U.N. Population Replacement Agenda: Tracing The Steps

(UN considers replacement migration — not higher birthrates — to be the solution to declining populations)

(UN Population Division still hard at work)

(The UN Global Migration Group)

(Other important replacement migration meetings)

(Agreed outcomes on population)

1. Important Links

Other Canuck Law Articles
CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 1974.
CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism violates convention against genocide.
CLICK HERE, for Harvard research on ethnic “fractionalization”.
CLICK HERE, for research into forced diversity.
CLICK HERE, for the 2016 New York Declaration.
CLICK HERE, for the 2018 Global Migration Compact.

UN webpages worth a read
CLICK HERE, for the UN Population Division website.
CLICK HERE, for the UN research into replacement migration
CLICK HERE, for Gov’t views & policies.
CLICK HERE, for participant contact info.
CLICK HERE, for Russian replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for European replacement migration.
CLICK HERE, for Korean population decline.
CLICK HERE, for various conferences.
CLICK HERE, for the “About” page.
CLICK HERE, for “resolutions” from the UN Population Division.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention on Prevention and Punishing Genocide.
CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact.

2. Some Context For The Article

This should be obvious, but nations should look after their own affairs. It is beyond creepy that the United Nations not only has an interest, in population management, but regularly holds conferences on the subject. Shocking yes, but keep reading. The proof is undeniable.

Furthermore, this is not a one time event. It has been going on for the better part of a century now.

3. Kalergi Plan of the 1920s

This video was originally posted by YouTuber Black Pigeon Speaks, but was taken down. In short, the Kalergi Plan, (named after Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi) is a scheme to impose multiculturalism on nations, and breed out individual races.

The rationale behind it is the idea that race and ethnicity were the root causes of much violent conflicts. If everyone was of a single race, this would be eliminated.

Peace through ethnic cleansing. It’s nonsense like this that actually makes Hitler seem normal by comparison.

4. Implementing Kalergi Via Multiculturalism

Here are some quotes from the 1948 UN Convention on Prevention and Punishing Genocide. It was designed to prevent groups from committing atrocities against each other, and provide some means for punishment should it happen.

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Now, on the surface, nothing seems objectionable here. After all, who “doesn’t” oppose measures to stop people from committing genocide against another? All of this seems sensible.

However, there is another way to look at it. Instead of committing overt violence against a group, more subtle measures could be introduced. These would be measures that would bring about the same effects.

An obvious on is replacement migration. Try to reduce the birth rate in one country by various means, such as claiming it’s to prevent climate change. Then, once the population starts dropping, introduce “replacement” migration to make up for the shortfall.

Another common technique is the concept of multiculturalism. Let’s be honest here. Multiculturalism is a fantasy that has no basis in reality. Trying to get very different cultures to live together never works out. It ends with either:

  • Balkanization/Enclaves
  • Parallel societies
  • Erosion of the host culture
  • Tension and/or violence
  • Some combination of the above

Still one more technique is to implement laws which guarantee social cohesion will never take place. These include affirmative action or quotas in schools or employment. There can also be laws to erode or erase parts of the group identity, ensuring tension will never go away.

What if this type of system was deliberately inflicted, by trying to mix incompatible groups?

5. UN Global Migration Group

  • Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)
  • International Labour Organization (ILO)
  • International Organization for Migration (IOM)
  • Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
  • United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
  • United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
  • United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA)
  • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
  • United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women)
  • United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
  • United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
  • United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
  • United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
  • United Nations Regional Commissions
  • United Nations University (UNU)
  • World Bank
  • World Health Organization (WHO)

Source is here. These organizations meet regularly to discuss global migration issues, as the name implies.

It’s also interesting the sheer number and range of UN groups involved with this “Global Migration Group”. Education, higher education, trade, research, refugees and labour all affiliated with it.

6. Rome Population Conference (1954)

World Population Conference
Rome, 31 August- 10 September 10 1954

The First World Population Conference organized by the United Nations was held in Rome in 1954 to exchange scientific information on population variables, their determinants and their consequences. This eminently academic Conference resolved basically to generate fuller information on the demographic situation of the developing countries and to promote the creation of regional training centres which would help to address population issues and to prepare specialists in demographic analysis.

Source is here.

7. Belgrade Population Conference (1965)

World Population Conference
Belgrade, 30 August-10 September 1965

The Second World Population Conference was organized in 1965 by the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (IUSSP) and the United Nations; most of the participants were experts in the field. The focus at this international meeting was on the analysis of fertility as part of a policy for development planning. This Conference was held at a time when expert studies on the population aspects of development coincided with the start-up of population programmes subsidized by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Source is here.

8. Bucharest Population Conference (1974)

The World Population Conference was hold in Bucharest, Romania, from 19 to 30 August 1974. Representatives of 136 Member States attended (more than 1400 persons). The draft of the World Population Plan of Action, prepared by the Population Division with the assistance of an advisory committee of experts, had been reviewed by the Population Commission and discussed at the five regional meetings. The draft was amended by the working group and adopted by the plenary.
At the time the UN had 138 Member States. Family planning was being promoted by 59 countries.
The World Population Plan of Action had four parts:
-background;
-principles and objectives;
-recommendations for action, and
-recommendations for implementation.

Negotiations tended to make aspects of population policies weaker and aspects of social and economic development stronger. The Conference became polarized between the ‘incrementalist’ position of a group of Western States (including US, UK, Germany) that believed that rapid population growth was a serious impediment to development, and the ‘redistribution’ position, followed by a group of developing countries led by Argentina and Algeria that believed that the population problem was a consequence and not a cause of underdevelopment and that it could be solved by a new international economic order focusing on the redistribution of resources

Source is here.

9. Mexico City Population Conference (1984)

Mexico City hosted the second International Conference on Population between 6 – 14 August 1984. It was attended by representatives of 147 Member States (the UN had 157 Member States). At the time 123 countries promoted family planning.
The Conference adopted the Recommendations for the Further Implementation of the WPPA. Several key Member States had changed positions compared to those they had in 1974. The United States now considered population a neutral phenomenon for development. Many developing countries, including Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria and Pakistan expressed their firm support for family planning and population programmes. Many developed countries, including Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom stated their willingness to increase their support for population programmes. The United States stated its policy of not funding any programmes facilitating abortion.

Source is here.

10. Cairo Population Conference (1994)

Building up towards the Cairo Conference
Population Commission as Preparatory Committee
The Preparatory Committee met three times. At its first session (4-8 March 1991) the Committee set the objectives of the meeting and defined the issues to be discussed; agreed to take account of the outcomes of recent United Nations global conferences; and considered the assignment or responsibilities to United Nations bodies, intergovernmental organizations and NGOs. At its second Session (1-21 May 1993), in which observers from 185 NGOs were present, the Preparatory Committee agreed to establish a new programme of action to replace the WPPA and the Mexico recommendations to guide action on population in the next 20 years and directed the Secretariat to hold a substantive debate on the concept and structure of the proposed Recommendations of the Conference. At its third session (4-22 April 1994) the Preparatory Committee discussed the ‘Draft Final Document: Programme of Action of the Conference’ prepared by the Secretariat.

The International Conference on Population and Development
The International Conference on Population and Development was convened in Cairo, Egypt, from 5 to 13 September 1994. It was attended by 179 governmental delegations from UN Member States, 7 observers at governmental level, the European Union and several hundred NGOs. Several thousand media representatives covered the Conference.
The Conference adopted the Programme of Action, which emphasized the fundamental role of women’s interests in population matters and introduced the concepts of sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. A new definition of population policy was advanced, giving prominence to reproductive health and the empowerment of women.

Source is here.

11. Coordination Meetings (2002-2015)

First coordination meeting, 2002
Second coordination meeting, 2003
Third coordination meeting, 2004
Fourth coordination meeting, 2005
Fifth coordination meeting, 2006
Sixth coordination meeting, 2007
Seventh coordination meeting, 2008
Eighth coordination meeting, 2009
Nineth coordination meeting, 2010
Tenth coordination meeting, 2011
Eleventh coordination meeting, 2012
Twelth coordination meeting, 2013
Thirteenth coordination meeting, 2014

12. Expert Meetings, Population Control

A series of expert meetings, has been held by the United Nations over the last 20 years. All of these involve population control and management.

13. New York Declaration (2016)

The actual text is here for the New York Declaration of 2016. Basically this is a “warm-up” to the infamous GLOBAL MIGRATION COMPACT. In fact, most of the text here appears in the 2018 UN GMC, just worded a bit differently.

Here, are the main points in the NY declaration. They were covered in a previous piece, so I won’t be going into detail here.

14. Global Migration Compact (2018)

That was also covered here, and this document is the original source material. A plan to help move some 258 million (yes, million) people from one country to another, and to enshrine new “rights” for these migrants. Of course there is the vile “OBJECTIVE 17(c)” which effectively criminalises criticism of migration and allows media outlets to be shut down.

15. Replace S. Korea Population

E. Conclusion
There is no doubt that the elderly will increase and the absolute size of the total population will decline in the future. Although the UN projected the size of net immigrants in Korea will remain constant in the future, it cannot be ensured that such maximum sizes are the most optimum in terms of the socio-economic, environmental and other factors. In other words, the criteria for projection of the numbers of net immigrants should be determined, taking into account all the factors to be included in addition to demographic factor.

However, experts agree that the change in population size and structure, specifically population ageing, will require an influx of foreign labor migrants to keep the national productivity that will help accommodate the promotion of quality of life for the whole population. Specifically, it provides an opportunity to emphasize to policy-makers that the future population policies need to be integrated with health, welfare and social security related policies.

Since the female participation in economic activity is still low in comparison with those in western countries, the policy for increasing women’s economic participation will play an important role in compensating for the expected shortage of labor, through which the support for the increasing old persons can be helped. As a matter of fact, the Korean government has made efforts to improve conditions for encouraging female’s employment; which include improvement on gender discrimination in employment and increases in compatibility of women’s work with child rearing.

The UN has been researching, among other places, South Korea. It recommends mass migration to stem the declining population, which is no surprise. Let’s get women working more, hence decreasing the amount of Korean children who are born. Of course, when the numbers drop, further replacement migration is always possible.

This report never seems to value the ethnic and cultural homogeny that S. Korea has. There is no emphasis on maintaining its identity. Instead, keep pushing for more and more replacement migration.

16. Replace The Russian Population

D. CONCLUSIONS In Russia, like in most industrial countries, the balance of births and deaths will most likely be such in the first half of the 21st century that the natural population increase will be negative. If the country’s population will continue to depend largely on the natural reproduction, it will unavoidably decrease in size and will age rapidly. These two trends might be counteracted only by an inflow of immigrants, to a larger or smaller extent, depending on the volume and composition of immigration flows.

Nevertheless, Russia could unlikely avoid the arrival of large immigration inflows. On one hand, their inevitability is dictated by the internal demographic situation in Russia. While unfavorable consequences of the population aging are not so dramatic as sometimes imagined, and those actually present may be largely neutralized by economic and social policy measures, the population decrease will present Russia with a very hard choice. It should either succumb to a continuous aggravation of the already meager population / territory ratio, or to widely open its doors to immigration.

Both solutions bear unwelcome consequences, so the lesser of two evils should be chosen. On the other hand, the future developments cannot be predicted without taking into account the demographic situation outside Russia, particularly the overpopulation beyond its southern frontiers. This overpopulation together with the increasing mobility of the populations in the neighbouring countries will unavoidably produce a growing migration pressure, at least in the form of illegal migration, that will become more and more difficult to hold in check and which will compel Russia to respond with expanding the legal immigration possibilities.

As with South Korea, the UN recommends that Russia replace its population in order to “save itself”. Interestingly, the solution is never to have more local births. It is always mass migration.

17. Replace The European Populations

The analysis of recent developments in cohort fertility profiles indicates that a return of European fertility levels to, or close to, replacement level is not in the making. Even if the pace of postponement in western counties slows down or stops altogether, only a modest rise in TFRs is to be envisaged. This rise, furthermore, strongly depends on the amount of fertility recuperation at older ages (i.e. past age 30), and except for the Scandinavian countries, this recuperation has been inadequate, and strongly so in a number of large EU-countries (Spain, Italy, Germany). In Eastern and Central Europe the steep fertility decline is predominantly a feature of the 1990s, and caused by a fertility reduction in all cohorts, irrespective of the stage of family building or age. Also in these countries the degree of fertility recuperation, particularly for the post-Communist generations, will be crucial in establishing more acceptable levels of period fertility. Finally, policy measures directly aimed at influencing fertility have had clear, but only temporary effects, and also sustained policies producing sometimes large income transfers in favour of families with children have not had any substantial effects either.

The prospect of long term sub replacement fertility had to revive the issue of replacement migration sooner or later. In this respect the UN-report (2000) drew widespread media attention all over Europe, but the unfortunate feature was that the media zoomed in on the results of only one simulation, i.e. the one maintaining a constant PSR at all times till 2050. Much earlier formal demographic analysis (e.g. Blanchet, 1988) had indicated that such age structure equilibration leads to impossible outcomes, in contrast to longer term views with less stringent constraints. However, the latter still lead to record immigration intakes of over 1.0 million p.a. from 2025 onward for the EU as well as for the remainder of Europe. Moreover, the efficiency of such a replacement migration remains limited if not complemented by other measures such as the rise of labour force participation rates. The latter is particularly needed in countries, both in and outside the EU, that had a considerable reduction in male activity rates above age 50 or have a small female labour force participation expressed in full time equivalents. Finally, replacement migration into the EU needs to be directed especially toward the countries with the largest fertility deficit, including Italy and Spain who have only more recently become immigration countries. Hence, the million or so extra immigrants should by no means be spread evenly within the EU territory

In this last article, Europe is recommended to ramp up their mass migration to fulfill labour shortages. It’s always the same solution, isn’t it?

18. Thoughts On The Topic

This replacement migration plan is disturbing beyond belief. It is a globally coordinated effort to replace the host populations throughout the developed world, and to maintain control over the new ones. It reads like some plot in a children’s cartoon. However, it is actually happening.

Harvard Research on Ethnic, Linguistic and Religious “Fractionalization”

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for the Harvard paper, 2002.

CLICK HERE, for UN Convention on Preventing/Punishing Genocide
CLICK HERE, for review of multiculti/genocide.
CLICK HERE, for Robert Putnam’s research on diversity & community.

UN Replacement Migration Schemes
CLICK HERE, for UN Population Conferences (1974 Romania, 1984 Mexico, 1994 Egypt)
CLICK HERE, for the Barcelona Declaration (of 1995).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 1995).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 1998).
CLICK HERE, for the Expert Group of Population Decline (of 2000).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2002).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2005).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2008).
CLICK HERE, for the Declaration on High Level Dialogue on Migration (of2013).
CLICK HERE, for the New York Declaration (of 2016)
CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact (of 2018)
CLICK HERE, for the Charlemagne Prize, for unifying Europe.
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s Multiculturalism Act.

Other Articles On Immigration
CLICK HERE, for mass migration at 1M/year in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for migration programs in Canada.
CLICK HERE, for replacement migration since 2003/04.
CLICK HERE, for domestic violence path to permanent residence.
CLICK HERE, for International Mobility Program.
CLICK HERE, for remittances and brain drain.
CLICK HERE, for economic migration during high unemployment.
CLICK HERE, for CANZUK review.

2. The Kalergi Plan

This video was originally posted by YouTuber Black Pigeon Speaks, but was taken down. In short, the Kalergi Plan, (named after Richard Codenhove-Kalergi) is a scheme to impose multiculturalism on nations, and breed out individual races.

The rationale behind it is the idea that race and ethnicity were the root causes of much violent conflicts. If everyone was of a single race, this would be eliminated.

Peace through ethnic cleansing. It’s nonsense like this that actually makes Hitler seem normal by comparison.

3. UN Convention On Genocide

Having people killed or go missing is horrible, no doubt about it. However, it is not the only way to breach the Convention on Preventing and Punishing Genocide. See the following sections.

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article IV
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Article VII
Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

Although killing and mass executions are an obvious and overt form of genocide, there are more subtle ways. Government, media and private organizations can work together in ways to bring about a group’s destruction “over time”. As will be demonstrated, there are ways to erase groups that don’t involve firing a shot.

Keep in mind, Article 2 refers to “bring out the destruction, in all or in part” of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. This will be demonstrated in the coming sections.

4. Abstract Of Research Paper

Abstract:
We provide new measures of ethnic, linguistic and religious fractionalization for about 190 countries. These measures are more comprehensive than those previously used in the economics literature and we compare our new variables with those previously used. We also revisit the question of the effects of ethnic, linguistic and religious fractionalization on quality of institutions and growth. We partly confirm and partly modify previous results. The patterns of cross-correlations between potential explanatory variables and their divergent degree of endogeneity makes it hard to make unqualified statements about competing explanations for economic growth and the quality of government.

5. Quotes From Harvard Paper

a) On economic growth, we broadly confirm the results by Easterly and Levine (1997). In fact the negative effect of ethnic fragmentation on growth is reinforced with the new data, and we are able to highlight the differences between ethnic, linguistic and religious fractionalization.

Here it is. These differences can be measured and contrasted.

The differences in the results between religious and linguistic and ethnic fractionalization are quite suggestive. Religious affiliation is the most endogenous of the three variables. Religions can be banned and individual can relatively easily “hide” their religious affiliation to avoid repression. Individuals and families can change from one religion to another far more easily than they can change race or language. In a sense, a higher observed measure of religious fractionalization can be a sign of a more tolerant and democratic form of government. In a more repressive regime, you can hide your religion or conform to the state-imposed religion, but hiding your racial origin, especially if it relates to skin color, is much more difficult. Short of genocide, it is difficult to change the ethnic composition of a country.

(Page 13) Short of genocide, it is difficult to change the ethnic composition of a country? Not really. Mass migration policies of the West do exactly that. Want to create a Chinese nation? Just import enough Chinese nationals until they dominate the area. Want an Islamic state? Import endless Muslims.

The authors are correct that it is difficult to change the ethnic composition. However, open borders activists are doing exactly that, under the guise of “diversity”.

4 The Quality of Government
One of the reasons why ethnic fractionalization may negatively influence economic success in terms of growth and level of income has to do with the potentially negative effects of ethnic conflict on the quality of policy and of institutions

No kidding. It’s almost as if forced diversity if harmful to the productivity of a nation.

5 Discussion of Individual Data Points
A cross-country statistical exercise is a crude way to summarize complex political and economic histories of countries and their constituent ethnic groups. A promising direction for future research would be for economists to do more case histories of development, economic policy, and government quality in ethnically diverse places, of the kind that the political science literature does.

How long before we start imposing more diversity as a means of generating more samples to conduct research.

The standard account of Nigeria’s ethnic conflict pits the Muslim North versus the Christian South, but this is a simplification. Firstly, the Christian South is divided between the Yoruba and Igbo. Secondly, there are substantial Southern minority groups living in Northern cities, a situation that has led to recurrent communal violence. Thirdly, fractious ethnic groups in the center of the country and in the oil-rich Niger delta keep small-scale conflict going even out of the limelight of the Hausa/Yoruba/Igbo three-way ethnic war. Table 15 shows that Nigeria has had disastrous economic policies (high black market premiums), poor infrastructure (virtually no telephone density) and high corruption.

(Page 16) Interesting how Islam is downplayed here. Muslims have been waging war for 1400 years, and millions of Christians have died because of it.

Also intriguing is the authors omit a possibility ethnic conflicts are kept from the media: perhaps the players want to keep the money rolling in, so there may be a pact to keep it on the down low.

Ethiopia also has very high ethnic and linguistic diversity (according to both new and old measures), and ethnic conflict has been at the center of Ethiopian history for centuries. Ethiopia has had one of the lowest growth rates in the world over the past half-century and as a result remains one of the least developed nations in the world

Wouldn’t this be a clear case of diversity and multiculturalism not working out?

Guyana shows up as ethnically diverse in our data because of its racial breakdown between Africans, East Indians, Europeans, and others. The Afro-Guyanese and Indo-Guyanese are the predominant groups and are almost numerically equal. Since they have mobilized politically along ethnic lines (supporting two different parties since before independence), any consensus for development has been torn apart by competition for rents between the two groups

Mobilizing along racial and ethnic lines to protect your group interests? Funny, whites are considered racist when they do that.

Chile, in contrast, is a well known Latin American success story ….. The difference in Chile was probably due to its higher level of homogeneity. In fact, after Pinochet’s departure from power the new democratic regime showed remarkable stability by Latin American standards. The relative ethnic homogeneity of the society may have made achieving support for reform and economic development easier than in Bolivia or Guyana.

In today’s lesson we learn that apples are different from oranges. Chile is seen as a success story, but it is also much more homogenous than many other places.

6 Conclusion
The question of what makes different countries more or less successful economically and what explains their quality of policies is one of the most fascinating that economists can ask, but it is also one of the most difficult to answer. Different authors have their own “favorite” explanatory variables: from purely “economic” ones, to geographic ones, to legal ones, to political, cultural, religious and historical ones. In this paper we have considered closely one such set of variables: measures of ethnic, linguistic and religious fractionalization.

(Page 20) Thank you Harvard, for proving that multiculturalism and diversity do not work when objectively measured.

6. Asking The Obvious Questions

This paper is from 2002, 17 years ago.

The detrimental effects of multiculturalism and forced diversity have been researched extensively, and the same trends keep coming back. People want to live and work with others who are like themselves.

One can sing the praises of diversity endlessly. Fact is, however, an awful lot of people want nothing to do with it. They prefer close knit, homogenous communities.

Despite all of this being obvious, and despite the research done, multiculturalism and diversity are still pushed in Western nations. Why is that? Why push for policies that are clearly and blatantly harmful? Is this sheer stupidity, or is there malice involved? Who is behind this push in the West?

Why is it that some nations can protect their national cultures, heritages, traditions — and yes ethnicities — but others are pressured into being diverse? Why these double standards?

International Smuggling And Child Exploitation, Part II

(#STWT 83 – Rachel Chandler, Robert Maxwell, Epstein, Mossad, Eminem, Waris, NXIVM, etc)

(Fake refugees pretending to be children.)

(European Court of Human Rights: Can’t call a pedo a pedo)

(Lauren Southern & Ariel Ricker)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for a previous piece on human smuggling.
CLICK HERE, for a previous piece on suing to enter US illegally.
CLICK HERE, for piece on Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for a previous piece on sanctuary cities.
CLICK HERE, for a previous piece on Islamic blasphemy laws upheld by ECHR.
CLICK HERE, for previous piece on New York Declaration of 2016.
CLICK HERE, for previous piece on Global Migration Compact.

CLICK HERE, for the UN admitting it has an agenda to promote the “caravans” into the US.
CLICK HERE, for a Fox article on Bill for new DNA testing on so called “family units” seeking asylum at U.S./Mexico border.
CLICK HERE, for HILL article on lawsuit to allow illegal immigration.
CLICK HERE, for the Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement.
CLICK HERE, for CBC article on Roxham Road crossings.
CLICK HERE, for Epoch Times article on ICE Director Homan’s comments about sanctuary cities.
CLICK HERE, for an article on Sweden conducting “age tests”.
CLICK HERE, for France’s “bone tests” ruled constitutional.
CLICK HERE, for France’s bone test ruling itself.
CLICK HERE, for Atlantic article, ECHR upholds blasphemy conviction.
CLICK HERE, for child marriage case in Germany.
CLICK HERE, for NXIVM cult, Allison Mack case.
CLICK HERE, for a Trudeau friend sentenced for child porn.

2. Context For This Article

Pardon the rather scattershot nature of this piece. It will cover a range of different topics all within the context of human trafficking and child exploitation. Links provided, and so will be relevant screenshots.

There will be follow up articles to come

3. Child Trafficking Across US/Mexico Border

(The UN is partially responsible for efforts to overrun the US/Mexico border)

(The UN demands the “rights” of all migrants be respected, regardless of their status. This means, regardless of whether they are in the country illegally)

(Officially, the UN condemns “smuggling of migrants”)

(Children used as props for “family units”)

Senate Republicans this week introduced a bill to implement DNA testing of migrants claiming to be part of family units — a move aimed at cracking down on child trafficking along the southern border.

Sens. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., and Joni Ernst, R-Iowa., introduced the End Child Trafficking Now Act that would require DNA testing to verify relationships between adult migrants and the children they claim are part of their family. The senators say it will help prevent children from being exploited by drug traffickers and gang members.

“It is horrifying that children are becoming victims of trafficking at our southern border,” Blackburn said in a statement. “By confirming a familial connection between an alien and an accompanying minor, we can determine whether the child was brought across the border by an adult with nefarious intentions. The current crisis at our border is multifaceted and requires a holistic approach. By tackling these problems piece by piece, we will get this situation under control.”

Blackburn’s office said more than 5,500 fraudulent asylum claims have been uncovered since March by the Department of Homeland Security.

The FOX article delves straight into a disturbing topic: children are being used as shields. Adults cross with children they allege are theirs, but it is a ruse to be declared a “family unit” which will lead to an easier time staying in the U.S.

The UN and George Soros are helping to facilitate packs, or “caravans” of Central American migrants into the United States. This is despite the explicit orders of Donald Trump to stay away, and the overwhelming opposition of the American public.

Of course, there is often no way to tell what the true circumstances are. is the child being “recycled”, and used to help multiple “families”? Is there smuggling going on? Are the children being physically or sexually exploited?

4. Canada/U.S. Safe 3rd Country Agreement

EMPHASIZING that the United States and Canada offer generous systems of refugee protection, recalling both countries’ traditions of assistance to refugees and displaced persons abroad, consistent with the principles of international solidarity that underpin the international refugee protection system, and committed to the notion that cooperation and burden-sharing with respect to refugee status claimants can be enhanced;

DESIRING to uphold asylum as an indispensable instrument of the international protection of refugees, and resolved to strengthen the integrity of that institution and the public support on which it depends;

NOTING that refugee status claimants may arrive at the Canadian or United States land border directly from the other Party, territory where they could have found effective protection;

CONVINCED, in keeping with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and its Executive Committee, that agreements among states may enhance the international protection of refugees by promoting the orderly handling of asylum applications by the responsible party and the principle of burden-sharing;

There is a loophole, in that the agreement covers official ports of entry. It has been taken to mean, however, that simply bypassing those ports and crossing elsewhere means an expedited entry into Canada.

This has been covered in other articles. The point being that both Canada and the United States are safe countries, and offer generous protections to people seeking asylum. It circumvents the intent of the agreement to go “asylum shopping” and hop around. Legitimate refugees should attempt to seek asylum in the first safe country they get to.

The U.S., as noted, is a safe country. People attempting to cross into Canada illegally should immediately be turned back. Simply passing through is not an excuse. Fearing being deported (if in the U.S. illegally) is also not a valid fear of persecution.

Instead, not only has the Federal Government not done anything, they have fought outside efforts to close the loophole. More on that in another article.

5. Sanctuary Cities Mask Child Trafficking

(Thomas Homan, Acting Director of I.C.E.)

“So we can’t arrest them in the jail, we can’t arrest them at their homes because they won’t open their doors and cooperate with us because they’ve been trained not to—what option does that leave us?” Homan said. “And when you’re in New York City, Los Angeles, or Chicago, chances are, when you pull that car over, you’re within a block or two of a school, or a church, or a hospital.”

Homan said sanctuary cities entice more illegal aliens to enter the United States and hide out in those cities. “Sanctuary cities are alien smugglers’ best friend. You don’t think the alien smuggling organizations are using that as an enticement?”

Homan said the United States spends billions of dollars a year on border security, detention, immigration courts, attorneys, and appeals courts.

So called “sanctuary cities” are Municipalities that have decided not to cooperate with Federal officials in removing illegal aliens. People without legal status are allowed access to public services such as health care, education, library privileges, and other social services. Of course, these are services that taxpaying citizens have been contributing to.

Worth noting: many jurisdictions that have such policies are done so without any democratic mandate from the people. Objectors may be gaslighted as being racist or far-right.

In the above article, I.C.E. Director Homan raises another interesting point. Sanctuary cities are perfect targets for human smuggling. And why wouldn’t they be? police officials have been instructed not to enforce the law.

In these instances, sanctuary laws are not helping children. Instead, they are being used to provide cover to predators engaging in smuggling. Curiously, Liberals will never get into this side of it.

6. Flooding Europe With Fake Refugees

(Mass sexual assaults in Cologne, Germany, by “refugees”.)

In 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to open Germany’s, and by extension Europe’s borders to the world. Over 1 million people came in just the first year.

Note: she was never elected to do this, nor did she ever attempt to seek a democratic mandate. Many “refugees” repaid the kindness with acts of violence and sexual assaults towards the German people, particularly the women.

Loads of this information is readily available online, so this will be skipped over for this article.

7. Pretending To Be “Child” “Refugees”

Jamal, who arrived in Sweden in August with his 16-year-old brother, isn’t the only one who noticed some rather seasoned-looking men among the 1,000-2,000 unaccompanied minors who were arriving in Sweden each week over the summer and fall. Now, in the midst of a fierce debate over asylum policy that saw Sweden backtrack on its generous open-door position late last year, Swedes are also weighing how to treat migrants who claim to be children but lack identification.

The government and the country’s Migration Agency have long been reluctant to medically test unaccompanied minors’ ages as a standard procedure. “The government has been hoping that silence about age cheating will solve the issue,” said Johansson. But now as part of the recent reversal of its open-door asylum policy, the government is considering making age-determination tests standard practice for unaccompanied minors. The test, which involves dental and wrist-bone X-rays, can usually determine a young person’s age within a one-year margin. A Justice Ministry spokesman told Foreign Policy that a proposal is expected within the next six months.

There are also videos available on the subject. The Swedes are right though. There needs to be a crackdown.

Why pretend to be a child? A few reasons. First, children are virtually impossible to deport. This means that a minor who arrives in a Western nation (whether the child claim is genuine or not) is essentially guaranteed to remain there. Another reason is that there are more financial benefits available to children, which adults would not have access to.

8. France’s Bone Scans Ruled Legal”

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL DECIDED THAT:
l. Article 388 of the Civil Code, in its formulation resulting from the aforementioned Act of 14 March 2016, stipulates:
“A minor is an individual of either sex who has not yet reached the full age of eighteen years.
“Radiological bone scans used to determine age in the absence of valid identification documents and when the alleged age does not seem to correspond, can only be carried out by decision of the judicial authority and with the consent of the party concerned.
“The conclusions of these scans, that must specify their margin of error, cannot by themselves be used to determine if the party concerned is a minor. Any doubt benefits the party concerned.
“In case of doubt as to whether the party concerned is a minor, age may be evaluated through a pubertal development exam of primary and secondary sexual characteristics.”

To be fair the language is a bit sticky when it comes to consent. However, it can reasonably be seen that a refugee claimant can have an application refused if they won’t give their consent.

9. Push For Child Marriage in Europe

“Religious or cultural justifications obscure the simple fact that older, perverse men are abusing young girls,” said Rainer Wendt, head of the German police union.

Monika Michell of Terre des Femmes, a women’s rights group that campaigns against child marriage, added: “A husband cannot be the legal guardian of a child bride because he is involved in a sexual relationship with her — a very obvious conflict of interest.”

The Justice Minister of Hesse, Eva Kühne-Hörmann, asked: “If underage persons — quite rightly — are not allowed to buy a beer, why should the lawmakers allow children to make such profound decisions related to marriage?”

Others said the ruling would open the floodgates of cultural conflict in Germany, as Muslims would view it as a precedent to push for the legalization of other Islamic practices, including polygamy, in the country.

This is just one instance of efforts by Muslims to have their “marriages” overseas recognized in other countries. Typically, it is of an adult man married to an adolescent or teenage girl. Muslims predictably make cries of discrimination.

However, there is a very legitimate concern for the welfare of the child. If the girl is below the age of consent, and unable to make mature decisions, why should she be getting married? Is child sexual exploitation mitigated simply by cloaking it in religion?

On the flip side, the European Court of Human Rights is making it more difficult to criticize such acts. An Austrian woman had her “religious defamation” conviction upheld, on the grounds it would upset religious peace.

Yes, don’t bother protecting children from pedophiles and exploitation. Instead, let’s prosecute people who upset the pedophiles’ feelings. Much better approach.

10. UN Global Migration Compact Enables Smuggling

This non-binding agreement was signed by Canada back in December 2018. While touted as just a “framework”, the Compact has many chilling provisions.

OBJECTIVE 17(c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media

So the UN GMC has provisions to “educate” media on the terminology and issues. And it also has the power to pull the funding for media it deems offensive. This is blatant censorship and propaganda, and flies in the face of a free media.

OBJECTIVE 4: Ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation
20. We commit to fulfil the right of all individuals to a legal identity by providing all our nationals with proof of nationality and relevant documentation, allowing national and local authorities to ascertain a migrant’s legal identity upon entry, during stay, and for return, as well as to ensure effective migration procedures, efficient service provision, and improved public safety. We further commit to ensure, through appropriate measures, that migrants are issued adequate documentation and civil registry documents, such as birth, marriage and death certificates, at all stages of migration, as a means to empower migrants to effectively exercise their human rights.

This really needs to be clarified. Will the UN be working with other nations to ensure that identification papers will be available? Or will the UN just go ahead and provide their own papers to people based on who they claim to be? And why would 1st world countries want to take in large numbers of people who haven’t had proper ID before?

OBJECTIVE 5: Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
21. We commit to adapt options and pathways for regular migration in a manner that facilitates labour mobility and decent work reflecting demographic and labour market realities, optimizes education opportunities, upholds the right to family life, and responds to the needs of migrants in a situation of vulnerability, with a view to expanding and diversifying availability of pathways for safe, orderly and regular migration.

Translation: we are going to expand the number of pathways available to immigrate to another country. It doesn’t seem to matter that the majority of nations and people in those nations want less immigration. The U.N. believes that migration is by definition, good.

OBJECTIVE 11: Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
27. We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration. We further commit to implement border management policies that respect national sovereignty, the rule of law, obligations under international law, human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, and are non-discriminatory, gender-responsive and child-sensitive.

“Regardless of their migration status” is a euphemism for people who are in the country illegally. And this managing of borders sounds like control will be taken away from the host country. Who will be managing this integrated project? The UN?

OBJECTIVE 13: Use immigration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
29. We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize noncustodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.

Find other alternatives to custody. Presumably this also includes people in the country illegally, though that is not made clear. Does the public know that this removes any teeth the laws have to protect the citizens from crimes committed by migrants?

OBJECTIVE 15: Provide access to basic services for migrants
31. We commit to ensure that all migrants, regardless of their migration status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services. We further commit to strengthen migrant inclusive service delivery systems, notwithstanding that nationals and regular migrants may be entitled to more comprehensive service provision, while ensuring that any differential treatment must be based on law, proportionate, pursue a legitimate aim, in accordance with international human rights law.

This is exactly what it sounds like. Migrants will be entitled to basic public services in another country, regardless of whether or not they are there illegally. Seems like something the host population should be deciding on (and voting on), don’t you think? Shouldn’t the public get a say in the matter at all.

11. UN GMC Immunizes Migrations For Smuggling

OBJECTIVE 9: Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants
25. We commit to intensify joint efforts to prevent and counter smuggling of migrants by strengthening capacities and international cooperation to prevent, investigate, prosecute and penalize the smuggling of migrants in order to end the impunity of smuggling networks. We further commit to ensure that migrants shall not become liable to criminal prosecution for the fact of having been the object of smuggling, notwithstanding potential prosecution for other violations of national law. We also commit to identify smuggled migrants to protect their human rights, taking into consideration the special needs of women and children, and assisting in particular those migrants subject to smuggling under aggravating circumstances, in accordance with international law.

Interesting. The UN Global Migration Compact claims in Objectives 9 and 10 to want to combat human trafficking, yet states that migrants participating will not be subject to criminal penalties. Does this mean that even those who are complicit will also be immune?

12. Smugglers Posing As UN Staff?

The UN claims that smugglers are targeting vulnerable people by posing as UN staff.

The Agency says that reliable sources and refugees have reported criminals using vests and other items with logos similar to that of UNHCR, at disembarkation points and smuggling hubs.

Genuine UNHCR staff are present at official disembarkation points in Libya, providing medical and humanitarian assistance, such as food, water and clothes, to refugees and migrants.

UNHCR is opposed to the detention of refugees and migrants, but has staff monitoring the situation at Libyan detention centres, aiding and identifying the most vulnerable.

However, the Agency insists that they do not engage in the transfer of refugees from disembarkation points to detention centres. The reports of criminals impersonating UNHCR staff come as the situation for refugees and migrants detained or living in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, has dramatically deteriorated.

Even is this story is true, the hypocrisy is ripe. The UN aids and abets “caravans” trying to overwhelm the Southern U.S. border. It gives information on how to circumvent the Safe Third Country Agreement to enter Canada. The UN helps flood Europe with African and Muslim migrants. Sure, the UN has nothing to do with smuggling people.

13. NXIVM Sex Cult, Mack, Raniere

According to the filed complaint, Raniere (who was known in the group as “The Vanguard”) oversaw the functioning of NXIVM, which operated under an archaic system: women were told the best way to advance was to become a “slave” watched over by “masters.”

They were expected to have sex with their “master” and do any and all menial chores they were ordered to do. They weren’t to tell anybody about the arrangement and risked public humiliation if they ever revealed details to any party.

According to a Global News article, Allison Mack has pleaded guilty to 2 charges and is expected to be sentenced later. The entire sex cult is now in the public eye, and more charges are expected.

14. Ray Chandler, Epstein, Pedophile Island

(Allegedly) Bill Clinton with Rachel Chandler at 14 years old

(Allegedly) Prince Andrew with Virginia Roberts at 17 years old

The question to ask in crimes or suspicious deaths is always who would benefit from this individual’s death. It was mere coincidence, of course, that a day after a federal appeals court released formerly sealed records in a defamation suit linked to accused pedophile Jeffrey Epstein’s “madam” revealing names and a Bill Clinton party on Epstein’s sexual fantasy island, Jeffrey Epstein, on suicide watch after a previous attempt, is found dead of an apparent “suicide” in a secure facility that once safely housed Mexico drug lord “El Chapo” Guzmán.

Epstein had an island which he would take underage girls and older men to. The media fittingly dubbed it “Pedophile Island”. Since the story broke, new details keep coming to light.

Luckily for many people, Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide (or was “suicided) when the Court decided to unseal documents which would have implicated other people in the conspiracy. The death is widely expected to be just another Clinton suicide. Nothing to see here, people.

15. Pedo Connected To Prime Minister

Ingvaldson was reported to have told the court “I have lost many things since being arrested in June, 2010; a marriage, a career that I loved, numerous friendships, respect in the community at large,” according to the ruling.

He was caught in 2010 during an international police sting using Facebook. At the time, RCMP said 11 members of the ring had been arrested in Canada, Australia and the U.K.

Ingvaldson had previously taught at another Vancouver private school, West Point Grey Academy, with federal Liberal leadership hopeful Justin Trudeau.

The Crown had asked for a six-month prison term and two years’ probation. For the next five years after his prison sentence he is not allowed to go to public parks, swimming pools or other areas where children under 16 are expected to be present, unless he is with another adult over 21. During that same period, he is not allowed to work or volunteer with children under 16 in a position of trust or authority.

Hardly the only pedo in Canadian political circles. He won’t be the last either.

16. Final Thoughts On Article

Yes, this could have gone on for much longer, and each topic could have been more in depth. However, this is more of an introduction to what is coming ahead. So, if the coverage seems light, that’s why.

The topic is disturbing. It’s sickening to see what people are capable of doing to each other.

But as they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Hopefully much more will be coming.

Refugee Selection: UN v.s. Civil Societies, Does It Matter?

(Lauren Southern reports on asylum fraud)

(UN publication on human trafficking)

1. Important Links

CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda #2, Europe Needs Open Borders.
CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda #8, Border Walls Are Useless.

CLICK HERE, for UN supports migrant caravan invasion into USA.
CLICK HERE, for more on US invasion through Mexico.
CLICK HERE, for UN page on NGOs.
CLICK HERE, for UN Refugee Agency, and NGO/Civil Societies.
CLICK HERE, for UN New York Declaration (2016).
CLICK HERE, for previous coverage of New York Declaration
CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact (2018)
CLICK HERE, for UN book on people smuggling.

CLICK HERE, for Interpol and human smuggling.
CLICK HERE, for UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto.

2. Advocates Abroad And Ariel Ricker

(Advocates Abroad Homepage)

(Lauren Southern exposing Ariel Ricker on coaching “refugees” to lie).

At least one organization, Advocates Abroad, is openly committing fraud in trying to get bogus “refugees” into Europe. This is done by concocting convincing stories with specific details in hopes of duping refugee agencies.

(From this RT article)

Ariel Ricker, the executive director of Advocates Abroad, a major non-profit NGO which provides legal aid to migrants, has been caught on tape openly discussing how she teaches refugees to lie to border agents. The video was released by Canadian right-wing activist, author and internet personality, Lauren Southern, and will be a part of her new documentary film project ‘Borderless,’ which takes on the European migration crisis.

One method she teaches migrants is to exploit the presumed Christian sympathies of the predominantly Eastern Orthodox Greece by pretending to have been persecuted for being Christian. She even describes telling them how to pray during interviews, ironically because doing so reflects “honesty.”

Advocates Abroad claim the video was selectively edited and manipulated to serve a particular agenda.

3. Other NGO Activities

CLICK HERE, for Advocates Abroad.
CLICK HERE, for smuggling 40 migrants into Italy.
CLICK HERE, for people smuggling into Europe.
CLICK HERE, for NGOs smuggling Muslims into Italy.
CLICK HERE, for “humanitarian” smuggling into Greece.
CLICK HERE, for Soros funded NGOs smuggling ISIS into Europe.

Of course the above links are just a tiny sample.

Interesting that Canada signed the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto.

The Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, adopted by General Assembly resolution 55/25, entered into force on 28 January 2004. It deals with the growing problem of organized criminal groups who smuggle migrants, often at high risk to the migrants and at great profit for the offenders. A major achievement of the Protocol was that, for the first time in a global international instrument, a definition of smuggling of migrants was developed and agreed upon. The Protocol aims at preventing and combating the smuggling of migrants, as well as promoting cooperation among States parties, while protecting the rights of smuggled migrants and preventing the worst forms of their exploitation which often characterize the smuggling process.

Canada claims to be against human smuggling. Yet we sign treaties (like the New York Declaration and Global Migration Compact), which facilitate human smuggling.

4. Interpol’s Take On Human Smuggling

For centuries, people have left their homes in search of better lives. In the last decade, the process of globalization has caused an unprecedented amount of migration from the least developed countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe to Western Europe, Australia and North America.

With this, we have seen an increase in the activities of organized criminal networks who facilitate irregular migration. By providing fake identification documents, organizing transport, and bypassing official border controls, criminals are making huge profits.

People smuggling syndicates are run like businesses, drawn by the high profit margins and low risks. They benefit from weak legislation and a relatively low risk of detection, prosecution and arrest compared to other activities of transnational organized crime.

Smuggling networks can be extensive and complex, and can include people who carry out a number of different roles:

A report published jointly by Europol and INTERPOL in May 2016 estimates that more than 90% of the migrants coming to the European Union are facilitated, mostly by members of a criminal network.

Worth pointing out: that while Interpol cites the UN’s policies against human smuggling, it neglects to mention that the UN’s policies around “rights” for illegals go a long way towards incentivizing mass illegal immigration.

It also neglects to point out the underhanded means which host countries have these forced on their populations by politicians.

5. Media Pussyfoots Around Illegal Immigration

(From a CBC article)

“Desperate migrants are choosing ever more dangerous sea routes to Europe and using smaller and less seaworthy boats, causing a sharp increase in drowning deaths, warns the International Organization for Migration.”

“Meanwhile in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is ratcheting up his attacks on the European Union, calling it a “transport agency” for migrants that hands out funds and “anonymous bank cards” to “terrorists and criminals.”
.
“This is the kind of slippery slope which could again lead to a broken Europe,” Orbán declared today in an interview on Hungarian public radio.

The author of this trash deliberately and repeatedly skirted the main issue here: these hoards of “migrants” trying to get into Europe were doing so ILLEGALLY. Hence places like Hungary have every right to secure their borders.

(From one CBC interview)

“AMT: We all remember the Berlin Wall coming down. In fact it was 30 years ago this year. I’ve got a clip here that I’d like you to hear. These are two Germans talking about what it felt like to stand on top of the Berlin Wall after the crowds started streaming across the border.
.
AMT: Elisabeth Vallet, how did the fall of that iconic wall affect our ideas around the usefulness or function of walls?
.
ELISABETH VALLET: Well actually if you remember in 1989 it opened a almost a hippie era of international relations, where we believed that it was the end of borders me. Maybe even the end of state sovereignty or even the fading sovereignty of the state. We believed that peace would be dominating and that conflicts would be solved by the international community. It actually showed the good the positive aspects of globalization. And we overlooked the negative aspects of globalization. And when 9/11 arrived, it’s as if that negative aspect of globalization showed its face. And that’s when the only solution to that, governments came up with the one only solution which was building border fences, because there is no way to retain globalization, to contain globalization.”

In this garbage, the “expert” compares the Berlin Wall to border walls in general. The Berlin wall was built in the 1960s to keep Germans from fleeing, and in fact kept them prisoner. This is conflated with building walls to stop illegal immigration.

The above are just 2 examples of how media outlets (like the CBC) try to shade and distort the truth by downplaying how serious and criminal these actions actually are. They play to emotion and selectively avoid hard truths.

6. UN Openly Aids And Abets Refugee Fraud

(UN supports ongoing efforts to undermine US/Mexico border)

It involves some serious mental gymnastics to explain how the UN can both:

  1. Support mass, uncontrolled entry into other countries
  2. Oppose circumventing laws to get migrants into other countries

San Jose – The UN Migration Agency, IOM, continues to provide support and assistance to migrants who have joined the migrant caravans crossing Central America and opted to seek asylum in Mexico or return to their countries of origin.

In the Siglo XXI Migratory Station of Tapachula, managed by the National Institute for Migration (INM) of Mexico, IOM and the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs (SRE) have been supplying food and basic hygiene kits to over 1,500 migrants from the caravans seeking asylum in Mexico.

“IOM maintains its position that the human rights and basic needs of all migrants must be respected, regardless of their migratory status,” says Christopher Gascon, IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico. “In coordination with UNHCR we will continue to monitor the situation of the caravan counting on field staff, the Mexican Office of Assistance for Migrants and Refugees (DAPMyR), and partner NGOs, providing information regarding alternatives for regular and safe migration, as well as options for voluntary returns.”

“The caravan phenomenon in Central America is another expression of a migration process that the region has been facing for quite some time,” explains Marcelo Pisani, IOM Regional Director for Central America, North America, and the Caribbean. “It is a mixed migration flow, driven by economic factors, family reunification, violence and the search for international protection, among others.

That’s right. The UN admits that many of these cases are not refugees.

The United Nations willingly aids and abets efforts to overwhelm the US/Mexico border. Even knowing that the bulk of the asylum claims are bogus, the UN sees nothing immoral about perpetrating a fraud. Nor is there anything immoral about the burden dumped on the American public.

What is eerie is how coordinated these “refreshment aid packages” are delivered. Almost as if the UN planned this invasion from the beginning.

7. UN Erasing Borders With New York Declaration (2016) and Global Migration Compact (2018)

The New York Declaration (2016) was covered here previously.

5. We reaffirm the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. We reaffirm also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recall the core international human rights treaties. We reaffirm and will fully protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of status; all are rights holders. Our response will demonstrate full respect for international law and international human rights law and, where applicable, international refugee law and international humanitarian law.

49. We commit to strengthening global governance of migration. We therefore warmly support and welcome the agreement to bring the International Organization for Migration, an organization regarded by its Member States as the global lead agency on migration, into a closer legal and working relationship with the United Nations as a related organization. We look forward to the implementation of this agreement, which will assist and protect migrants more comprehensively, help States to address migration issues and promote better coherence between migration and related policy domains.

56. We affirm that children should not be criminalized or subject to punitive measures because of their migration status or that of their parents.

77. We intend to expand the number and range of legal pathways available for refugees to be admitted to or resettled in third countries. In addition to easing the plight of refugees, this has benefits for countries that host large refugee populations and for third countries that receive refugees.

The UN Global Migration Compact (2018) was covered here, and again here. Sorry, but I don’t believe Michelle Rempel’s half-assed “rejection” of the Compact.

OBJECTIVE 5: Enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration
21. We commit to adapt options and pathways for regular migration in a manner that facilitates labour mobility and decent work reflecting demographic and labour market realities, optimizes education opportunities, upholds the right to family life, and responds to the needs of migrants in a situation of vulnerability, with a view to expanding and diversifying availability of pathways for safe, orderly and regular migration

OBJECTIVE 11: Manage borders in an integrated, secure and coordinated manner
27. We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration. We further commit to implement border management policies that respect national sovereignty, the rule of law, obligations under international law, human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, and are non-discriminatory, gender-responsive and child-sensitive.

OBJECTIVE 13: Use immigration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives
29. We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize noncustodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.

OBJECTIVE 15: Provide access to basic services for migrants
31. We commit to ensure that all migrants, regardless of their migration status, can exercise their human rights through safe access to basic services. We further commit to strengthen migrant inclusive service delivery systems, notwithstanding that nationals and regular migrants may be entitled to more comprehensive service provision, while ensuring that any differential treatment must be based on law, proportionate, pursue a legitimate aim, in accordance with international human rights law.

OBJECTIVE 17(c) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internetbased information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media

The United Nations is fully on board with erasing borders with their mass migration policies. The 2016 and 2018 agreements leave no doubt of that.

Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), or Civil Societies, are involved in bringing large numbers of people from the third world over to the first. Some do it out of guilt or conscience, while others do it for money.

Obvious question: Do these NGOs and the UN work together?

8. Many NGOs (Civil Societies) Work With UN

(NGO Branch Department of Economic and Social Affairs of UN)

(The UN “directly” collaborates with NGOs/Civil Societies)

Faced with many complex challenges in recent years, UNHCR has redoubled its efforts to strengthen its partnerships with UN organizations and NGOs, both international and national, seeking to maximise complementarity and sustainability in its work for refugees and others of concern.

Today, UNHCR works with more than 900 funded, operational and advocacy partners to ensure that the rights and needs of populations of concern are met. UNHCR continues to give high priority to its relations with partners, and strives to strengthen strategic and operational collaboration at global, regional and country levels.

The main goal of the organization’s vast network of partnerships is to ensure better outcomes for persons of concern by combining and leveraging complementary resources and working together in a transparent, respectful and mutually beneficial way. These partnerships also underpin UNHCR’s engagement in inter-agency fora and processes, where mutual understanding and strong alliances help ensure that refugees, IDPs and stateless persons are adequately prioritised.

CLICK HERE, for UN Refugee Partners.

So, how exactly would switching Canada’s reliance on refugee selection be helped here? If NGOs (Civil Societies) directly work with the UN, then is there any real difference?

The UN cites over 900 fully funded partners. Other than possibly decentralizing the process, what is the point here? Is it a policy distinction without a difference?

9. UN Hypocrisy On Human Smuggling

From the UN’s own package on smuggling people:

(Page 8) Salt and Stein suggested treating international migration as a global business that has both legitimate and illegitimate sides. The migration business is conceived as a system of institutionalized networks with complex profit and loss accounts, including a set of institutions, agents and individuals each of which stands to make a commercial gain.

The model conceives trafficking and smuggling as an intermediary part of the global migration business facilitating movement of people between origin and destination countries. The model is divided into three stages: the mobilization and recruitment of migrants; their movement en route; and their insertion and integration into labour markets and host societies in destination countries. Salt and Stein conclude their theory by citing the need to look at immigration controls in a new way, placing sharper focus on the institutions and vested interests involved rather than on the migrants themselves.

Aranowitz puts forward a similar view and claims that smuggling could not have grown to such proportions if it were not supported by powerful market forces. Furthermore, Aranowitz argues that smugglers exhibit entrepreneur-like behaviour and circumvent legal requirements through corruption, deceit and threats. They specialize either in smuggling or in trafficking services, and the profit generated varies accordingly.

Interesting. The UN absolutely does recognize the “business” element of human trafficking, and likens it to any other type of business. It is driven by high demand.

However, the elephant in the room must be pointed out. The UN itself helps to drive such demand with its “one world” policies. By arranging accords (like New York or Global Migration Compact), the UN helps create these conditions. If it becomes mandatory that a host country MUST provide basic services, regardless of legal status, then people will flock to those countries. The UN also tries to facilitate housing and other social services at the expense of taxpayers.

To add insult to injury, these accords limit the ability of host Governments to jail illegals, and attempt to shut down legitimate criticism.

10. Canada’s Aud-G Uncovers Citizenship Fraud

(Rebel Media: Auditor General Michael Ferguson reports)

Citizenship being granted to people:

  • With prior, serious criminal records
  • Who commit crimes after arriving
  • Who are using fake addresses

About the fake addresses, the video talks about 50 people using the same address (as one example) to claim residency.

The Rebel video makes a great point: If this Ministry can’t be bothered to properly follow up on obvious cases of citizenship fraud, how can Canadians expect them to properly screen and select “refugees” for entry into Canada?

From this article.

The report shows that several people and possibly dozens managed to be accepted as Canadian citizens through fraud that went undetected, or through lax controls.

The report noted cases of people with serious criminal records who were accepted as citizens. It also found that between 2008 and 2015, 50 different applicants used the same single address on their citizenship applications during overlapping time periods during which time seven of the applicants became Canadian citizens. It took seven years before the scheme was found during an investigation.

The report also noted that in some 49 similar cases where an address anomaly had been detected, citizenship officials failed to follow-up on 18 of the cases to see if the applicants actually met residency requirements.

The report indicated that citizenship officers did not consistently apply their own standards to identify and deal with suspicious immigration documents including checking travel documents against the department’s database of lost, stolen and fraudulent documents.

11. What About Canada’s “Conservative” Parties?

CLICK HERE, for Conservative Party of Canada policies.
CLICK HERE, for People’s Party on refugees.

Disclaimer: political parties lie all the time, so take this with a grain of salt.

The CPC claims it will focus on “UN selected” refugee claimants, while the PPC claims that “Civil Society Groups” should be making the selections instead. However, this omits several important facts:

  • First, neither party will address the corruption and fraud that goes on both within the UN and with Civil Societies. Finding corruption within the process is a very quick and easy thing to do.
  • Neither will acknowledge that the vast majority of these “refugees” will likely be Islamic, an ideology which is completely incompatible with Western society. There is this MINOR problem of Muslims trying to take over the world.
  • This United Nations v.s. Civil Societies is a false distinction, as many Civil Societies work with the UN.
  • Canadians don’t want, nor were ever asked if they would support hordes of refugees being shipped into Canada.
  • Trudeau and the Liberals are an easy target for criticism for lack of proper screening. However, PPC and CPC fail to indicate how they would properly screen to protect Canadians.
  • Another question they won’t address: will these “refugees” be expected to work and contribute at some point, or will they be permanent welfare cases?

However, it would be fair to point out that Stephen Harper, in 2015, suggested focusing on Christians and Yazidis refugees. This would have been a considerable improvement over importing more Islam (and hence more Islamic violence), into Canada.

12. Little Difference In NGO v.s. UN Selection

Just an opinion, but there doesn’t seem to be much of a difference between the 2 ideas.

Considering how many Civil Societies (NGOs) work with the UN, it seems an exercise in futility to try to separate them.

And given the rampant corruption, and total lack of respect for national sovereignty, BOTH seem like very bad options.

Digital Charter Coming After “Christchurch Call”

(Trudeau announcing new “Digital Charter”)

(New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern at “Christchurch Call”)

Yes, the Christchurch Call and the UN “digital cooperation” are 2 separate initiatives, but the result is the same: stamping out free speech online.

(The UN High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation)

(Liberal ex-Candidate Richard Lee supports UN regulating internet)

IMPORTANT LINKS


CLICK HERE, for text of Christchurch Call. Death to free speech.
CLICK HERE, for the announcement of the new “Charter”.
CLICK HERE, for review of Gov’t bribing media outlets.
CLICK HERE, for the $595M bribery (see pages 40-44)
CLICK HERE, for Ottawa purging references to Islam in terrorism report.
CLICK HERE, for an article on “approved media”.
CLICK HERE, for the Canadian Charter.

Interesting UN Links from prior article.
CLICK HERE, for the UN Panel for Digital Cooperation
CLICK HERE, for their press release.
CLICK HERE, for Digital Cooperation.
CLICK HERE, for a 2012 Internet Governance Forum held in Bogota, Colombia.
CLICK HERE, for the 2014 Arab Internet Governance Forum.
CLICK HERE, for Arab Dialogue on Internet Governance
CLICK HERE, for internet governance in Western Asia
CLICK HERE, for a review of UN wanting to ban criticism of Islam on a global scale.

TEXT OF CHRISTCHURCH CALL

To that end, we, the Governments, commit to:

  • Counter the drivers of terrorism and violent extremism by strengthening the resilience and inclusiveness of our societies to enable them to resist terrorist and violent extremist ideologies, including through education, building media literacy to help counter distorted terrorist and violent extremist narratives, and the fight against inequality.
  • Ensure effective enforcement of applicable laws that prohibit the production or dissemination of terrorist and violent extremist content, in a manner consistent with the rule of law and international human rights law, including freedom of expression.
  • Encourage media outlets to apply ethical standards when depicting terrorist events online, to avoid amplifying terrorist and violent extremist content.
  • Support frameworks, such as industry standards, to ensure that reporting on terrorist attacks does not amplify terrorist and violent extremist content, without prejudice to responsible coverage of terrorism and violent extremism. Consider appropriate action to prevent the use of online services to disseminate terrorist and violent extremist content, including through collaborative actions, such as:
  • Awareness-raising and capacity-building activities aimed at smaller online service providers;
  • Development of industry standards or voluntary frameworks;
  • Regulatory or policy measures consistent with a free, open and secure internet and international human rights law.

To that end, we, the online service providers, commit to:

  • Take transparent, specific measures seeking to prevent the upload of terrorist and violent extremist content and to prevent its dissemination on social media and similar content-sharing services, including its immediate and permanent removal, without prejudice to law enforcement and user appeals requirements, in a manner consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms. Cooperative measures to achieve these outcomes may include technology development, the expansion and use of shared databases of hashes and URLs, and effective notice and takedown procedures.
  • Provide greater transparency in the setting of community standards or terms of service, including by:
    Outlining and publishing the consequences of sharing terrorist and violent extremist content;
  • Describing policies and putting in place procedures for detecting and removing terrorist and violent extremist content. Enforce those community standards or terms of service in a manner consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms, including by:
  • Prioritising moderation of terrorist and violent extremist content, however identified;
    Closing accounts where appropriate;
  • Providing an efficient complaints and appeals process for those wishing to contest the removal of their content or a decision to decline the upload of their content.
  • Implement immediate, effective measures to mitigate the specific risk that terrorist and violent extremist content is disseminated through livestreaming, including identification of content for real-time review.
  • Implement regular and transparent public reporting, in a way that is measurable and supported by clear methodology, on the quantity and nature of terrorist and violent extremist content being detected and removed.
  • Review the operation of algorithms and other processes that may drive users towards and/or amplify terrorist and violent extremist content to better understand possible intervention points and to implement changes where this occurs. This may include using algorithms and other processes to redirect users from such content or the promotion of credible, positive alternatives or counter-narratives. This may include building appropriate mechanisms for reporting, designed in a multi-stakeholder process and without compromising trade secrets or the effectiveness of service providers’ practices through unnecessary disclosure.
  • Work together to ensure cross-industry efforts are coordinated and robust, for instance by investing in and expanding the GIFCT, and by sharing knowledge and expertise.
  • To that end, we, Governments and online service providers, commit to work collectively to:
  • Work with civil society to promote community-led efforts to counter violent extremism in all its forms, including through the development and promotion of positive alternatives and counter-messaging.
  • Develop effective interventions, based on trusted information sharing about the effects of algorithmic and other processes, to redirect users from terrorist and violent extremist content.
  • Accelerate research into and development of technical solutions to prevent the upload of and to detect and immediately remove terrorist and violent extremist content online, and share these solutions through open channels, drawing on expertise from academia, researchers, and civil society.
  • Support research and academic efforts to better understand, prevent and counter terrorist and violent extremist content online, including both the offline and online impacts of this activity.
  • Ensure appropriate cooperation with and among law enforcement agencies for the purposes of investigating and prosecuting illegal online activity in regard to detected and/or removed terrorist and violent extremist content, in a manner consistent with rule of law and human rights protections.
  • Support smaller platforms as they build capacity to remove terrorist and violent extremist content, including through sharing technical solutions and relevant databases of hashes or other relevant material, such as the GIFCT shared database.
    Collaborate, and support partner countries, in the development and implementation of best practice in preventing the dissemination of terrorist and violent extremist content online, including through operational coordination and trusted information exchanges in accordance with relevant data protection and privacy rules.
  • Develop processes allowing governments and online service providers to respond rapidly, effectively and in a coordinated manner to the dissemination of terrorist or violent extremist content following a terrorist event. This may require the development of a shared crisis protocol and information-sharing processes, in a manner consistent with human rights protections.
  • Respect, and for Governments protect, human rights, including by avoiding directly or indirectly contributing to adverse human rights impacts through business activities and addressing such impacts where they occur.

Recognise the important role of civil society in supporting work on the issues and commitments in the Call, including through:

  • Offering expert advice on implementing the commitments in this Call in a manner consistent with a free, open and secure internet and with international human rights law;
  • Working, including with governments and online service providers, to increase transparency;
  • Where necessary, working to support users through company appeals and complaints processes.
  • Affirm our willingness to continue to work together, in existing fora and relevant organizations, institutions, mechanisms and processes to assist one another and to build momentum and widen support for the Call.
  • Develop and support a range of practical, non-duplicative initiatives to ensure that this pledge is delivered.
    Acknowledge that governments, online service providers, and civil society may wish to take further cooperative action to address a broader range of harmful online content, such as the actions that will be discussed further during the G7 Biarritz Summit, in the G20, the Aqaba Process, the Five Country Ministerial, and a range of other fora.

Signatories:
Australia
Canada
European Commission
France
Germany
Indonesia
India
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Jordan
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Senegal
Spain
Sweden

Some observations:

  1. Combatting extremist ideologies and fighting inequality are lumped together.
  2. This will apparently be done “respecting free speech and human rights”, but aren’t those things already supposed to be protected?
  3. Parties want to “promot[e] positive alternatives and counter-messaging”. Doesn’t that sound like Onjective 17(c) of the UN Global Migration Compact, promote propaganda positive to migration?
  4. Encouraging media to use ethical practices when covering violence? And what, shut them down if they refuse?
  5. Widen support for the call? Collective suicide pact for free speech?
  6. Looking for expert advice in how to implement “the Call” without violating those pesky free speech and human rights laws. Perhaps you need another Jordan Peterson to make it sound nice and fluffy.
  7. Research to spot “ROOT CAUSES” of terrorism.
  8. Look for technical methods to remove terroristic or violent material, (or anything we deem to be violent or terroristic), and share the methods with others.
  9. Collaborate with partner countries, no real concern of whether they support terrorism themselves, as do many Islamic countries.
  10. Mess with algorithms to ensure users not directed to “inappropriate content”.
  11. Regular public reporting, sounds great, except when Governments censor necessary information in the name of not offending anyone, as seen here.
  12. Support INDUSTRY STANDARDS? So the internet “will” be regulated globally.
  13. And all of this misses a VERY IMPORTANT point: what happens when content is shared in Country A, but rules in Country B would render it illegal? Does the content get pulled down because it is offensive to some other nation in the world?

All in all, this is pretty chilling.

Quotes From GlobalNews Article:

“The platforms are failing their users. And they’re failing our citizens. They have to step up in a major way to counter disinformation, and if they don’t, we will hold them to account and there will be meaningful financial consequences,” he said Thursday.

“It’s up to the platforms and governments to take their responsibility seriously and ensure that people are protected online. You don’t have to put the blame on people like Mark Zuckerberg or dismiss the benefits of social platforms to know that we can’t rely exclusively on companies to protect the public interest,” Trudeau continued.

He announced that Canada would be launching a digital charter, touching on principles including universal access and transparency and serving as a guide to craft new digital policy.

Speaking about Canada’s upcoming federal election, he said the government was taking steps to eliminate fake news and that a new task force had been created in order to identify threats to the election and prevent foreign interference.

$595M Bribe: Have You Forgotten?


A New Non-Refundable Tax Credit for Subscriptions to Canadian Digital News Media

To support Canadian digital news media organizations in achieving a more financially sustainable business model, the Government intends to introduce a new temporary, non-refundable 15-per-cent tax credit for qualifying subscribers of eligible digital news media.

In total, the proposed access to tax incentives for charitable giving, refundable tax credit for labour costs and non-refundable tax credit for subscriptions will cost the federal government an estimated $595 million over the next five years. Additional details on these measures will be provided in Budget 2019.

Not only will the Trudeau Government be cracking down on what it views as “fake news”, it will be subsidizing “friendly” or cooperative media. This is nothing short of propaganda. This is a government propping up dying media outlets financially. Of course, what will be expected in return? favourable coverage?

SECTION 2: FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS


To summarize so far, our government:
(1) Is a member of the UN, which wants to globally regulate the internet. This is referred to as “DIGITAL COOPERATION”. The same UN wants to globally ban criticism of Islam.
(2) Passes a “non-binding” motion, M-103, to ban Islamophobia.
(3) Passes Bill C-16, to ban criticism of their gender agenda, calling certain language to be hate speech.
(4) Signs the Global Migration Compact, which contains provisions (Objective 17(c)) to sensitise and regulate media.
(5) Announces plans to subsidize “certain” media, the 2018 economic update.
(6) Attends a convention, the Christchurch call, and signs the above resolution.
(7) Announces plans for a “digital charter”

Can Section 2 of the Charter — fundamental freedoms — protect us from this assault on free speech? Let’s hope so:

Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

Most court cases have come down on the side of fundamental freedoms. If this digital charter comes to be, then certainly the 2 charters will collide.

DOING WHAT UN NEVER COULD?


The UN has for a long time tried to regulate our freedoms for the “global collective” or some other such nonsense.

But now, will we do this to ourselves? Will Western nations engage in their own freedom-suicide pact in order to provide the illusion of security from violent terrorists and extremists?

Western Liberals embrace global rule and regulation. So do “Conservatives”, and fake populists, who are basically globalists in disguise. It will be interesting to see how many will actually stand up for freedom instead of caving to pressure.

Barcelona Declaration & Kalergi Plan (Destruction of Europe)

(Kalergi Plan, explained by Black Pigeon Speaks)

(Macron’s Reform Agenda)


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for UN Population Conferences (1974 Romania, 1984 Mexico, 1994 Egypt)
CLICK HERE, for the Barcelona Declaration (of 1995).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 1995).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 1998).
CLICK HERE, for the Expert Group of Population Decline (of 2000).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2002).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2005).
CLICK HERE, for UN Migration & Development (of 2008).
CLICK HERE, for the Declaration on High Level Dialogue on Migration (of2013).
CLICK HERE, for the New York Declaration (of 2016)
CLICK HERE, for the UN Global Migration Compact (of 2018)
CLICK HERE, for the Charlemagne Prize, for unifying Europe.
CLICK HERE, for Canada’s Multiculturalism Act.

2. Let’s Get A Timeline

  1. 1918 – End of WW1, Austria Hungary broken apart
  2. 1918 onwards – tensions between nations and groups within
  3. 1922 – Kalergi’s Writings of a “Unified Europe”
  4. 1933 – Hitler becomes Chancellor of Germany
  5. 1945 – End of WW2, start of cold war
  6. 1973 – Free trade bloc between 6 European nations
  7. 1974 – Population Conference in Bucharest, Romania
  8. 1984 – Population Conference in Mexico City, Mexico
  9. 1994 – Population Conference in Cairo, Egypt
  10. 1995 – Barcelona Declaration in Barcelona, Spain
  11. 1995 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
  12. 1998 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
  13. 2000 – Expert Report on Population Decline
  14. 2002 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
  15. 2005 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
  16. 2008 – Resolution on Migrant and Development, UN
  17. 2013 – High Level Talks in Migration, UN
  18. 2016 – New York Declaration, NY, USA
  19. 2018 – UN Global Migration Compact, Morocco

3. Who Was At Barcelona?


Barcelona declaration

adopted at the Euro-Mediterranean Conference – 27-28/11/95

• The Council of the European Union, represented by its President, Mr Javier SOLANA, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Spain,
• The European Commission, represented by Mr Manuel MARIN, VicePresident,
• Germany, represented by Mr Klaus KINKEL, ViceChancellor and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Algeria, represented by Mr Mohamed Salah DEMBRI, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Austria, represented by Mrs Benita FERREROWALDNER, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
• Belgium, represented by Mr Erik DERYCKE, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Cyprus, represented by Mr Alecos MICHAELIDES, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Denmark, represented by Mr Ole Loensmann POULSEN, State Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
• Egypt, represented by Mr Amr MOUSSA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Spain, represented by Mr Carlos WESTENDORP, State Secretary for Relations with the European Community,
• Finland, represented by Mrs Tarja HALONEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• France, represented by Mr Hervé de CHARETTE, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Greece, represented by Mr Károlos PAPOULIAS, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Ireland, represented by Mr Dick SPRING, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Israel, represented by Mr Ehud BARAK, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Italy, represented by Mrs Susanna AGNELLI, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Jordan, represented by Mr AbdelKarim KABARITI, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Lebanon, represented by Mr Fares BOUEZ, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Luxembourg, represented by Mr Jacques F. POOS, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Cooperation,
• Malta, represented by Prof. Guido DE MARCO, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Morocco, represented by Mr Abdellatif FILALI, Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• the Netherlands, represented by Mr Hans van MIERLO, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Portugal, represented by Mr Jaime GAMA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• the United Kingdom, represented by Mr Malcolm RIFKIND QC MP, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,
• Syria, represented by Mr Farouk AL-SHARAA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Sweden, represented by Mrs Lena HJELM-WALLEN, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Tunisia, represented by Mr Habib Ben YAHIA, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• Turkey, represented by Mr Deniz BAYKAL, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs,
• the Palestinian Authority, represented by Mr Yassir ARAFAT, President of the Palestinian Authority, taking part in the Euro-Mediterranean Conference in Barcelona:

The first sections have to do with free trade and economic cooperation. However, the partnership in social, cultural and human affairs is far more interesting.

Partnership in social, cultural and Human affairs:

Developing human resources, promoting understanding between cultures & exchanges between civil societies

The participants recognize that the traditions of culture and civilization throughout the Mediterranean region, dialogue between these cultures and exchanges at human, scientific and technological level are an essential factor in bringing their peoples closer, promoting understanding between them and improving their perception of each other.

In this spirit, the participants agree to establish a partnership in social, cultural and human affairs. To this end:

they reaffirm that dialogue and respect between cultures and religions are a necessary precondition for bringing the peoples closer. In this connection they stress the importance of the role the mass media can play in the reciprocal recognition and understanding of cultures as a source of mutual enrichment;

they stress the essential nature of the development of human resources, both as regards the education and training of young people in particular and in the area of culture. They express their intent to promote cultural exchanges and knowledge of other languages, respecting the cultural identity of each partner, and to implement a lasting policy of educational and cultural programmes; in this context, the partners undertake to adopt measures to facilitate human exchanges, in particular by improving administrative procedures;

they underline the importance of the health sector for sustainable development and express their intention of promoting the effective participation of the community in operations to improve health and well-being;

they recognize the importance of social development which, in their view, must go hand in hand with any economic development. They attach particular importance to respect for fundamental social rights, including the right to development;

-they recognize the essential contribution civil society can make in the process of development of the EuroMediterranean partnership and as an essential factor for greater understanding and closeness between peoples;
-they accordingly agree to strengthen and/or introduce the necessary instruments of decentralized cooperation to encourage exchanges between those active in development
-within the framework of national laws: leaders of political and civil society, the cultural and religious world, universities, the research community, the media, organizations, the trade unions and public and private enterprises;
-on this basis, they recognize the importance of encouraging contacts and exchanges between young people in the context of programmes for decentralized cooperation;
-they will encourage actions of support for democratic institutions and for the strengthening of the rule of law and civil society;
they recognize that current population trends represent a priority challenge which must be counterbalanced by appropriate policies to accelerate economic takeoff;
-they acknowledge the importance of the role played by migration in their relationships. They agree to strengthen their cooperation to reduce migratory pressures, among other things through vocational training programmes and programmes of assistance for job creation. They undertake to guarantee protection of all the rights recognized under existing legislation of migrants legally resident in their respective territories;

-in the area of illegal immigration they decide to establish closer cooperation. In this context, the partners, aware of their responsibility for readmission, agree to adopt the relevant provisions and measures, by means of bilateral agreements or arrangements, in order to readmit their nationals who are in an illegal situation. To that end, the Member States of the European Union take citizens to mean nationals of the Member States, as defined for Community purposes;

they agree to strengthen cooperation by means of various measures to prevent terrorism and fight it more effectively together;

by the same token they consider it necessary to fight jointly and effectively against drug trafficking, international crime and corruption;

they underline the importance of waging a determined campaign against racism, xenophobia and intolerance and agree to cooperate to that end.

4. Summary


Okay, let’s gather some information here:

  1. Improving perception of them? Sounds like propaganda
  2. Mass media to “play a role”. Okay
  3. Closeness of cultures to be valued
  4. Exchanges to be promoted
  5. Migration to be valued
  6. Must repatriate illegals
  7. campaign against racism, xenophobia and intolerance (no Islamophobia). Could this be to silence critics of this mass migration pact?

In case anyone was wondering, this is to promote multiculturalism, with no expectation of assimilation. While this is promoted as a post-cultural era, the idea is to encourage mass migration (mainly to Europe). Various cultures could then expect accommodation, since tolerance was the norm.

Of course, all of this presupposed that nations were totally fine giving up their national heritage and culture, something that has never proven true.

5. Exerps of Kalergi Plan

This war of annihilation, prepared by European politics, will leave the world war just as far behind in horror as it did the German-French one. His element will be the air – his weapon the poison – his aim is the extermination of the hostile nation. The main fight will be directed against the cities of the hinterland, against women and children. The vanquished nations are destroyed – the victorious mortally wounded emerge from this mass murder. This imminent war means the complete downfall of Europe, its culture and economy. Other continents will take its place. The second danger that escapes a fragmented Europe is the conquest by Russia.

Then the fragmented and divided small states of Europe will face the one Russian world power whose territory is five times larger than the whole of Europe. Neither the small states of Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and the Balkans nor disarmed Germany would then be able to ward off the Russian onslaught. Rhine, Alps, Adriatic would become the border of Europe: until this border also falls and Europe becomes Russia’s western province. There is only one salvation from this danger: the European union. For a united Europe there is no Russian danger. Because it has twice as many people as Russia and a much more developed industry. So the decision about the Russian danger is not with Russia – but with Europe.

Getting originals of Kalergi’s work has been difficult. But here is the basic idea. Individual nation states within Europe lead to violence and war. People’s attachment to ethnicity, culture and heritage leads to violence between groups. However, if there was only one people, then these issues would not exist.

Yes, the Kalergi plan is ethnic cleansing, although the intent was to make for a more peaceful Europe. (Watch BPS’s video above as he explains it very well).

Further, individual nations weaken Europe against Russia. Russia of course is vastly stronger than any individual nation, but could be fended off if the European nations united.

The Kalergi plan was a way to solve both problems: (1) prevent violence between European nations; and (2) unite to be able to stand up to Russia.

As for the Charlemagne Prize, this is an award given to a person who has made extraordinary efforts in uniting Europe. There are some notable winners:
-Jean Claude Juncker won in 2006
-Angela Merkel won in 2008
-Emmanuel Macron won in 2018

The goal of Barcelona Declaration and Kalergi Plan is to destroy the individual European nation and to give rise to a European super state. Of course, the people’s themselves do not wish to give up their culture, language, traditions or ethnicity. Therefore, a high level of duplicity is necessary.

Of course, the aim of the December 10, 2018 UN Global Migration Compact is to erase nations throughout the West, not just Europe.

On a final note: doesn’t the Barcelona Declaration sound a lot like Canada’s Multiculturalism Act? Any unique national identity is to be removed in order to be “diverse and tolerant”

Multiculturalism policy
3 (1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to
(a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;
(b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;
(c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;
(d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;
(e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;
(f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character;
(g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;
(h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;
(i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and
(j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.

The Multiculturalism Act is Canada’s version of the Barcelona Declaration. Nothing to unite us as a people, no unique culture, customs, traditions or heritage. Canada is to be “multicultural”, which plainly means it is to have “no” culture.

Also worth noting, Quebec has laws to protect its language and culture, while the rest of Canada does not. Hypocritical.

Instead of preventing conflicts BETWEEN societies, forced multiculturalism ensures there will be conflicts WITHIN societies.

CBC Propaganda #14: Let’s Replace The Canadian Population


Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for CBC Propaganda Masterlist.

(CBC wants less Canadian children)
CLICK HERE, for “we’re only having 1 kids, and that’s okay”.
CLICK HERE, for beware of middle child syndrome.
CLICK HERE, for criticizing those with too many kids.
CLICK HERE, for why I only have 1 child.
CLICK HERE, for childless women changing culture.
CLICK HERE, for not teaching a daughter to be polite.
CLICK HERE, have less children to lower emissions.

(and in case you think CBC just wants less children in general)
CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism is critical to Canada.
CLICK HERE, for border walls are useless.
CLICK HERE, for nothing will stop migration.
CLICK HERE, for Europe should have open borders.
CLICK HERE, for Hungary’s Orban is a dictator for rejecting migration.
CLICK HERE, for bigot Orban wanting a Christian nation.
CLICK HERE, for Global Migration Compact is harmless.
CLICK HERE, for Canada having 100M people by year 2100.

(and to everyone’s favourite benevolent founder>
CLICK HERE, for Soros is misunderstood.
CLICK HERE, for Soros bullied out of Hungary.
CLICK HERE, for Canada joining UN, Soros, to sponsor refugees.

3. Why This Is Important


There are many, many more links on both subjects, but this should provide sufficient evidence for now. CBC, Canada’s government run “news” agency, consistently reports on both of these topics.

    CBC pushes both:

  1. Reducing Canadian birth rate; and
  2. Mass migration of foreigners

What are the consequences of these 2 initiatives? Well, when Canadians have less children, their birthrate falls, and the population declines. When you have mass migration, the declining population of Canadians is replaced by migrants and their descendants.

Think this is hyperbole? Consider these points:

  • Shame families with many children
  • Having 1 kid is okay
  • Childless is the new culture
  • Have fewer kids to save the planet

….. and on the other side:

  • Borders are immoral and pointless
  • Multiculturalism is part of Canada
  • Only bigots reject migration
  • Canada’s population needs to be much bigger
  • 4. Consider Both Narratives

    First, starting with the fearmongering piece that climate change is destructive and can only be mitigated by altering human behaviour:

    >What’s the single best decision you can make if you want to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) being released into the atmosphere?

    That’s the question UBC researcher Seth Wynes and his co-author Kimberly Nicholas set out to answer in a new paper published this week.

    Their answer? Have fewer children.

    The other three choices they identified were eating a plant-based diet, avoiding air travel and giving up personal vehicles. But by their reasoning, having one fewer child overwhelmingly outweighs all other choices, due to all of the GHGs that child would be responsible for emitting over the course of their life.

    “To put it simply, adding another person to the planet who uses more resources and produces more carbon dioxide is always going to make a large contribution to climate change,” Wynes said.

    And on the flip side of the “have fewer children” message, do you think that these people will recommend much, MUCH reduced immigration so as to reduce emissions? Nope, not a chance. From the “Century Initiative” promotion:

    If Canada sticks with current practices, our population will grow to between 51 to 53 million by the end of the century.

    A non-profit group called The Century Initiative advocates doubling that, to 100 million. That’s about triple our current population.

    “We recognize that it may be counterintuitive,” Shari Austin, CEO of the Century Initiative, told The Sunday Edition’s guest host Peter Armstrong.

    It’s the only way, she argued, that Canada can face the economic challenges ahead and strengthen its international influence.

    Currently, Canada accepts 310,000 immigrants per year. The Century Initiative suggests that number should be closer to 450,000.

    “It’s a big, audacious goal,” she conceded. But it has been done before. Since 1945 to the present day, Canada’s population has tripled.

    “A mix of people wanting to contribute to the economy and wanting to have children,” Austin explained.

    That doesn’t mean that refugees aren’t welcome.

    “We also have ethical obligations to make sure we do our fair share to help bring people to a better life,” she clarified.

    She also sees this as a way to create “a more diverse, more interesting, dynamic population.”

    “It’s an exciting opportunity to be proactive about what we want to look like in fifty years, in a hundred years. It’s also an opportunity to leave a better world for our kids and our grandkids.”

    It is interesting the contrast in the arguments.
    CBC uses ENVIRONMENTAL and HEALTH reasons to push for less Canadians to have less children. However,
    CBC uses ECONOMIC and MULTICULTURAL claims to push for more immigration (or migration)

    Nice bait-and-switch.

    To be fair, CBC does have many authors and contributors. However, the overall pattern is impossible to ignore. CBC regularly releases content pushing for Canadians to have less children. At the same time it sings the praises of open borders, mass migration and multiculturalism.

    5. George Soros Puff Piece

    The financier is also famously active as a philanthropist. Through his Open Society Foundations, he has given billions to NGOs in more than 100 countries to “build vibrant and tolerant democracies,” according to its website.

    Why is Soros controversial?

    Emily Tamkin, a staff writer for Foreign Policy magazine, compares Soros’s public image to a mirror in the Harry Potter novels. When a character looked in that fictional mirror, they would see what they desired most.

    “He’s like that, but with the thing that you revile most,” she told The Current’s Anna Maria Tremonti.

    CBC also has done many flattering puff pieces on Soros. They claim he is misunderstood, and that it is bigots projecting their own prejudices onto him. No real objectivity here.

    6. Is This Illegal?

    Under the letter of the law, probably not. But consider the following:

    Marginal note:
    Public incitement of hatred
    319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    Marginal note:

    Wilful promotion of hatred
    (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
    (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
    (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

    Does this promote hate and harm against Canadians? I would think so, but sadly no judge ever would. The CBC, which uses our tax dollars to advocate for our own replacement is just so wrong.

    7. StatsCan Aware Of Decline


    Here is a recent report:

    Fertility rates among Canadian women continue to decrease

    The total fertility rate (TFR) for 2015 was 1,563 births per 1,000 women. In 2016, the TFR was 1,543 births per 1,000 women. The TFR in Canada has shown a general decline since 2008, when it was 1,681 births per 1,000 women. The TFR is an estimate of the average number of live births that 1,000 women would have in their lifetime, based on the age-specific fertility rates of a given year.

    Taking mortality between birth and 15 years of age into consideration, developed countries such as Canada need an average of around 2,060 children per 1,000 females to renew their population based on natural increase and without taking immigration into account. The last year in which Canada attained fertility levels sufficient to replace its current population was 1971.

    While the TFR is a good indicator of fertility in Canada as a whole, this national average can hide major provincial and territorial differences. From 2000 to 2016, Nunavut was the only province or territory to consistently have fertility levels above the replacement rate, with a TFR of 2,986 live births per 1,000 women in 2016. With the exception of the Prairie provinces and the Northwest Territories, every other province and territory had TFRs during this period that rarely exceeded 1,700 births per 1,000 women.

    In 2016, for the 16th consecutive year, Saskatchewan had the highest TFR among the provinces, at 1,934 births per 1,000 women. It was followed by Manitoba (1,847), the Northwest Territories (1,793) and Alberta (1,694). British Columbia was the province with the lowest fertility rate at 1,404 births per 1,000 women, followed by Nova Scotia (1,422) and Newfoundland and Labrador (1,425).

    Sustainable Development Goals

    On January 1, 2016, the world officially began implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development — the United Nations’ transformative plan of action that addresses urgent global challenges over the next 15 years. The plan is based on 17 specific sustainable development goals.

    The Births release is an example of how Statistics Canada supports the reporting on the Global Goals for Sustainable Development. This release will be used in helping to measure the following goal:

    Forgot to mention, population control is part of Agenda 2030.

    Few Canadian Kids + Mass Migration = Demographic Replacement

    Final thought: Consider this policy idea, previously published.

    UN Security Council: Legalized Aggression


    (Then President George W. Bush, arguing for an invasion of Iraq under blatantly false pretenses. The UN Security Council approved the use of force in 2002 by a 15-0 vote. War was launched on March 20, 2003).


    (A critique on the problem with veto power)


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    CLICK HERE, for UN Security Council home page.
    CLICK HERE, for the page on sanctions.
    CLICK HERE, the UN Charter.
    CLICK HERE, for Article 41 of the UN Charter (Sanctions).
    CLICK HERE, for an index of voting records.
    CLICK HERE, for Wikipedia page on “Proxy Wars”.

    Peace and Security

    The Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It has 15 Members, and each Member has one vote. Under the Charter of the United Nations, all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions.

    The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. In some cases, the Security Council can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security.

    That is correct. 15 nations can decide what is “in the interest of global peace and security”. Hardly seems that other nations get much of a say in international matters. Would your own sovereignty be limited by what these 15 members of the “Global Community” have to say?

    Even more undemocratic is the make up of the Security Council. There are 15 members, 5 of which are permanent, and 10 others which are chosen on a rotational basis.

    The 5 permanent members are: 1/ the United States; 2/ Russia (formerly the Soviet Union); 3/ Britain; 4/ France; and 5/ China. These were the “winners” of World War II, when the UN was founded. Each of the 5 permanent members has “veto” power, meaning they can unilaterally block any resolution from passing.

    In order to pass a Security Council resolution, a majority of members have to approve it. Additionally, none of the “Permanent 5” can veto. They each have to abstain or support.

    What if the UN doesn’t opt for military force? There are less direct, but more passive-aggressive measures called “sanctions”. These are essentially punishments the Security Council imposes.

    (From Article 41)

    “The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.”

    From the page on sanctions:

    “Security Council sanctions have taken a number of different forms, in pursuit of a variety of goals. The measures have ranged from comprehensive economic and trade sanctions to more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, and financial or commodity restrictions. The Security Council has applied sanctions to support peaceful transitions, deter non-constitutional changes, constrain terrorism, protect human rights and promote non-proliferation.”

    The UN Security Council also lists who it has imposed sanctions upon: “Since 1966, the Security Council has established 30 sanctions regimes, in Southern Rhodesia, South Africa, the former Yugoslavia (2), Haiti, Iraq (2), Angola, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Eritrea, Eritrea and Ethiopia, Liberia (3), DRC, Côte d’Ivoire, Sudan, Lebanon, DPRK, Iran, Libya (2), Guinea-Bissau, CAR, Yemen, South Sudan and Mali, as well as against ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida and the Taliban.”

    Does UN Security Council Create World Peace?
    Not really. This is especially true when one of the “Permanent 5” has veto power over any resolution to stop or condemn the aggression. Though the major powers may not directly be involved, they may provide aid to others and fight proxy wars.

    Though not always the best site, Wikipedia is great for a quick reference.

    Chinese Civil War (1944–1949)
    Greek Civil War (1944–1949)
    Iran crisis of 1946 (1945–1946)
    First Indochina War (1946–1954)
    Paraguayan Civil War (1947)
    Malayan Emergency (1948–1960)
    Internal conflict in Myanmar (1948– )
    Balochistan conflict (1948– )
    Arab–Israeli conflict (1948–present)
    Korean War (1950–1953)
    Mau Mau Uprising (1952–1960)
    Second Indochina War (First Taiwan Strait Crisis (1953–1975))
    Algerian War (1954–1962)
    First Sudanese Civil War (1955–1972)
    Suez Crisis (1956–1957)
    Second Taiwan Strait Crisis (1958)
    Lebanon crisis (1958)
    Tibetan uprising (1959–1962)
    Central American crisis (1960–1996)
    Congo Crisis (1960–1965)
    Portuguese Colonial War (1960–1974)
    Xinjiang conflict (1960s–present)
    First Iraqi–Kurdish War (1961–1970)
    Eritrean War of Independence (1961-1991)
    North Yemen Civil War (1962–1970)
    Dhofar Rebellion (1962–1976)
    Sarawak Communist Insurgency (1962–1990)
    Sand War (1963)
    Aden Emergency (1963–1967)
    Insurgency in Northeast India (1963–present)
    Rhodesian Bush War (1964–1979)
    Dominican Civil War (1965)
    Communist insurgency in Thailand (1965–1983)
    Bolivian Campaign (1966–1967)
    Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–1969)
    South African Border War (1966–1990)
    Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970)
    Naxalite–Maoist insurgency (1967–present)
    Communist insurgency in Malaysia (1968–1989)
    Operation Condor (1968–1989)
    Al-Wadiah War (1969-present)
    Civil conflict in the Philippines (1969–present)
    Yemenite War (1972)
    Angolan Civil War (1974–2002)
    Ethiopian Civil War (1974–1991)
    Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990)
    Western Sahara War (1975–1991)
    Indonesian occupation of East Timor (1975–1999)
    Cabinda War (1975–present)
    Insurgency in Laos (1975–present)
    Civil conflict in Turkey (1976–present)
    Shaba I (1977)
    Ogaden War (1977–1978)
    Cambodian-Vietnamese War (1977–1991)
    Mozambican Civil War (1977–1992)
    Chittagong Hill Tracts conflict (1977–1997)
    Shaba II (1978)
    Uganda–Tanzania War (1978–1979)
    NDF Rebellion (1978–1982)
    Chadian–Libyan conflict (1978–1987)
    Yemenite War of (1979)
    Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989)
    Sino-Vietnamese War (1979
    Internal conflict in Peru (1980–present)
    Ethiopian–Somali Border War (1982)
    Sri Lankan Civil War (1983–2009)

    This isn’t even a complete list. But when researching conflicts, you will find that it is most often one or more of the “Permanent 5” behind these conflicts. How can the UN actually help world peace when its own Security Council members can flaunt the principles without consequences?

    Why are a nation’s well being and sovereignty dependant on the will of 15 nations, 5 of whom appointed themselves as permanent members with a veto.

    This is not to say that nations should not be free to enter into military alliances and pacts. However, this arrangement seems stacked against smaller and weaker nations.

    What Does UN Say About Security Council?

    Under the United Nations Charter, the functions and powers of the Security Council are:

    -to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;
    -to investigate any dispute or situation which might lead to international friction;
    -to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
    -to formulate plans for the establishment of a system to regulate armaments;
    -to determine the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression and to recommend what action should be taken;
    -to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop aggression;
    -to take military action against an aggressor;
    -to recommend the admission of new Members;
    -to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in “strategic areas”;
    -to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Justice.

    There has been much speculation within Canada that Justin Trudeau is being so “UN compliant” because he is aiming for a seat on the Security Council. Not sure if this is true, though it’s certainly possible.

    Military aggression. But “democratically performed” military aggression.”

    Public Policy #4: UN Promotes Replacement Migration, While Hungary Boosts Family Growth


    (UN Promotes replacement migration)


    (Hungary proposes making it more affordable for Hungarian women to have children)


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG

    (1) Challenge to UN Global Migration Compact dismissed in Calgary, however Court rules that it is not intended to be a legally binding contract.

    (2) Challenge launched to close loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement


    CLICK HERE, for the topic of “REPLACEMENT MIGRATION”.
    CLICK HERE, for March 2000 Report.

    NEW REPORT ON REPLACEMENT MIGRATION ISSUED BY UN POPULATION DIVISION
    20000317

    NEW YORK, 17 March (DESA) — The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

    United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio — i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person — will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2.
    Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the report examines in detail the case of eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). In each case, alternative scenarios for the period 1995-2050 are considered, highlighting the impact that various levels of immigration would have on population size and population ageing.

    Major findings of this report include:
    — In the next 50 years, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of low fertility and increased longevity. In contrast, the population of the United States is projected to increase by almost a quarter. Among the countries studied in the report, Italy is projected to register the largest population decline in relative terms, losing 28 per cent of its population between 1995 and 2050, according to the United Nations medium variant projections. The population of the European Union, which in 1995 was larger than that of the United States by 105 million, in 2050, will become smaller by 18 million.

    — Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration. Fertility may rebound in the coming decades, but few believe that it will recover sufficiently in most countries to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future.

    – 2 – Press Release DEV/2234 POP/735 17 March 2000

    — Some immigration is needed to prevent population decline in all countries and regions examined in the report. However, the level of immigration in relation to past experience varies greatly. For the European Union, a continuation of the immigration levels observed in the 1990s would roughly suffice to prevent total population from declining, while for Europe as a whole, immigration would need to double. The Republic of Korea would need a relatively modest net inflow of migrants — a major change, however, for a country which has been a net sender until now. Italy and Japan would need to register notable increases in net immigration. In contrast, France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be able to maintain their total population with fewer immigrants than observed in recent years.

    — The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent the decline of the total population are considerably larger than those envisioned by the United Nations projections. The only exception is the United States.

    — The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent declines in the working- age population are larger than those needed to prevent declines in total population. In some cases, such as the Republic of Korea, France, the United Kingdom or the United States, they are several times larger. If such flows were to occur, post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would represent a strikingly large share of the total population in 2050 — between 30 and 39 per cent in the case of Japan, Germany and Italy.

    — Relative to their population size, Italy and Germany would need the largest number of migrants to maintain the size of their working-age populations. Italy would require 6,500 migrants per million inhabitants annually and Germany, 6,000. The United States would require the smallest number — 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.

    — The levels of migration needed to prevent population ageing are many times larger than the migration streams needed to prevent population decline. Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations.

    — In the absence of immigration, the potential support ratios could be maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age.

    — The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require a comprehensive reassessment of many established policies and programmes, with a long-term perspective. Critical issues that need to be addressed include: (a) the appropriate ages for retirement; (b) the levels, types and nature of retirement and health care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour force participation; (d) the assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers to support retirement and health care benefits for the elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration,

    – 3 – Press Release DEV/2234 POP/735 17 March 2000

    in particular, replacement migration and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.
    The report may be accessed on the internet site of the Population Division (http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm). Further information may be obtained from the office of Joseph Chamie, Director, Population Division, United Nations, New York, NY, 10017, USA; tel. 1-212-963-3179; fax 1-212-963-2147.

    Hungary understands
    Far better than “importing” replacement populations, Hungary has decided to make it more affordable to have their own children. Recently, Prime Minister Victor Orban announced a policy that women who have 4 children or more will no longer pay income tax. The goal is to encourage women to have more children, and reverse falling birth rates.

    By growing your own population, you don’t have to worry about “multiculturalism”. You don’t have to hope that a group assimilates and adopts your values. There isn’t language and culture clash, like their is with mass migration.

    Mostly importantly, you don’t have to worry about cultures (like Islam) INTENTIONALLY REFUSING to assimilate and replace your way of life with their way of life.

    Note: in small amounts, immigration “can” benefit a nation. But mass migration to “replace” the dwindling old-stock simply leads to the disappearance of the host culture and people.

    Conservatism & Libertarianism fail
    In order to preserve a nation, unity and common bonds are far more important than merely “keeping the numbers up”. There is more to a nation than number of people, GDP, and economic growth. Nationalists understand this. Conservatives and Libertarians do not.

    Canada — and all nations — wanting to grow, should follow the Hungarian lead of boosting its own population. Forget about using replacement migration as a solution.

    2019 — Laws Worth Challenging in Calgary

    (We are at a crossroads here, no question)

    <img src=”https://canucklaw.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/canzuk01-300×169.png” alt=”” width=”500″ height=269″ class=”alignnone size-medium wp-image-1295″ />

    (At party convention in Halifax, in August 2018, CPC endorsed Canzuk)

    (Canada’s so-called “Conservative” Party endorses globalism)


    (1) The full text for UN Global Migration Compact is HERE.
    (2) The full text for Canada/US Safe 3rd Country is HERE, and see HERE.
    (3) The proposed UN Parliament/World Government is HERE.
    (4) The full text of the Paris Accord is HERE.
    (5) The Multiculturalism Act is HERE.
    (6) The Canadian Citizenship Act (birth tourism) is HERE.
    (7) Bill C-6 (citizenship for terrorists) is HERE.
    (8) M-103 (Iqra Khalid’s Blasphemy Motion) is HERE.
    (9) Fed’s $595M bribery of journalists is outlined HERE.
    (10) Agenda 21 (signed in June 1992) is HERE
    (11) Agenda 2030 (signed in September 2015) is HERE.
    (12) UN Global Citizen Education is HERE.
    (13) UN ”Digital Cooperation” is HERE.
    Items in the above list are addressed HERE.

    Please sign this: PETITION E-1906 CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG


    Here are some good ideas for patriotic/nationalistic Canadians to be pondering. These things need to be gotten rid of, or stopped, if we are to take our country back.

    (1) UN Global Migration Compact — underway
    (2) Loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement
    (3) UN Parliamentary Assembly
    (4) Multiculturalism Act
    (5) Birth Tourism, aka “Anchor Babies”
    (6) Citizenship For Illegals
    (7) M-103, Blasphemy
    (8) Paris Accord
    (9) Government Buying Off Media Outlets with $595M
    (10) Membership With The UN

    As will be demonstrated, the CPC, which calls itself “Conservative” cannot be trusted on this topic and really supports open borders globalism

    (1) UN Global Migration Compact
    This is already being challenged in Calgary Federal Court. Updates to be posted

    OTHER IDEAS TO CONSIDER…

    (2) Loophole in Canada/US Safe 3rd Country Agreement
    CLICK HERE, for the actual link to the government website.

    CLICK HERE, the review of it.

    Where the Agreement is in effect

    The Safe Third Country Agreement applies only to refugee claimants who are seeking entry to Canada from the U.S.:
    at Canada-U.S. land border crossings
    by train or
    at airports, only if the person seeking refugee protection in Canada has been refused refugee status in the U.S. and is in transit through Canada after being deported from the U.S.

    To point this out, if someone crosses “between” border crossings, they can get around this agreement. Weaselly globalists like to refer to illegal aliens who do this as “irregular crossers”.

    The biggest problem here of course is Roxham Road.

    (3) UN Parliamentary Assembly
    CLICK HERE, for that earlier piece covering a proposition to form a global government. Needless to say this will erase our sovereignty, as would the UN Global Migration Compact.

    Note: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau signed this in 2010, so he had been on board with this for a decade now. Many other Liberals and NDP also have signed.

    (4) Multiculturalism Act
    CLICK HERE, for the legislation.
    CLICK HERE, for the earlier review of it.

    Multiculturalism Policy of Canada
    Marginal note:
    Multiculturalism policy

    3 (1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to
    (a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;

    (b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;

    (c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;

    (d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;

    (e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;

    (f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character;

    (g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;

    (h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;

    (i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and

    (j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.

    Canada should have one identity. Multiculturalism encourages — yes encourages — there to be multiple parallel societies going on within Canada.

    We need this to replaced by something that focuses on a Canadian identity

    (5) Birth Tourism, aka “Anchor Babies”
    CLICK HERE, for the earlier review of the policy.

    Note: The CPC wants to end “abuse”, of the practice, but stops short of actually calling for it to be ended.

    “Halifax, NS: Today, Conservative Party Leader and Leader of the Official Opposition Andrew Scheer released the following statement on birth tourism in Canada:

    “This weekend, Conservative Party members debated and passed a policy related to a Liberal MP’s petition calling for the end of birth tourism in Canada.

    “This is a practice that has received increasing attention from Canadian media in recent months.
    “Our Shadow Minister for Immigration Michelle Rempel will soon begin her Pathways to Canada tour, during which she and other Conservative MPs will meet with stakeholders and policymakers to provide input on new Conservative immigration policy.

    “While the policy passed did not clearly focus on ending the practice of birth tourism, ending birth tourism will be among the objectives of our policy.””

    This is a sleazy way of circumventing Canadian laws. Simply come here while 6-8 months pregnant, have a child, then instant citizenship. The child, now a “Canadian” can turn around an sponsor the mother, and whoever they claim the “father” is, for citizenship as well.

    Only Canada and the U.S. allow such a policy.

    (6) Citizenship For Illegals
    Again endorsed by the CPC, despite it damaging Canadian sovereignty.

    “Ottawa, ON – The Honourable Michelle Rempel, Shadow Minister for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, and Gerard Deltell, Shadow Minister for the Treasury Board, today announced the launch of the Pathway to Canada tour.

    “Conservatives have spent nearly three years calling on Justin Trudeau to put forward a plan to ensure Canada’s immigration system operates in an orderly, planned, and safe manner. These calls have gone unanswered and Canadians’ confidence in the system continues to plummet.

    “As the next step in our policy development process, we are launching Pathway To Canada, a tour of the country to hear from policy-makers and stakeholders on how best to improve our immigration system.

    “Specifically, we are looking for the best ways to integrate newcomers into Canada’s economic and social fabric, address labor needs, and ensure provincial support is adequately budgeted for.

    “We are committed to doing whatever we can to restore Canadians’ confidence in their immigration and refugee system.”

    The Pathway to Canada tour will seek input from Canadians, newcomers, industry groups, provincial counterparts, international partners, and civil society groups on concepts outlined here: https://www.michellerempel.ca/m_p_rempel_s_pathway_to_canada_remarks”

    Though the CPC tries to avoid answering the question directly, pathway to citizenship (in their eyes), includes those illegally crossing into Canada (see Item #2).

    (7) M-103, Blasphemy
    This was pushed by Iqra Khalid, a Pakistani Muslim Liberal MP. Let’s be clear, the real goal is censoring criticism of Islam.

    M103 – Systemic racism and religious discrimination

    That, in the opinion of the House, the government should:
    (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear;
    (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and
    (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could
    (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making,
    (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    Though this is “non-binding” there is concern that it will be used as a form of “soft law” to later impose actual binding rulings. In short, it may become used as a legal precedent.

    Worth noting: The Liberal Government rejected an almost identical motion that excluded the term “islamophobia”. Again, this is all about silencing criticism of Islam.

    (8) The Paris Accord
    CLICK HERE, for a review of the “virtue signalling” scam.
    CLICK HERE, for more information on the climate change scam.
    CLICK HERE, for the Paris Accord text.

    We should not be ceding sovereignty to the UN in the form of a massive wealth transfer scheme. It will do nothing to actually enact environmental progress. Unless, of course, the goal is to just shut down entire industries.

    (9) Economic Update “Bribes” Journalists with $595 million
    CLICK HERE, for the fall 2018 economic update. (Page 40 is where it starts). Journalists should not be getting propped up financially by the governments they are supposed to be holding accountable.

    CLICK HERE, for the review on the subject. Also a response from Unifor rep Howard Law.

    (10) Membership With The UN
    CLICK HERE, for the earlier covering of the topic.

    The point being that Canada gains nothing from being involved in the UN. We shovel large amounts of money (which often ends up in slush funds). In return, we get to virtue signal, but sign away our sovereignty.

    Final Thoughts
    One setback we have faced recently. Ex-pats who have no intention of ever returning to Canada are still allowed to vote. If you have been gone more than 5 years, aren’t you no longer effected by what goes on in Canada?

    This list is hardly exhaustive, but would be a great place to start in fighting for our nation.

    Are you a Canadian, or a global citizen?

    Choose wisely. Your future liberty and freedom hang in the balance.