Last year, Peter Sutherland came out with the most extreme and blatant statements of prejudice in regard to mass immigration that you could possibly imagine. He said that the people of the UK "still nurse a sense of [their] homogeneity and difference from others". What followed was even worse. He concluded: "And that's precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine."

Well, he said it! He said that the EU should "undermine" any sense of British unity and communality, as well as its traditions, history and, as he puts it, its "homogeneity". In other words, all the things which leftists and Eurocrats usually wax lyrical about when it comes to other cultures and other ethnic groups should be "undermined" when it happens to be British culture and ethnicity. How much more blatant can the political and ideological reality behind the economic nonsense actually be?

Of course the arguments in favor of mass immigration could be both economical and political. But considering the fact that many recent immigrants (as well as not-so-recent immigrants) are unemployed, and tens of thousands of asylum seekers aren't even allowed to work anyway (at least officially), as well as the fact that mass immigration actually damages the UK economy overall, one is quite easily led to conclude that it's just plain politics/ ideology -- not economics -- that's behind all this.

You see, it's not really all about economics at all. It's not really about immigrants taking jobs which native Brits won't do or the 'pensions gap'. It's really all about undermining -- to use Peter Sutherland's own word -- our culture and ethnicity. It's all about carrying out a political experiment designed to change the social, political and ethnic landscape of Britain.

Yes, behind the economics are purely ideological motives and dreams. All the economic stats and graphs are but means to effect these decidedly noneconomic ends. I mean, there it was from one of the horses' mouths. And let's not forget the various Labour MPs who've also now come clean about their party's own experiment in mass immigration. These Labour MPs have admitted (now they aren't in power!) that their championship of mass immigration had little or nothing to do with "making our economy work".

In fact, why is a person who's supposed to be some kind of expert on economics/ business making such blatantly political -- and indeed ideological -- statements in the first place? Why does an expert in economics/ business think he has the right to state that the British people "still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others"? Remind me again, did the British people -- or anyone else -- ever vote for Peter Sutherland? No! Who, then, is he speaking for and what gives him the right to speak on these issues?

This man still has immense political power, care of both the UN and the EU, those two vast bodies of unaccountability. Sutherland will do whatever he wants because he knows that no one can stop him, least of all British or European voters.

And what's with this quaint word, 'homogeneity'? It's strange, people like Sutherland -- as well as leftist academics galore -- stress 'diversity', 'alternative cultures' and 'the Other' in one breath, yet in the next they say -- or imply -- that there is one aspect of diversity, one culture and one ethnicity that must be systematically erased, namely the British. That's what Sutherland's glorious 'homogeneity' would result in.

Not that there will be homogeneity anyway. That's another part of this big con. Take the Muslim population of this country. They are systematically forming their own enclaves/ghettos and living separately from the rest of us. Indeed, as Muslims, they must do so because all Muslims must live according to sharia law and sharia law demands -- as does the Koran in many passages -- that Muslims avoid being polluted by the 'unbeliever'. So Peter Sutherland must know that the homogeneity he wants may very well end in intercommunal violence, civil war, and a distinct lack of homogeneity.

And just when you think that he couldn't say anything more obscene, he adds that there should be a "shift from states selecting migrants to migrants selecting states."

Here's more politics from Sutherland; again, not a word about economics. He said that if we don't endorse a policy of mass immigration, then we risk our status of being a "tolerant, open society." That is, if we don't import more foreign intolerance and criminality, more radical imams, more Muslim terrorists, more Roma criminals, more economic migrants, more Arab/ North African/ Egyptian doctors to carry out female genital mutilations, etc., we risk our tolerance and openness. In other words, Sutherland thinks that we risk our tolerance and openness by not bringing communal conflict and even civil war closer. Has this man no knowledge of what's going on in the world today or does he spend his entire time sitting in the offices of the UN and EU?

Bogus Arguments for Mass Immigration

The 'ageing population' argument

In order to legitimize these political experiments in mass immigration, Peter Sutherland knows he must rely on suspect economic arguments. For example, there's the old 'ageing-population' theory (the 'pensions gap'). Setting aside the fact that there are over a million unemployed recent (!) immigrants in the UK (600,000 from Europe alone, as well as a 65% rate of unemployment, to take just one example, among Somalis), as well as many native unemployed, Sutherland argues that mass immigration is a "crucial dynamic for economic growth". How is paying billions of pounds in welfare benefits to immigrants crucial for economic growth? Sure, some immigrants do find jobs -- but huge numbers don't!

The 'jobs-not-taken-by-Brits' argument

Another classic is the 'jobs-not-taken-by-Brits' argument. The claim is that there are thousands of jobs which British people simply won't even consider.

What is really meant by this is that there are jobs which offer wages which are so low that British people won't accept them. It isn't the case that Brits wouldn't do these jobs no matter what. And why are the wages so low? Because of the masses of immigrants we already have who will happily accept such low wages. (Of course a poor peasant from Pakistan or Bulgaria would do them. But is that a good thing for Britain?) So here we have pro-immigrationists saying that more immigration is a solution to a problem previous immigrants have caused!
Secondly, the jobs-not-taken-by-Brits argument seems to completely ignore -- often intentionally -- a basic economic fact. In every national economy, at any given time, there is something called a 'churn'. That is, there is a fairly high level of job vacancies which results simply from the fact that many people are moving from job to job. Either the pro-immigrationists are ignorant of this basic economic fact or they know about it but still overemphasize these jobs-not-taken in order to sell mass immigration to the public.

Conclusion

It's clear that Peter Sutherland has a large degree of contempt for the peoples of Europe. That is why he can't -- and doesn't want to -- rely on any kind of vote or popular legitimization in order to do what he does. Indeed he once said (to a House of Lords committee) that "however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states," mass immigration must continue. Or, to put that another way: social/ communal conflict, the proliferation of enclaves/ghettos, Islamization, Muslim grooming, terrorism, mass Roma fraud/antisocial behavior, increased levels of unemployment and lower wages for native Brits, etc., must continue.

Sutherland also believes that it's vital that the Eurocrats and our very own British social engineers -- from leftist academics to Labour Party MPs -- carry on with their massive social experiment on the nations and peoples of Europe. (Stalin would have been proud of them.)

It's standard, as I said, that social engineers offer economic arguments to rationalize or legitimize mass immigration. In fact they often state -- or hint -- that it's all about economics. However, when you scratch the surface, you'll soon seen that economics is not what it's all about at all, as Peter Sutherland himself admits.