NGOs have come a long and very dismal way since the dreams of Rene Cassin. They are as naturally filled with creatures of a certain worldview and bent as is the BBC World Service, or The Guardian. What is that worldview? That worldview consists of those who wish to criticize, in the main, what they see as the white, Western world, for not properly making what used to be called the "Third World." (Thank god the phrase is falling out of fashion.)
That is their chief concern. They are also concerned about rescuing that "Third World" from its own misrulers, who are often prompted by ideologies (such as Islam) that the members of those NGOs will never recognize as being the source of the misgovernment, the corruption and cruelty and waste that are such noticeable features of those states.
Nationalism is not acceptable for the creatures animated by this worldview if it is an impulse animating the residents of the advanced West. They are not allowed to take a special interest in, or have a special affection and tenderness for, their own countries and histories. They are not allowed to worry about cultural continuity, and cultural continuity as being connected, possibly, to other kinds of continuity, including that of ethnic makeup. These are impermissible for that "white, Western world" -- even if perfectly permissible for everyone else. (Compare, for example, the policies toward immigration and immigrants in Japan, Korea, China, or the same policies toward non-Arabs, directed especially at black Africans, in Egypt, Libya, Chad, and Morocco).
The rest of the world is entitled to preserve itself. We, on the other hand, in North America and Western Europe and the outposts of the former British Empire, such as Australia and New Zealand, are required to give up whatever "local" patriotism, interest and pride in our national histories and cultures, and open ourselves permanently to the world.
Other countries can remain countries.
The United States, Canada, Australia, England, France, Italy, and the other countries of Western Europe, on the other hand, are not allowed to remain countries in that full sense. Their people are not allowed to maintain their own legal and political institutions and social arrangements, or render them less vulnerable to undermining from within by taking control of their own immigration policy. They are not allowed to fully defend themselves, and if they try...well, the NGOs will come down hard.
For those who now staff the NGOs have big plans for the West, big plans for Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and especially for the United States.
Yes, for the United States and other advanced "white, Western" countries (Japan doesn't count, nor South Korea, in this calculation), the future is clear.
They are to be transformed. They are to be stripped of that which has given them their national identities, treated merely as geographically identifiable places that should be permanently available to all those who wish to come. And those who wish to come will, in the main, be those from comparatively poor and often ill-governed neighbors. In the case of the United States, those neighbors include Mexico, Central America, and some but not all of the countries of South America.
Or they will come from lands further away, where the local despots, or locally-prevailing ideologies, explain the malgovernance. But those who come from Muslim lands, places that are so unpleasant and malfunctioning because of Islam, unfortunately do not see things aright and "flee from Islam." Far from abandoning Islam (refugees from the Nazis or Communists hated Nazism, hated Communism), they bring it with them in their undeclared mental baggage, and unpack it right away.
According to the New Men who have infiltrated and taken over so many of the formerly respectable NGOs, la Lutte Continue, and the hostility they always felt toward their own Western world can now be plausibly, even respectably, channeled into their work at these NGOs, with their highly selective and tendentious indignation.
Their goal for the United States is clear.
The United States is not to remain a country. The United States is, rather, to be transformed, in the determined if unstated view of so many of the ideologues at NGOs. It is to be turned, by slow degrees, into one great big...NGO.
"they bring it with them in their undeclared mental baggage, and unpack it right away."
...EXACTLY!!...this is one reason we must tighten our immigration laws and ban Muslim immigration....
Makes me think of that Steely Dan song:
On that train all graphite and glitter
Undersea by rail
Ninety minutes from new york to paris
(more leisure for artists everywhere)
A just machine to make big decisions
Programmed by fellows with compassion and vision
Well be clean when their work is done
Well be eternally free yes and eternally young
What a beautiful world this will be
What a glorious time to be free
Greetings:
Something that contributes to these subversive NGOs is the burgeoning multiple citizenship situation. Dual citizenships have become much more common and are now evolving into triple citizenships.
Not surprisingly, the new "comprrehensive" immigration bil does not seem to address this situation at all.
There are some interesting articles by Stanley Renshon on the Center for Immigration Studies website concerning this threat to our civilization.
... they bring it with them in their undeclared mental baggage, and unpack it right away.
A year or so an Israeli Jew posted in here that Moslems carry a portable theocracy around in their heads.
What he said.
That's why Marxists are so attracted to Moslems. Both are Globo, both desire rule by Olympian Council, both despise honest property where production is reward and sloth left unpaid, both wish to limit free speech, and, above all, both wish to smash freedom.
From Nancy Pelosi to Ayatollah Khomeini to John Kerry to Tariq Ramadan, the only difference is one gang carries a portable theocracy around, the other gang carries around a Worker's Paradise filled with obeisant citizens overseen by a Dictatorship of the Cocktail Party Crowd.
What a great song it is too, Ynkedoodl2 . In fact i was playing it today whilst brushing my teeth - being a pedant i'll point out it was by one half of Steely Dan, Mr Donald Fagen , on THE album of the woeful 80's , "THE NIGHTFLY"
Something to keep an eye on is the prospect that determining immigration policy with regard to granting asylum to refugees, will be turned over entirely to the UN. I read about this some time ago in an article I can't find now. This is the closest thing I can find to it being mentioned:
"The Refugee Industry has also spawned a new academic discipline, “Refugee Studies.” Some of its ideologists are demanding an international “rights-based regime,” under which individuals officially designated as refugees by the U.N. would never be confined to a camp, but automatically allowed to settle wherever they wish.
"This may seem a distant dream today. But there is serious discussion about creating an international clearing house which assigns refugees more or less automatically to host countries based on a formula which weighs host country GDP, population density and other measures of stability and wealth.
"The more successful the country, the larger will be its per capita refugee quota.
"Guess what that means?"
The article also notes that the State Dept has already agreed to allow refugee contractors a more influential role in picking refugees for admission to the U.S.
http://www.vdare.com/allen/refugee_industry.htm
Precisely Hugh,they are part of,or one of the weakest links in our defenses.
Rich marxists suffer from a deep schism and terrible self loathing complex that they then project onto others.Because their wealth and privilege sits contrary to their principles they have to make up for the guilt they feel in different ways this is why they project there malaise so much.
They are deeply racist towards white people even if they are themselves white.This is known as pathological projection.
I'm sure history will look back and see what a strange phenomena it is were witnessing today amongst the comfortable liberal middle classes.
The rich marxist idealizes the other and derides there own culture..why?
I think it's because they are scared of progress and the future,so they look back to more,simple and primitive cultures and hail them as superior when it's quite obvious to any sane individual that they are a failure,socially and politically.
There is also the desire to "belong" and their dogmatic adherence to collectivism...the "tribe" means everything to them,they have no sense of the individual and are mediocre at best..insipid, irrational, manipulative people in my experience.
Anyone showing signs of individuality or dissent of any kind is ostracized and eventually banished,because they view individual free thought as dangerous to their ideology of homogenization.
They are anti-science and even anti-nature because they fail to grasp the basic principle of difference and that as humans we are animals too and the naive notion that we all want the same thing and can all get along is a whitewash.
Their failure to grasp the nettle of Islam is pure suicide and eventually they will be on the wrong side of the barricade crying for help from us "white crusaders".
I for one won't be rushing to their aid..in fact I will be on the frontline picking them off.
A big green light has been provided for many of these NGOs by the UN High-Level Group on The Alliance of Civilizations [report at http://www.unaoc.org/repository/report.htm ]
The New Zealand government, in compliance with its recommendations, is with the assistance of the Norwegian government, running a conference and an interfaith dialogue: [ http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=29495 ]
An off-line report summarises the first day:
"Clark Says It's Time for Kiwis to be Citizens of World"
More international emphasis likely for NZ students after secret Auckland meeting
New Zealand Herald 25 May 2007 p.A8
Simon Collins
Schools may come under Government pressure to teach students more about the world's religions and cultures after an international meeting chaired by Prime Minister Helen Clark in Auckland yesterday.
The closed-door meeting of 69 hand-picked opinion leaders from 22 mainly Asian and Pacific countries followed up a United Nations initiative called the "Alliance of Civilisations" - a deliberate counter to Samuel Huntington's 1996 prediction of a coming "clash of civilisations".
Helen Clark said the initiative's goal was to "embrace diversity".
"Embracing diversity is the most effective means we have for dampening the embers which, when ignited, lead to intolerance, fanaticism and terrorism." [...]
"To what extent, for example, does our education system really enable our people to get a better understanding of diversity, civilisations, cultures and faiths?" she asked. [...]
An Indonesian Muslim leader, Dr Azyumardi Azra, said he hoped the initiative would lead to more educational and cultural exchanges between mainly Christian countries such as New Zealand and mainly Muslim countries such as Indonesia, which has the world's biggest Muslim population.
"I think New Zealand can play a good role in mediation between civilisations that have been in contention for the last few years, especially after September 11, 2001," he said.
But the "mediating" role of both New Zealand and Indonesia is opposed by radical groups in both countries - Islamic extremists in Indonesia, and in New Zealand the Destiny Church and other Christian fundamentalists who plan to protest outside an Asia-Pacific interfaith dialogue at Waitangi next week.
Just as Destiny and other fundamentalists argue that New Zealand is still "a Christian country", and object to a clause that this country has no "state religion", their Muslim equivalents in Indonesia want that country to adopt Islamic, or sharia, law.
"There are always radical or literal-minded people within any religion," Dr Azra said. "We have it among Muslims, we have it among Christians, and among Hindus and Buddhists." [...]
"In the Middle East there are a lot of restrictions for women, but it's more cultural rather than Islam itself," he said.
Islamic terrorism there also grew out of local conditions such as poverty and the Palestine-Israel conflict, rather than from Islamic teaching.
"The fundamental core of Islamic teaching is to do with the term 'Islam', which means 'peace'," Dr Azra said.
"Muslims should spread peace in the world, they should be in peace in their minds and in peace with their neighbours." [...]
Islamic schools (madrassah) were also increasingly popular, now attracting 30 per cent of all schoolchildren. Dr Azra said this was a popular reaction against globalisation and the breakdown of traditional society." [ends]
With Dr Azra described elsewhere as a 'moderate', and with the UN High-Level Group including John Esposito and Karen Armstrong as members, what have we to fear?