate and final push by the UN/EU to replace the successful, centuries old Judeo-Christian cultures of Great Britain and Europe while downgrading the standards of civilisation with the intention of finalising their project to impose the equality of nations and cultures.

Thursday, September 10, 2015

Refugee 'Crisis' - UN Bigwigs Break Cover To Assist The EU Power Grab

The infamous quote "never let a crisis go to waste" has been attributed to various political players including Sir Winston Churchill, anti-American revolutionary Saul Alinsky and latterly Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel when he was an integral part of the Obama political machine. Whatever the context they used, the interpretation is unambiguous; any crisis, no matter how small or what it is, can be used to gain political advantage or to advance a particular cause.

The current so called 'crisis' involving refugees, whether it is genuine or deliberately engineered, will not go to waste by either the European Union ruling bureaucrats or their masters at the UN de facto world government in New York.

Unelected EU President, Jean Claude Junker, is milking it for all it's worth in order to accumulate more power over the individual states especially concerning control over their borders. Not only is he imposing refugee quotas on the individual states using something called  the Common Asylum Policy, he is unilaterally changing international law by altering the criteria which defines refugee status.

This is draconian even for an unelected dictator like Junker. Anyone looking for work will now be considered as a refugee as opposed to someone fleeing war or persecution. This act alone opens the borders to practically the whole world.

The action by Junker is most likely to counter the fact that a person's status changes from refugee to economic migrant the moment they voluntarily cross a border from a safe haven country as most of these migrants have done from Turkey, Greece, Cyprus and Italy. It would be illegal for genuine refugees to proceed further without registration in the first safe country.

This unauthorised movement across borders would have the effect of re-defining and downgrading the so-called 'refugee crisis' into one of economic migration and welfare colonialism.

Add the redefinition of refugee status to President Junker's intention to use the state of individual economies for quota allocation, Great Britain will be in his cross-hairs by virtue of its economy being not quite as bankrupt as Greece or the other EU members outside of Germany. Junker's personal hatred of Great Britain and its people will guarantee a quota far exceeding that of which it is capable of absorbing.

With the serial appeaser David Cameron as their Prime Minister, the British people had better prepare themselves for yet another deluge of economic migrants and welfare colonists.

In his usual attempt to appear tough before the people, Prime Minister, David Cameron stated that Great Britain will not be subject to the Common Asylum Policy or Junker's quota's and announced that he would accept five thousand Syrian refugees directly from camps in Lebanon.

After an application of pressure from President Junker, along with that of German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, the Labour Party, the tedious professional do-gooder Bob Geldof and a selection of other British celebrities, David Cameron caved in within hours with a subsequent announcement that Great Britain will now be accepting twenty thousand immigrants for starters.

Incidentally, one celebrity has past form with regard to Syrian refugees; the notorious champagne socialist Emma Thompson has led another protest to the Prime Minister demanding an increase in the numbers of Syrians admitted into Great Britain.

This is the same Emma Thompson that protested against the building of a Tesco grocery store near her residence because it would 'alter its village atmosphere' along with the horrific prospect that 'the underpaid Tesco staff would not fit it with the local residents'.
( See here and here)

If the British people have reason to worry that they are about to suffer another deluge of economic migrants then this would be further justified by the intervention of the UN in the form of its Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon and his malevolent enforcer Peter Sutherland.

Judging by the attitude and actions of both the EU and the UN toward the British people, their culture, their Judeo-Christian heritage and their way of life it is plainly obvious that these institutions and their leaders are determined to bring about their erasure and their replacement with a so called 'multi-cultural society'.

In what is becoming a mantra similar to taxing the the rich, both the UN and the EU demand that everyone should take their 'fair share' of Syrian immigrants. In an interview with British television Ban Ki-moon is arguing that Great Britain 'should do much more' to alleviate the 'refugee crisis'.

He is deliberately ignoring the fact that Great Britain has been changed beyond recognition by a population increase of eight million since Tony Blair obeyed the UN and EU bureaucrats and opened the borders to mass immigration in 1997.

That's 8,000,000 consisting mainly of immigrants and their offspring from the undeveloped and uncivilised world. Although this has been an unmitigated disaster for the British people and their way of life, it has progressed the UN/EU agenda of replacing Great Britain's culture, heritage and way of life with a mythical 'multi-cultural society' by leaps and bounds.

Does the influx of six hundred and thirty-six thousand immigrants (636,000) last year alone constitute a fair share?

A thoroughly evil piece of work, Peter Sutherland is Ban Ki-moon's Special Representative for Migration. He is a life-long super bureaucrat who was also a former unelected European Union Commissioner, the former Director General of GATT then the WTO. He is currently Chairman of Goldman-Sachs International and the London School of Economics.

Sutherland is totally committed to the replacement of British culture and its Judeo-Christian heritage and he works tirelessly to bring it about. He has toured the capitals of Europe and addressed the British Parliament, and also the obsessively secret Bilderberg group, preaching his destructive message. He has even appeared on the BBC to urge the EU leaders to 'undermine national homogeneinty'.
(See here and here)

According to this monster the future of Great Britain and Europe depends on them replacing their cultures with 'multi-cultural societies'; how they became some of the greatest, civilised nations on earth before the influx of incompatible economic migrants and welfare colonists he doesn't explain.

Both Ban Ki-moon and Peter Sutherland need to explain the contradiction of why the great civilisations of Great Britain and Europe must erase their cultures to survive when Ban Ki-moon's native South Korea is the most homogeneous nation on the planet while at the same time being one of the most prosperous.

They also need to explain how many refugees from the current 'crisis' will be journeying to South Korea. Likewise the homogeneous countries of Japan, China, Saudi Arabia etc.

In conclusion: it must be accepted that both the EU and the UN are using this so called 'crisis' to further their agendas which consist of replacing the cultures and Judeo-Christian heritage in Europe to facilitate the creation of a generic European citizen and for the UN to create an egalitarian planet based on equality of nations, cultures and people.