UN BOSS ADMITS: WE MUST DESTROY NATION STATE

 

The leftist movement advanced by the Democratic Party in the United States and its ideological partners in the World Economic Forum, at Davos and elsewhere is the engine driving mass migration across the globe. They do not require control of the White House to maintain this pressure. Other leftist-led governments in the West have readily taken up the slack, ensuring the initiative continues albeit at a slower, less effective pace, until the clock has run down on the Trump presidency, after which they hope to push on with the project with renewed vigour. 

Their goal is unambiguous. They are determined to collapse the nation state as we know it and to extinguish the distinct cultures and customs that have shaped societies for centuries. This is not an accidental byproduct of humanitarian policy but a deliberate project to remake the world along lines that suit a borderless, supranational vision.

LEFTISTS USING MIGRANTS TO SMASH NATIONAL IDENTITY

What they intend is to export the prevailing American cultural template to every corner of the planet: a mixing pot that has, in practice, produced division, chaos, racism and religious intolerance on a scale few could have imagined a generation ago. Dissenters are not engaged in debate; they are instantly branded as supporters of whatever fresh straw-man villain the ideologues have constructed, whether it is framed as xenophobia, populism or some other convenient sin. The tactic has worked with impressive efficiency.

This approach was attempted once before from the conservative end of the spectrum, through an emphasis on global markets and institutional integration that paid little heed to cultural continuity. Yet it underestimated the instinctive conservative attachment to the inherited integrity of the nation state. When that effort faltered, the same forces pivoted to the left, where appeals to compassion, equity and anti-racism have met with far greater success.

The ideological roots of the project are laid bare in the public statements of senior figures. In 2012 Peter Sutherland, then the United Nations special representative for migration and a man who held high office in both international institutions and global finance, told a House of Lords committee that the European Union should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states. He argued that multiculturalism was not merely inevitable but essential for future prosperity, and he held up migrant societies such as the United States as the example others should follow. Sutherland, who died in 2018, was not speaking in private; his remarks were part of the official record and reflected a view widely shared among the transnational elite he represented.

Comparable attitudes have surfaced among other office-holders. Senior EU officials and UN migration advocates have repeatedly framed national cohesion as an obstacle to progress rather than a strength to be protected. The underlying message is consistent: homogeneous societies must be diluted, national identities softened, and any resistance portrayed as regressive. This is the ideological vehicle that carries the mass-migration agenda forward, dressed up in the language of human rights while sidestepping the practical consequences for ordinary citizens.

In reality the results speak for themselves. Across Western Europe, rapid and poorly managed inflows have produced parallel societies in which host cultures are not embraced but often rejected. In parts of Sweden, France and the United Kingdom, entire neighbourhoods operate according to separate norms, with elevated rates of crime, welfare dependency and social friction that official statistics can no longer conceal. Trust within communities has declined, as the American sociologist Robert Putnam documented in his research on diversity: when integration is weak, people “hunker down” and social capital erodes. Far from enriching the whole, the experiment has often fragmented it.

Economically the picture is equally sobering. Low-skilled migration on this scale places heavy demands on housing, schools and health services while depressing wages for the least advantaged native workers. Public finances bear the strain, and the claim that migrants will simply “fill gaps” ignores the long-term fiscal reality in country after country. Culturally the cost is steeper still: the quiet erosion of shared customs, language and historical memory that once bound citizens together. When a nation no longer feels like home to its own people, the very purpose of the state is called into question.

The left’s success lies in its ability to moralise the debate. Question the wisdom of open borders and you are not debating policy; you are opposing compassion itself. Yet the record shows that controlled, selective immigration aligned with national capacity and cultural compatibility strengthens societies. Unrestrained flows, driven by ideology rather than realism, do the opposite. They weaken the nation state not as an unintended side-effect but as the intended outcome. Until that reality is confronted without euphemism, the project will continue, and the cultures it seeks to dissolve will pay the price.