I think I have a more sceptical view. I will try to order a few of my thoughts:

It is important to remember that the IMI (International Migration Initiative) is a Soros institution. So when we lift citations such as the following from the text, we need to remember what Uncle George actually wants:

"“we should also be supporting actors in the field proactively seeking to change the policies, rules, and regulations that govern migration.” [there are many more in this vein - this will do for now]

What does George advocate?
"First , the EU has to accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future. And, to do that, it must share the burden fairly — a principle that a qualified majority finally established at a Sept. 23 summit... Adequate financing is critical. The EU should provide 15,000 euros ($16,800) per asylum-seeker for each of the first two years to help cover housing, health-care and education costs — and to make accepting refugees more appealing to member states. It can raise these funds by issuing long-term bonds using its largely untapped AAA borrowing capacity... to absorb and integrate more than a million asylum seekers and migrants a year, the EU needs to mobilize the private sector — NGOs, church groups and businesses — to act as sponsors.”

Let us be clear: many of these migrants are economic migrants; therefore, there is absolutely no reason why Europe should accept George's demands.

As most people are aware of this, a battle for the hearts and minds of the population is required, so when we see the IMI declares as its aim "... (to) strengthen civil society interventions in international policy debates", I remember the (propaganda) videos of Soros beneficiaries such as Providus, and the editorial slant of Ijab's Satori articles (indeed ALL Satori articles on this theme).

When I see the IMI state that "IMI’s access to the Sutherland team’s discussions has allowed us to keep civil society partners up-to-date on the latest developments, in order to inform advocacy and campaigning strategies prior to the events and to plan follow up actions."
I am reminded thet this is the Mr Sutherland is the gent (UN special representative for migration and Mr Blacktrouser's boss) who said "The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states" [BBC]

This will do for now. Welcome your thoughts - it is not a conspiracy I am fully convinced by, but something smells wrong: in short, I feel the whiff of Soros-sponsored propaganda and I miss the mature worldly discussion of a phenomenon, which as you rightly point out, is, at some level, unavoidable and as old as humanity.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Thank you, I didn't have time at the moment to reflect on this, but I read your pointers.

As far as I understand then, Soros and some other influential people think that a more federalized and mixed world without strict ethnical or national borders would be a good thing.

In fact, in their opinion then, it seems that Europe should become something much more like the US, would you agree?

While that was news to me (as I mentioned, I haven't been following the global politics), at least I see that their agenda and ideas are not intrinsically hidden. Of course, there would be some obscure ways on how they try to influence those in the power, however, the direction seems to be reasonably clear.

To be frank, I have to learn more before I decide for myself, whether such a goal is a bad or good idea.

My recent considerations on the movement, which by definition opposes the perceived Soros' way: nationallism, -- have led me to suspect that nationalism is valuable for preservation of a society and culture, while it is an underdog. If we take the example of Latvia, I think nationalism and the Awakening movement were principal in providing an opposition to the occupation and guiding Latvia towards self-determination.

However, after regaining independence, it seems to me that Latvian nationalism has turned rather ugly. The nationalists of today frequently emphasize external enemies, unreasonable levels of bigotry -- it has become more of an ideology of fear than survival.

Therefore, I am in two minds about the whole thing of federalization vs sovereignity, and would still need to absorb much more information.

At any rate, thank you for the extensive reply, it was quite interesting to learn a bit more about the stance of those people.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I agree and thanks for your thanks - I am as wary of some nationalist groups as I am suspicious of federalists (or globalists).

But, I am quite rigid on one thing: I despise the commonly held assumption among the intelligentsia (and wanna-be-considered educated) that there is a point of view that is indicative of intelligence, rationality and erudition - and an opposing point of view that is suggestive of stupidity, paranoia and being conspiracy-theory prone.
I mention this because you can see the Brexit campaign (federalism vs nationalism) as a clear example of this. Considering a Leave Vote? you must be thick or racist (and clearly white). The migrant crisis debate is similar here in Latvia - if the articles in Satori are anything to go by.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

That seems to be quite true, yes.

Instead of rational consideration of arguments, intelligentsia too frequently seems to be just as prone to ritual discourse as the rest of us. Unfortunately.

(Reply to this) (Parent)