A UN agreement will be formally adopted next week in Morocco, titled: Global Compact for Human Migration. This chilling 34-page document “presents a cooperative framework addressing migration in all its dimensions.” It’s not a binding legal agreement, but a globalist articulation of how the demographic transformation of Western nations should continue to unfold.
The document’s underlying premise is that migration is unquestionably beneficial. It opens with a vision statement that declares it to be part of the process of “sustainable development.” How a burgeoning 3rd world population on a planet whose oceans are acidifying and filling up with plastic, species declining in record numbers, a shrinking supply of cheap hydrocarbons, etc. is remotely sustainable isn’t explained. Somehow though, they “enrich our societies” through various “capacities.” Rape, murder and parasitism aren’t mentioned.
It declares that national governments must cooperate better in order to facilitate “orderly and regular migration” flows into the West, because the hitherto insufficient legality and organization of movement, rather than the process itself, is what creates resentment. What’s clear is that the authors don’t actually believe their own canards. That brings us to the most ominous part of the compact:
OBJECTIVE 17: Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration.
Native anger towards demographic displacement is attributed to “misleading information” which the signatories agree must be combated. To that end, it affirms a drive to “eliminate racism and xenophobia,” implying further crackdowns on freedom of speech by criminalizing anti-migration sentiment.
The primacy of this objective is clear because demographic replacement is an inherently unsaleable endeavor. The only question is the electoral point in the process at which a national majority realizes what’s really going on. Is it gradually, like Italians? Or, right from the non-start as is the case with Hungarians or Poles? Banning dissent is absolutely essential, because given a free political environment, the process will inevitably be halted as consequences mount.
How is this to be accomplished? We already know the drill, but they lay it out for us once again: penalties for “hate crimes,” regulation of media coverage, state-sponsored propaganda campaigns, and the brainwashing of school kids. Never once is any concession made to the fact that locals have legitimate grievances.
Here’s a summary of the consensus this thing conveys: Mass population flows from the 3rd world are unquestionably good. Illegal immigration must be legalized. Flows will be increased by implementing more efficient, regulated, subsidized, and analyzed policies. Dissent will be countered with repression and disinformation. No endpoint is articulated, implying the process will be essentially endless unless somehow things even out between the 1st and 3rd world (a real possibility).
The good news is after the US first declined in the summer, a slew of other nations have followed suit, beginning with Hungary. The growing list of countries who won’t be signing at the ceremony in Morocco now includes Austria, Australia, and Poland.
The MSM is dismissing the growing backlash as “much ado about nothing” while purposely failing to acknowledge that it mirrors the rhetoric and policy initiatives of organizations like the EU. Yes, it’s non-binding and recognizes national sovereignty. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s a statement of globalist objectives currently in the process of being implemented by sovereign entities.
The primary accomplishment of this agreement will hopefully be to wake up more and more people to the fact that their futures are in grave jeopardy. Unfortunately, in nations bereft of free political discourse (much of Western Europe), it could be a harbinger of worse repression yet to come.