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.

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.