The most effective way to conquer and colonize a people is to strip them of their identity as a people, as a distinctive culture and as a sovereign nation, and to delegate the wet work to a Puppet Intelligentsia. Like the Jews (Kapos) of the Warsaw ghetto whom the Nazis appointed to manage an orderly genocide, this contemptible class of rootless cosmopolitans, with media collusion, then set to work in convincing a new generation that they are part of a greater whole, a noble international enterprise, an empire, and that allegiance to the land of their forefathers is parochial, anachronistic, selfish and ‘nativist’. No sooner did we throw off the shackles of our infantile self-image as British ‘subjects’ when now, we are intoned to become “citizens of the world”. But we are not citizens in a global participatory democracy, but the passive consumers of global capitalism. In the name of diversity were are seeing what is left of our identity tossed into a global blender, with the left is calling it international workers solidarity. Face it. What we are witnessing is an invasion, and multiculturalism is just a useful smokescreen.
Pandering to the people vs.
Pandering to the Growth Lobby How typical of the New York Times. One would think this was written by the CBC.
Instead of discussing the dangers that Islamic fundamentalism poses to western democracies who have opened their doors to mass immigration from Islamic countries, this journalist focuses on the restraint of Sweden's Prime Minister in responding to the recent bombing attempt by an Iraqi-born terrorist. ("Sweden's Near Miss" http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/opinion/14tue4.html ). Note how he characterizes those who oppose this policy:
"......the misleadingly named Sweden Democrats, an anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim party of the extreme right."
"Center-right politicians elsewhere in Europe — France and the Netherlands, for example — have been quick to pander to similar xenophobic parties and their supporters."
This is the standard analysis of PC journalism. "Anti-immigration" is conflated with "anti-immigrant" and those who would defend national sovereignty and the cultural heritage of their own country are "xenophobic" and of the "extreme right".
By what measure of inverse reasoning do the politically correct regard politicians who defer to theopinions of the electorate as somehow "undemocratic"? How is bowing to public pressure seen as "pandering", but bowing to the pressures of cheap labour employers for open immigration as "statesmanship"?
Most governments are puppets of the growth lobby. Rather than confess their collusion with the Ponzi population agenda, these puppets dress it up as a noble act of responsible statecraft. They call it "tolerance", a respect for "diversity", "the rule of law". Whose law? The law of the people, or the law of their so-called "representatives"?
Wars are fought with euphemisms
Political wars, like those fought by armies, are waged and rationalized by the use of euphemisms. It is critically important to frame the battle in terms that will win public support. The Japanese did not define their aggression in 1941 as a naked grab for oil in the Dutch East Indies, but as a project to establish a South East Asian "Co-Prospertiy Sphere". The Bush administration, similarly, did not describe the war against Iraq as a war to secure oil supplies but as a war against terrorism. The annals of colonial conquest are replete with this kind of spin. What is even more advantageous for the invader though, is to convince those who have been invaded that their subjugation is in their own interests. If the conquered can believe that they are actually being "liberated", then the task of exploitation is rendered so much easier. A proven technique is to reward the ruling class of the conquered territory with junior-partner status for their valuable role in helping to manage and channel popular dissent along ineffectual paths. The Vichy regime was a classic case in point. The Romans also were masters of this technique. Nothing works better than to install a puppet regime that allows the locals the illusion of independence.
The Puppet Intelligentsia
That is precisely what "The New Class" is. A puppet intelligentsia. They are that coalition of "progressive" globe-trotting politicians, academics and journalists who, as a badge of membership in the "Those who know better Club", sneer at anti-immigration sentiments, which they characterize as nativist, bigoted and parochial. Their role is to "educate" the masses to accept and embrace the invaders as the vanguard of a new world order. The national culture, as such, must be discredited as an anachronism, and instead the people must be encouraged to shift their allegiance to a distant entity. Citizens must be made to feel proud to be mere cogs in an Empire, and be content with the reputed rewards that colonial status brings. In Canada now, that process of mental assimilation is half-way complete. Left-wing hypocrites who once celebrated Canada's growing independence from Britain, and once fretted over growing American influence in the 60s and 70s, now see Canada's "great multicultural project", as Green Party leader Elizabeth May calls it, as our distinctive mission in the world. It is a belief that has been preached daily for decades in classrooms and newsrooms without challenge, and the dividends of this relentless and rootless cosmopolitanism are now evident. Most readers polled by the National Post in 2008, in fact, voted to make "Canada---Home to the World" our national slogan. We are not to be credited with having our own home-grown culture. Instead, we are merely a mosaic of imported cultures, a United Nations in microcosm. It is a globalist vision, espoused by people who purport to be opposed to globalism. In fact, they share the corporate dream of a world without borders. Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Lennon all "come together right now", if you will pardon the use of Beatles' lyrics.
Multiculturalism is a smokescreen
The truth is, mass immigration is a profoundly and extremely "right-wing" project, and, to use Dan Murray's description, the cult of multiculturalism can be likened to the "artillery" which softens up our lines before the shock troops mount their attack. A good metaphor, but another comes to mind. The Canadians who landed on Juneau Beach in Normandy gained their beach-head by laying down smoke to conceal incoming tanks. The cant about tolerance and diversity can be regarded in the same way. It is just a smokescreen for the invasion, a fog which conceals the prime corporate objective to drive down labour costs and expand the number of consumers. But the Green-Left cannot see through it. Perhaps it is because green NGOs are blinded by corporate donations. The irony is, one day they will wake up and realize that when the smoke has cleared, the net result will be a displaced and pauperized indigenous workforce, and a Tower of Babel where people cannot mount a challenge to their exploitation because of their ethno-cultural divisions. They will cease to be citizens and exist only as consumers. The only common culture will be the culture of money. Some diversity. A rainbow of faces but a conformity of thought and behaviour.
Canada--home to the world. Or will it be "Attention Walmart Shoppers"?
Welcome to the original multicultural paradise, the one that serves The New Class across the world as a model and template for national suicide and global integration.