Nov. 17, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:17:00
4247 The Terrible Truth About the UN Migration Compact
In December 2018, world leaders gather to sign the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration - a disaster for Western countries which virtually eliminates property rights and free speech, enshrining the right for everyone to enter Western countries and live off the taxpayer.Global CompactThe Global Compact for Migration is the first-ever UN global agreement on a common approach to international migration in all its dimensions. The global compact is non-legally binding. It is grounded in values of state sovereignty, responsibility-sharing, non-discrimination, and human rights, and recognizes that a cooperative approach is needed to optimize the overall benefits of migration, while addressing its risks and challenges for individuals and communities in countries of origin, transit and destination.The global compact comprises 23 objectives for better managing migration at local, national, regional and global levels. The compact:aims to mitigate the adverse drivers and structural factors that hinder people from building and maintaining sustainable livelihoods in their countries of origin;intends to reduce the risks and vulnerabilities migrants face at different stages of migration by respecting, protecting and fulfilling their human rights and providing them with care and assistance;seeks to address the legitimate concerns of states and communities, while recognizing that societies are undergoing demographic, economic, social and environmental changes at different scales that may have implications for and result from migration;strives to create conducive conditions that enable all migrants to enrich our societies through their human, economic and social capacities, and thus facilitate their contributions to sustainable development at the local, national, regional and global levels...▶️ Donate Now: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletterYour support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 1. Donate: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate▶️ 2. Newsletter Sign-Up: http://www.fdrurl.com/newsletter▶️ 3. On YouTube: Subscribe, Click Notification Bell▶️ 4. Subscribe to the Freedomain Podcast: http://www.fdrpodcasts.com▶️ 5. Follow Freedomain on Alternative Platforms🔴 Bitchute: http://bitchute.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Minds: http://minds.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Steemit: http://steemit.com/@stefan.molyneux🔴 Gab: http://gab.ai/stefanmolyneux🔴 Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stefanmolyneux🔴 Facebook: http://facebook.com/stefan.molyneux🔴 Instagram: http://instagram.com/stefanmolyneuxSources:http://www.un.org/en/conf/migration/https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/06/each-muslim-migrant-costs-dutch-society-over-1150000https://www.wsj.com/articles/germany-puts-migration-related-costs-at-over-86-billion-over-next-four-years-1467392402https://immigrationreform.com/2017/11/09/europe-demonstrates-uncontrolled-mass-migration-expensive/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11209234/Immigration-from-outside-Europe-cost-120-billion.htmlhttps://nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/02/10/sweden-migrant-crime-cost/https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/04/03/u-n-easter-message-migration-inevitable-desirable-necessary/https://www.forbes.com/sites/freylindsay/2018/11/13/global-compact-for-migration-sound-and-fury/#5b5602c1297a
The United Nations Global Compact for Migration is a pact to be signed in Marrakesh in December of 2018.
The official title is Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.
Now it is technically non-binding upon the governments that sign it.
It cannot be enforced in international courts of law, but of course it is the thin edge of the wedge and the goal is to create a momentum and an acceptance of the principles In order to have a binding resolution down the road.
The compact states that the goal is that, and I quote, So truly a transnational or global document.
Now under Trump, the United States pulled out...
Of this compact last year, some European states, Austria, Croatia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic and Hungary have also pulled out of the pact.
The Prime Minister of Poland, it's indicated that he will not sign.
Now the compact itself says it, quote, fosters international cooperation among all relevant actors on migration, acknowledging that no state can address migration alone and upholds the sovereignty of states and their obligations under international law.
So what this means, of course, is control over immigration, control over who comes into your country, now leaves the nation-state and is transferred to an unelected bureaucracy in the United Nations.
So, I'm going to be very clear about the angle that I'm coming at this from.
So, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration.
Now, migration... It's not legal.
Immigration is legal.
Under certain situations of extremity, if you are being persecuted for your religious beliefs or your political beliefs or your sexual orientation, if you are being persecuted, you can get to a country and apply for asylum as a refugee.
Migration is not the same as being a refugee.
You are not allowed to be a refugee even in situations of wartime.
If there's a civil war and so on, this does not count.
You're also supposed to stay in the very first country that you land in, not go welfare shopping for additional benefits elsewhere, usually having you end up in Germany.
So migration is illegal.
As a whole, it is the crossing of the borders of another country without permission and without even the context or pretext of being a refugee.
So I want you to imagine something, if you will.
Imagine that the United Nations put together a document that said, Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Tax Evasion.
Can you imagine such a thing?
Tax evasion is illegal.
Migration is illegal.
But they're attempting to make it legal through supranational bureaucracies.
So this is important.
It is also important to notice that there are a number of countries that have just said no and a number of countries that have indicated that they will say no and they are surviving.
The just say no principle is actually quite easy to implement here.
Now, I've gone through the document, and before we get to what it says, let me point out what it doesn't say or what it does not address, because that's very, very...
It's easy to be distracted by the magician's hand rather than the hand in the magician's pocket.
It's easy to be outraged by what's there and miss the point of what's not there.
So what's missing? Now, what's missing is, of course, any consultation whatsoever with domestic population's In European and North American countries.
The local populations have not been asked if they would like.
Millions of third world is pouring into their countries and into their cultures and into their wallets through the welfare state.
They've not been consulted. They've not been asked.
If they had been asked, this would have been soundly rejected.
78% of European citizens want tighter control of Europe's external control.
68% of Europeans said that they either strongly fear or moderately fear African migrants arriving en masse into Europe.
And statistically, they have some good reason, particularly the ladies, to fear such incursions.
Now, since the year 2010, more than a million sub-Saharan Africans have already moved into Europe, so there's some data to work with.
Now, as far as the migrants fleeing chaos and war and instability and so on, this is no longer the perspective of Europeans as a whole.
Most Europeans now believe that migrants are coming to Europe As a result of pull factors such as the economy, social welfare benefits, free healthcare, free education, social stability, and so on, rather than push factors such as wars or extreme poverty or chaos or political instability or climate change.
So they're coming from the money, they're not fleeing from the violence.
And there are hundreds of millions of people around the world, largely from third world countries, who would immediately move to the West if they could.
50% of Kenyans would immediately move to another country if they could.
With regards to Islam, 70% of Europeans interviewed said they believe that a growing Muslim presence in Europe is a problem.
Only 8% of Europeans believe that increased Muslim populations are no threat at all.
Now, there is, of course, the argument of the idea that because European populations are reproducing at below replacement levels, around 2.1 is replacement levels, then you need to bring in a lot of people from the third world in order to pay for retirement benefits for boomers and social benefits and welfare benefits and so on.
This is completely false.
It's not even a bad... It's a complete anti-argument.
If you look at Dutch society, each Muslim migrant costs Dutch society over $1,150,000.
If you look back at 2016, Germany estimated that migrant-related costs were over $86 billion over four years.
In Germany, 12 Germans have to work to pay taxes To fund just one migrant, 12 Germans have to work to fund the costs of one migrant.
So the idea that this is a positive benefit to the economy is ridiculous.
In 2017, Italy planned to spend 4.2 billion euros on migrants.
That is one-seventh of Italy's entire 2016 budget.
A report in England says that immigrants who came to live in Britain from outside Europe cost the public purse nearly £120 billion over 17 years.
2017 estimates put that refugees would cost Sweden $18.6 billion.
9.3 times over the budget.
So just the refugees in Sweden, a lot of whom are migrants in my opinion, 18.6 billion dollars, that's 19% of Sweden's central government annual budget, 3.2% of their GDP. So the equivalent number for the US would be if America was spending 608 billion dollars a year on refugees.
Madness. So in Sweden, Almost $60,000 per refugee were being spent per year.
The average Swedish household's disposable income is just under $29,000 per year.
There's no consultation with domestic populations, and who would want this at all?
I mean, it makes no sense, there's no value, there's no benefit, there's lots of costs, lots of instability, lots of grenade attacks, lots of rape of young girls, lots of sexual attacks and so on.
These are just the facts, and I'm bringing these facts to bear because the document seems very insistent, the UN document is very insistent, you see, that we bring data to bear on these issues.
What else is missing from this document?
Any specific implementation plans.
As we go through this, you'll see it is a wish list.
It is a snot the coke off the ass of the unicorn fantasy of what could be done if you just assemble the right verbiage.
Magic will occur.
So there's no specific implementation plans.
There are no plans on how to resolve contradictions.
Such as, as you'll see, the attacks on free speech, you can't criticize immigration policies, you can't criticize migrant policies, yet, at the same time, you want to have free speech, or you defund or attack the media, any media, online or in studio, that criticizes migration policies, but at the same time, you protect the right of the media to speak their minds.
It's just a bunch of contradictions, no plans on how they can be resolved.
Why? Because they can't be resolved, of course.
Any plans at all on how to pay for the trillions of dollars of costs in this wish list of fantasy benevolence?
So, when you have something that is consuming 10, 15, 20% or more of a government's budget, what you have to say is, we're going to cut all this other stuff in order to pay for this.
There's none of that. It's this infinite money scenario, this geyser, like money is just like oxygen, money grows on trees.
This infinite money scenario where anybody who says no, or what are the costs, or how are we going to balance things, or what do we have to cut, is just viewed as, well, that's just kind of rude, bringing math and reality to my dopamine-laced fantasy of political power.
Off with your head.
There is no addressing the fact that this migration is one way.
Unless you're planning on moving to Somalia or Libya, it's one way.
This is not migration. It is a one-way street.
No addressing that fact.
There's no addressing the disease issues that people are pouring in from the third world who do not have their inoculations, who carry diseases that are very dangerous and harmful to the local population, in particular the children.
And all I heard about when I was growing up was how bad it was that smallpox was introduced to the natives in North America.
But now there's this pipeline carrying not just people, but virulent pathogens, which the local population has little to no defense for.
No issue around that is addressed at all.
Also missing from the document is even the slightest concern over basic infrastructure deficits.
So if you look at places like Lebanon, where there's quite a lot of refugees or migrants, electricity requirements have gone through the roof, causing massive problems with the grid.
So when you have millions and millions and millions of people pouring into Western countries, is there the electrical capacity for it?
Are the roads ready and built for it?
Is there housing? Are there enough doctors?
Is there enough teachers, educational facilities?
How are you going to deal with translation?
None of that is addressed because, you see, that would be to bring some practical restrictions to the fantasy of infinite benevolence that characterizes the deranged minds of centralized bureaucrats.
No concern for increased crime and security costs, which will occur with mass migration from the third world.
It will, it will, it will.
And of course you can't address it.
No plan or cap on migration levels.
How much? It's too much.
What is the upper limit? How many migrants should each country have to receive or be allowed to receive?
Or what is the top level of that which they should receive in any given year?
None of that whatsoever.
Because again, that would be to bring some basic reality to this which they don't want to do.
No mention of Israel.
Now, why would Israel be singled out in particular?
Well, Israel is in the Middle East, and a lot of these people are coming from the Middle East, so surely Israel should be pointed out as a wonderful place for these migrants to go, and Israel should open its borders to reduce the risk of traveling to Europe.
It's further to get to Europe.
It's more dangerous. You've got to cross seas.
But, you see, if you go to Israel, it might be a lot safer.
Israel is not mentioned, thus giving rise to increased conspiracy theories online.
Which may not end very well at all.
Now, the document says that migration debates must be data-driven.
We must deal with the facts.
Provides absolutely no data.
Doesn't talk about how expensive the migrants are.
Doesn't talk about increased security costs.
Doesn't talk about decreased tax availability for other spending programs.
Doesn't deal with any of that. Doesn't deal with translation costs, doesn't deal with the fact that a lower quality education is going to be provided to the children of the local population because so many resources have to be diverted to translation and to cultural sensitivity and diversity training and all of this other stuff.
No data whatsoever in the document.
Also, the UN is not elected and is not answerable to the local population who will bear the brunt of the impact of these migrant policies.
So why would countries give the unelected and consequence-free UN control over their immigration levels?
It makes no sense whatsoever, but it's a bureaucratic document I don't think it's designed to.
There's this inevitability that snakes its way through the document as a whole.
Well, migration is happening.
We can't stop it.
There's nothing to be done about it other than we've got to try and find a way to make it more peaceful and safer and better and all of that.
And this is very strange.
This is very strange. Let me give you a quote.
Professor Thomas Bauer, chairman of the Expert Council of German Foundations on Integration and Migration, said...
The main role of this compact is how to manage migration in a more efficient way, recognizing that whenever migration happens, this is an international issue.
It is just a way to put some pressure on countries to cooperate more and to have better migration governance.
See? Migration, it just It just happens.
Well, it doesn't just happen.
It's because the borders weren't guarded.
It didn't happen throughout history.
Now it's happening because the borders weren't guarded.
And in fact, the welfare state is a giant magnet bringing millions of third worlders into Europe because they can make 10 times or 20 times the amount on welfare that they could make working in their country.
So it didn't just happen.
This is the result of very specific, often German-driven policies, and also France and the empire policies about migration.
Professor Bauer claims that the compact is in essence about, quote, remembering that migrants have basic rights, so you cannot shoot at them.
You have to provide them some health care if they're in need of it.
These kinds of things.
Now that is an amazing thing.
So the government cannot use force to enforce the law.
That is fundamentally changing the entire nature of the state.
The government, if somebody is crossing the border against the laws of the country, the government cannot shoot at people, the government cannot initiate the use of force against people who disobey the law.
That is a remarkable change, and I think the political scientists should step up and take notice, because everybody from George Washington to Barack Obama have recognized That the state is an agency of coercion.
The state is an agency of force.
It is the one social institution that gets to initiate the use of violence against usually legally disarmed citizens in pursuit of compliance with words written on paper.
The magic spell of law.
And so migrants have basic rights.
So people who break your law, who come into your country without permission, you cannot use coercion.
In fact, you have to give them free stuff.
Now imagine if you said...
Well, if people don't pay their taxes, you can't arrest them.
You have to give them free stuff.
If people don't pay their taxes, you can't put them in jail.
You can't threaten them. You just have to give them lots of free stuff.
Amazing. So there's this passivity with regards to migration.
Well, it's happening. It's on its way.
All we can do is find some way to manage it.
But if there was a tax revolt, people wouldn't say, well, you know, this tax revolt is happening.
We've got to find some way to facilitate it and make it easier and better and safer.
And we can't ever go and arrest people who don't pay their taxes.
We can't ever use force against them.
There's this odd passivity because this is what they want to have happen for reasons that we may get into.
Well, we will get into a little way down the road.
Now, they also talk about, see, they have this problem.
Because there's refugees and then there are migrants.
And migrants are not legal.
Refugees are, if they don't lie, which, well, you've seen the recent videos from Lauren Southerners, I'm sure, as I know I have, so you can look into that.
But here's one of the money shots from the climate change story that has been unrolling or unraveling or...
Part of the narrative for the past couple of decades.
So now you see they're fleeing desertification.
They're fleeing climate change.
And therefore you have to let them into your country.
So the quote is,"...we commit to create conducive political, economic, social and environmental conditions for people to lead peaceful, productive and sustainable lives in their own country and to fulfill their personal aspirations while ensuring that desperation and deteriorating environments do not compel them." To seek a livelihood elsewhere through irregular migration.
See? It's irregular migration.
By irregular, they mean illegal, as far as I understand it.
But they don't want to say illegal, because if they say the government can't use force against people who break the law, then it's no longer the government anymore.
It is something else entirely.
Now, even if we were to accept all of this climate change is real, it's man-made, it's happening, it's immoral, and it's, you know, destroying the environment in the third world...
Well, that's still no argument for migration.
Of course, when people migrate from the third world to the first world, they use 10 to 20 to 30 times the amount of resources.
Nature's precious and scarce resources, they use more food, they use more energy, they use more housing, they use more roads, they use more, you name it.
And so if climate change, which is the result of the expenditure of resources in an industrial society, if climate change is terrible and it's affecting the third world, then moving people from the third world to the first world is only going to accelerate climate change, you see, thus making the third world even worse, thus bringing more people into the first world, thus accelerating climate change even more, you understand, that even if we accept that it's climate change, migration is by far the worst policy that could happen.
Of course, climate change, environmentalism as a whole is, well, I don't find it particularly believable.
I mean, I think we should protect the planet and we should preserve resources and so on.
But if environmentalists were really into preserving resources, they would absolutely fight tooth and nail against government deficits and unfunded liabilities.
See, when the government borrows money, they are consuming resources in the here and now rather than in the future, thus overlading Mother Nature's scant and scurvy back even more.
And so they would be fighting tooth and nail against that.
They would also be fighting tooth and nail against people coming from the third world to the first world.
Like when I was a kid, there was zero population growth, that you were not supposed to have too many kids because, you see, if you had more kids, oh boy, that's just terrible.
You're consuming more and more resources.
But now, of course, that Europeans have listened to that and not had as many children.
Now it's like, oh, well, now doesn't matter.
You can just bring in millions of third-worlders and have them use resources, and that's totally fine, because I don't know what.
They're not white? It's hard to say.
But, yeah, environmentalism.
They ignore the environmental costs of national debts.
They ignore the environmental costs...
Of mass migration, it's just a bunch of nonsense designed to make people from the West feel guilty.
And of course, a lot of it is designed to make sure that the West does not become energy independent, thus interfering with the untold trillions of dollars that flow from the West to the Middle East because the Saudis and other Middle Eastern governments stole a bunch of resources and companies from the West after the Second World War.
Anyway, topic for another time.
So here are the main issues.
So the main issues that this document is trying to deal with is sovereignty and the conflation of economic migrants and refugees, as we mentioned.
An economic migrant is just someone, I guess the equivalent would be, somebody who doesn't have as nice a house as you have, therefore they're going to move in with you.
That's an economic migrant.
And a refugee would be like somebody seeking sanctuary in a church.
The two are very, very different situations.
So if you're a Christian in the Middle East being persecuted for being a Christian by a lot of Muslim governments, which happens an enormous amount, then you can try and escape that way.
It doesn't apply to war. It doesn't apply to civil war.
It doesn't apply to political instability.
It doesn't apply to you have a corrupt government.
It's only very specific.
And so, this is the problem.
There can't be that many refugees.
The economic migrants often pose falsely as refugees.
So, if people are coming just for, quote, a better life, which basically means free taxpayer money, then that's a problem.
They can't be confused with refugees, so they have to deal with it this way.
And there is some significant pushback against refugees.
This merging together of refugees and economic migrants and the fact that that completely dissolves your borders and means that migration is basically a human right.
Not that you have a human right to go to another country, but you have a human right to go to that other country and fasten your probisci on the jugular of the taxpayers and bleed them for all they're worth.
So it's not just, well, you have the right, but the taxpayers must fund all of this migration as well, and there's no end.
To how much you can move people from one country to another.
Also, of course, if you have millions of people from, say, sub-Saharan Africa or the Middle East pouring into the West, getting huge amounts of money from welfare, they send that money back home.
What that means is that it becomes highly profitable to have more kids, send those kids off to the West, whether they're minors or adults, and get a whole bunch of money being sent back home.
In the form of remittances, electronically sending money back to the third world, it's a form of foreign aid and about as voluntary as the other foreign aid, but with far worse cultural and demographic consequences.
So just in October, the Austrian vice-chancellor said, Austria's sovereignty is of the highest priority.
It is inviolable, and we will protect it.
Early in 2018, Australia's then-immigration minister Peter Dutton said, we're not going to sign a document that surrenders our sovereignty.
That's the funny thing about these globalists, you know?
When I had a hell of a time getting into Australia when I was doing a speaking tour with Lauren Southern, nobody said that my right to go to another country was somehow being violated.
I wonder if that has anything to do with my susceptibility to sunburn or not.
Now, the Alternative for Germany, which is a political party, of course, in Germany that is focused on borders or has great interest in borders, from the website of Alternative for Germany, they say the pact is a, quote, hidden resettlement plan for economic migrants, end quote, and that it will, quote, incentivize further immigration to Germany, end quote. Of course it is.
Of course it is. The Hungarian foreign minister said that the pact, quote, could lead to a fresh wave of migration, end quote, because it, quote, concerns the fact that migration is a positive process that must be encouraged, and accordingly, new migration channels must be opened, and migrants cannot be differentiated based on their legal status.
Right, so whoever shows up at your border, as long as they're not white, you must let them in.
So the compacts wording say no country can address the challenges and opportunities of this global phenomenon on its own.
But that's actually false.
Of course they can. They just enforce your own borders.
You just don't let people in who aren't there legally, who don't have the papers or who you don't have some sort of reciprocal agreement with.
So of course you can deal with it on your own.
Just have borders and enforce those borders.
The compact says, we commit to facilitate and ensure safe, orderly, and regular migration.
So safe means lower the risks, which is going to increase the volume of people coming to Europe.
Orderly, which means no chaos, no panic, and regular migration.
Not deal with the people currently in transit, but set up channels so people can endlessly flow from the third world into Europe.
So, let's start looking at some of the details.
So I held my nose, put on my biohazard suit for surviving word salad bureaucraties, and got what you needed to know.
You can read the whole thing, of course. The link is in the low bar.
So, for... Refugees and migrants are entitled to the same universal human rights and fundamental freedoms, which must be respected, protected and fulfilled at all times.
However, migrants and refugees are distinct groups governed by separate legal frameworks.
Only refugees are entitled to the specific international protection, as defined by international refugee law.
This global compact refers to migrants and presents a cooperative framework addressing migration in all its...
So, again, you want to accordion-like squish these two terms together.
Refugees and migrants.
People who are fleeing persecution, often non-Muslims, and migrants.
Just people who want to come to your country because there's free stuff there and because their religion says that they should move to your country and attempt to impose their religion through the power of the state upon everyone else, right?
So, the squishing together of these terms is very, very important.
Universal human rights and fundamental freedoms.
That is a very confusing thing.
So everyone in the world has a universal human right to the contents of your wallet, to your hard-earned money.
Everybody in the world has the right to move into your neighborhood and take money from you as a taxpayer.
And that's why, when I was tweeting about this earlier, I said, bye-bye property rights.
Everybody in the world has the right to your property.
Come on. Does anybody think this through?
Section 8. This global compact expresses our collective commitment to improving cooperation on international migration.
Migration has been part of the human experience throughout history, and we recognize that it is a source of prosperity, innovation, and sustainable development in our globalized world, and that these positive impacts can be optimized by improving migration governance.
The majority of migrants around the world today travel, live and work in a safe, ordinary and regular manner.
Nonetheless, migration undeniably affects our countries, communities, migrants and their families in very different and sometimes unpredictable ways.
Migration, they say, has been part of the human experience throughout history.
So moving into countries against the will of the domestic population, Yes, I agree.
People moving into other countries against the will of the domestic population has been part of the human experience, but not a good part of the human experience.
I mean, the indigenous population in North America didn't want the Europeans to come sometimes, certainly didn't want smallpox to come.
I've never heard.
I've never heard.
The European takeover of North America as, hey man, migration happens.
It's part of the human experience.
It's a source of prosperity, innovation and sustainable development.
No, it's almost like those terrible European white people, they came in and wiped out the local population and shredded all of the buffalo and infected everyone with smallpox and it was terrible.
Largely false, but that's the story.
But you see, when other groups move into white countries, And take from the taxpayers, well, you see, that's just part of the human experience throughout the world.
Oh, and I will put some emphasis on the text on the page.
It's all sent by me.
It's all added by me. Section 11.
This global compact offers a 360-degree vision of international migration and recognizes that a comprehensive approach is needed to optimize the overall benefits of migration.
While addressing risks and challenges for individuals and communities and countries of origin, transit and destination.
When I was an entrepreneur, I guess I'm still an entrepreneur, but I was an entrepreneur in the business world and I had a big payroll and was responsible for making money and not going out of business.
You got a very quick nose for this kind of stuff.
It usually came out of HR. The goal of this company is to optimize profits by serving customers in innovative and positive ways.
Do you have any actual plans or products there?
Spanky? No! I do have a lot of positive verbiage, though.
Now, can I make six figures or not?
So just, it's positive-sounding words.
We want to do this positive stuff and this positive stuff while balancing the needs of this person.
It's like, sure.
No specific plans.
Nothing actionable. You see, there's no data here yet.
Oh, well, it's good for community.
It's good for... No data.
So, it goes on to say, with this comprehensive approach, what is the comprehensive approach?
Well, it's a 360-degree vision, you see?
It's, you spin and you're right.
Look. Woohoo!
I just did 360 degrees.
That makes me a visionary.
Ed's slightly dizzy. Anyway, they go on to say, with this comprehensive approach, we aim to facilitate safe, orderly, and regular migration While reducing the incidence and negative impact of irregular migration through international cooperation and a combination of measures put forward in this global compact.
Irregular migration is migration that is risky and you might get turned back and there may be human traffickers and predators along the way.
In fact, there is for sure. 80% of the women...
Aiming to go across the border into the United States from Mexico are sexually assaulted along the way.
They, in fact, start to take birth control pills, even the kids, before they go because this kind of predation is occurring.
So, you see, the problem is that migration is irregular.
The problem is that migration remains illegal.
And you see...
The left never does this with anything else.
Globalists never do this with anything else.
They never say, well, you see, there are going to be guns anyway, so we should just make sure that the gun movement and the gun sales are just facilitated and everyone has a right to a gun and so on.
They're like, nope, guns are bad, we're going to ban them.
And people say, well, coming into a country without permission is illegal and therefore we should ban it.
No, no, we've got to facilitate that illegality because we like that illegality and therefore we're going to try and normalize it, right?
We acknowledge, they say, our shared responsibilities to one another as member states of the United Nations to address each other's needs and concerns over migration and an overarching obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill the human rights of all migrants, regardless of the migration status while promoting the security and prosperity of all our communities.
The word rights is so dangerous.
It's so dangerous because you can invent anything as a right.
So, again, this is all just positive, yuppie-goopie nonsense that is just designed to fill you with a vague, positive sense of good things going to happen while they pilfer your pockets and destroy your culture.
So, this will be a never-ending chain of migration.
When they make it easier and cheaper and more protected and they guarantee all the great stuff you're going to get on the other side, like healthcare and education and welfare and so on, They're opening up the floodgates, and tens of millions of people are going to pour into Europe if this goes through, and certainly if it becomes binding on the member nations.
So, yeah. 12 and 13.
12. This global compact aims to mitigate the adverse drivers and structural factors that hinder people from building and maintaining sustainable livelihoods in their countries of origin.
And so compel them to seek a future elsewhere.
Compel them.
Now that's interesting.
Adverse drivers and structural factors that hinder people from building and maintaining sustainable livelihoods in their countries of origin.
Well, they mean by this in general perhaps corruption, certainly environmental degradation, climate change and desertification and so on.
but I think that there are adverse drivers and structural factors that are hindering people from achieving their economic potential, and generally it's bureaucratic crap like this, right?
So, oh, yeah, free markets, right?
There are countries like Botswana doing somewhat better than other countries like Zimbabwe because they have more free markets in their environment.
So, yeah, you could promote the free market, and then people could stay home and start to build stuff there.
But, you see, that would be a contraction of government power, you see.
And this is about an expansion of government power because they're power junkies, right?
They get their dopamine rush from having power over others, and they're people who aren't very smart trying to do good for the human race, and therefore they're going to do bad for the human race, right?
So, you know, if you're a smart person and you want to help the human race...
You can find a cure for cancer.
You can invent some wonderful power-saving device.
You can enhance the capacities of wind farms and solar farms.
You can come up with an electrical car that doesn't do more environmental damage than the current ones do.
Lots of things you can do, but you see, those things are tough, and they involve more than just typing positive adjectives.
You've got to study. You've got to learn. You can figure out how to promote free markets.
You can figure out how to shrink governments around the world.
You can figure out how to make objective ethics stand the test of time, as I've worked on and so on.
But all of that is very tough, and it's much nicer to type positive-sounding words into a document that is the violent, word-salad, bureaucratic quasi-legislation that strangles freedoms around the world.
So, yeah, you could do that, but they don't want to do any of that.
So, 12 goes on to say, it, this compact, it intends to reduce the risks and vulnerabilities migrants face at different stages of migration by respecting, protecting, and fulfilling their human rights and providing them with care and assistance.
It seeks to address legitimate concerns of communities while recognizing that societies are undergoing demographic, economic, social and environmental changes at different scales that may have implications for and result from migration.
It strives to create Conducive conditions that enable all migrants to enrich our societies through their human, economic, and social capacities, and thus facilitate their contributions to sustainable development at the local, national, regional, and global levels.
It's just treacle that gives you diabetes, cancer, and iceplosions all at the same time.
So I don't even know what to say about this.
You know, well, it could be problematic, but we're going to iron it out by balancing this and that thing.
We aim to balance research and development with marketing, with spending.
It's like, yeah, yeah, yeah. Give me some numbers.
Give me some facts. Now, they say here societies are undergrowing demographic, environmental, social, economic.
They're just undergoing it.
Nobody's making any choices.
It's not the result of Mama Merkel opening up Germany and therefore Europe's borders.
Nothing like that. It's just happening.
Stuff's happening, and we've got to find a way to manage it.
Madness. 13 says, this global compact recognizes that safe, orderly, and regular migration works for all when it takes place in a well-informed, planned, and consensual manner.
Ah, you see, consensual.
Except for the people who have to pay for it and whose lives and futures are going to be affected the most.
In other words, the local populations of Europe and North America.
Then you see, consent doesn't matter at all.
You just impose it from outside.
Or you open up the borders and people just deal with whatever happens.
So I say here, migration should never be an act of desperation.
I don't even know what that means.
It just struck me as a phrase that's like, what does that mean?
Migration should never be an act of desperation.
Why? What does that mean?
Are you now going to regulate emotions?
They're desperate. Well, that's not good.
So, open the borders. Okay.
Well, again, I don't know what any of this means.
So, national sovereignty and censorship.
Some chilling stuff. So, with regards to national sovereignty, there's a nod to it in the document.
says the Global Compact reaffirms the sovereign right of states to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction in conformity with international law.
Within their sovereign jurisdiction, states may distinguish between regular and irregular migration status, including as they determine their legislative and policy measures for the implementation of the Global Compact, taking into account different national realities, policies, priorities, and requirements for entry, residence, and work in accordance with international law. and requirements for entry, residence, and work in accordance with So states can determine their national migration policy.
you And that's fine, but then you'll see how much they chip away at it as we go forward.
Human Rights The Global Compact is based on international human rights law and upholds the principles of non-regression and non-discrimination.
By implementing the Global Compact, we ensure effective respect, protection, and fulfillment of the human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status across all stages of the migration cycle.
Here's some emphasis. We also reaffirm the commitment to eliminate all forms of discrimination, including racism, xenophobia and intolerance against migrants and their families.
Ah, you see, this is the roots of the censorship that is embedded and running through this entire document.
All forms of discrimination, racism, xenophobia and intolerance, Well, listen, Islam can be a little bit intolerant of non-Muslims.
And there is racism from whites to blacks.
There is racism from Middle Easterners to Hispanics.
There's lots of racism, but we know what this means.
Eliminating racism means white people shut up and pay.
Okay, let's just be frank. This is what it means.
It means if you're a white person and you complain about migration, mass migration from the third world, well, you're racist, you're xenophobic, and you're intolerant, and this must be eliminated.
Even if you have data about how bad it is for the economy, how bad it is for your society, how dangerous it is for your children in schools and on the street, how many children get raped.
By Pakistanis in England, in the UK as a whole, even if you've got lots of data about it, even if you go to Sweden and you say, wow, there's a lot of crimes being committed by migrants from the third world, even if you've got facts and you've got data, if you're white, you're toast. And you're going to be charged with a hate crime.
You're going to be thrown in jail. You're going to lose your job.
You're going to be doxed by the media.
You're going to... I mean, come on. We all know what this means.
It means if you're white, if you're European, if you're North American...
Shut up. Pay up or you're toast.
So pretty honest in many ways and pretty terrifying.
So we get to the wish list, right?
So this is the objective for safe, orderly and regular migration.
1. Collect and utilize accurate and disaggregated data as a basis for evidence-based policies.
Well, of course, unless that data has anything to do with crimes committed by migrants, hate crimes committed by migrants, intolerance committed by migrants, lying by migrants to get across borders, destruction of documents by migrants to get across borders, then you can't collect any of that data, and in fact it may be illegal to do so.
Two, minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin.
Well, that usually means carbon taxes and more stuff wherein Europeans get to pay.
Three, provide accurate and timely information at all stages of migration.
Four, ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation.
What does that mean? Does that mean that if they don't have these things, they will be turned back?
Of course not. They'll say, oh, it got washed over in the boat.
Oh, it got taken from me by ISIS. Oh, my dog ate it.
Five, enhance availability and flexibility of pathways for regular migration.
So this is to make sure that there's this well-guarded channel by which people can get through on their jet skis and their bikes and their helicopters and, you know, like all the trucks taking the Honduran caravan up to the American border.
Five, I'm sorry, six, facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work.
Sure. 7.
Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration.
8. Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants.
9. Strengthen the transnational response to smuggling of migrants.
Now, this is the great unspoken horror of this whole migration policy, that by opening up the borders and by paying migrants massive amounts of welfare, Europe has put a huge bounty on the movement of people and that has caused slavery, that has caused human trafficking and smuggling and so on.
That's just the, we want to keep migrants safe.
Ten, prevent combat and eradicate trafficking in persons in the context of international migration.
It's a wish list. How?
How do you do it? What's the budget?
Who's going to pay for it? What other government services do you have to defund in order to pay for all of this stuff?
You don't have to worry about that stuff.
Why bother? I've got a wish list of good feelings and positive adjectives, so that's all that's needed, right?
Here's the wish list that continues.
A little sinister. 11.
Manage borders in an integrated, secure, and coordinated manner.
12. Strengthen certainty and predictability in migration procedures for appropriate screening, assessment, and referral.
Use migration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives.
I see now. Migration detention.
So what that means is it's basically catch and release.
So if you catch someone who doesn't have documentation, who is clearly not any kind of refugee, well, then you would normally, then while you've broken the law, will detain you and will deport you.
No, no, no. Only use detention as a measure of last resort.
Work towards alternatives.
Well, what are the alternatives to detention?
Letting them go. And if they go, they vanish into a no-go zone.
You can't ever find them again, and you'll get rocks thrown at your police if you try.
So off they go, and basically there's no borders.
Enhance consular protection assistance cooperation throughout the migration cycle.
Provide access to basic services for migrants.
So basic services.
So this is taxpayer-funded free stuff for migrants.
Callers to my show have talked about migrants getting like MacBook Airs and free Wi-Fi and all kinds of language training and just crazy stuff.
We're not talking food and water here, but they say basic services to not startle the taxpayers too much because if they actually list what the migrants get a hold of, you know, the boy who drowned on the Turkish beach was being carried across in an overladen boat.
From the Mediterranean by his father, who wanted to eventually get to Canada for free dental work.
So, I don't know what basic services mean, but as we talked about in the Dutch environment, when you have a migrant costing 1,150,000, that seems like quite a lot of ramen noodles.
Empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion.
Migrants in society. So this is one of the problems, right?
So let's say you have, let's just go out on a limb here and say that there's some culture out there that likes, say, polygamy, cousin marriage, and female genital mutilation.
What does full inclusion mean there?
Female genital mutilation is illegal.
Well, it's theoretically illegal.
It never gets prosecuted, at least in the UK, but theoretically it's illegal.
So what does that mean?
You come. Polygamy is illegal.
Cousin marriage, well, it's a big problem because cousin marriage, which is rife in particular in the Muslim world, cousin marriage costs 10 to 12 IQ points in the general population.
It's kind of tough, right?
Well, we'll get to all that later.
So, I don't know what that means.
Full inclusion in values that completely contradict some of the values of the host country.
What does that mean? Let's say you come from a culture, let's say an American moves to Europe, and America, you see, comes from a culture where gun ownership is enshrined in the Constitution, and free speech is enshrined in the Constitution.
No such thing as hate speech in America.
Because, you know, they recognize the basic principle that speech you hate is not hate speech.
So let's say an American moves to France.
An American says, hey man, I come from a country and a culture where gun ownership is guaranteed by law, so I'm just going to have a gun.
And they say, no, no, no, no, you can't have a gun.
You're in France now. It's a contradiction, you see?
But none of this is addressed, because you can't address it, because it can't be fixed.
Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration.
Eliminate all forms of discrimination.
Well, what about Judaism and its relationship to non-Jews?
What about Islam and its relationship to non-Muslims?
Is there not discrimination embedded in those two belief systems?
I believe that there is.
So how are you going to eliminate that?
Of course you don't want to deal with those questions because those questions are tricky and can get people in trouble.
Apparently I love trouble.
No, I just love facts. See?
They want evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration.
Well, that's just propaganda. Shaping perceptions is just straight-up propaganda.
Invest in skills development and facilitate mutual recognition of skills, qualifications, and competencies.
So what that means is that if somebody says, yeah, no, I totally was a dentist in Somalia, then you say, okay, well, I guess you're a dentist here.
Good luck with all that. Create conditions for migrants and diasporas to fully contribute to sustainable development in all countries.
So what that means is that, see, they say, well, migration is really, really good for your economy, and then they say, well, we have to spend a lot of money and have a lot of bureaucracy to create conditions where migrants...
Can contribute to the economy.
Well, wait a minute. Which is it?
If they're really good for the economy, then you shouldn't need all this bureaucratic spending to make them contribute to the economy or enable them to.
Anyway. Promote faster, safer, and cheaper transfer of remittances and foster financial inclusion of migrants.
So make sure that the migrants can take your tax money and ship it back to their home country.
Well, the reason you would do that, of course, is to make sure that you get more and more migrants pouring into Europe.
Why this obsession is with getting migrants to pour into Europe, trust me, I've read some pretty sinister theories, but we will leave that to the discussions below.
The comments section. Oh, I'm looking forward to it.
Kind of. All right.
21. Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration.
All right. Safe and dignified return...
22. Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits.
Ooh, another money shot.
This is very, very important as well.
Portability of social security entitlements.
So here's the problem. So, these bureaucrats recognize what I've recognized and talked about for years, that if you want to stop mass migration, sorry, you've got to end the welfare state.
There's no other way to it.
Ending the welfare state is very, very tough because women outvote men, they outlive men, and they vote more often.
Women love the welfare state.
That's why we have a welfare state, and therefore getting rid of the welfare state is politically virtually impossible, but will happen as mathematics and Sharia begin to assert their inevitable growth.
So, So here's the problem.
If you get countries that recognize that migrants are coming for the welfare benefits, what are they going to do?
They're going to start cutting their welfare benefits, in particular, to migrants.
So what's going to happen is If you want to get migrants out of your country, just lower the welfare benefits.
They'll go elsewhere, right? So what they want is, of course, let's say Germany has the most generous welfare benefits.
So what they want is now for every country has to honor the welfare benefits of Germany.
Germany's level of welfare benefits has to be matched by every country the migrant goes to.
That way there's no race to defund the welfare state and thus reduce the incentives for migrants.
We know that. Because of the countless people who've poured into, I think it's Sweden, like 500 of them have a job.
I mean, they're not there to work.
They're there to take money.
And of course, in Islam, taking money from the non-Muslims is part of the belief system.
They owe you this tax.
And so, you know, I would feel pretty bad going to a country and immediately hopping on the welfare train, but it depends on the belief system that you have, right?
So that's... 22 is important.
Establish mechanisms for the portability of social security entitlements and earned benefits.
How did you earn those benefits?
Did you pay taxes? No.
You just made it in.
23. Strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships for safe, orderly, and regular migration.
So... Objective.
There are a bunch of objectives.
I just picked the most important ones as I saw them.
Objective two. Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin.
So here, we talked about this before, but I want to get you to where they get to.
That's conducive political, economic, and social environmental conditions.
People lead peaceful, productive, and sustainable lives in their own country.
Natural disasters, the adverse effects of climate change, and environmental degradation.
Now, natural disasters also occur in the first world, but that's not really as important.
So climate change, environmental degradation is considered to be the driver for a lot of people to come to Europe and to North America.
Develop adaptation and resilient strategies to sudden onset and slow onset natural disasters.
The adverse effects of climate change and environmental degradation such as desertification, land degradation, drought, and sea level rise, taking into account the potential implications on migration while recognizing that adaptation in the country of origin is a priority.
So, this is important.
So, if...
Governments in the third world, which are notoriously corrupt and not forward-thinking for reasons we'll get into later, Third world countries regularly drive policies that cause the overuse of resources.
And it happens also in the West as well.
One of my very first podcasts was called So Long and Thanks for All the Fish, about how the government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland, in order to get a lot of votes, gave way too many licenses for people to catch cod.
They stripped a 400-year massive cod industry to nothing.
It has never recovered and it was completely destroyed because the goal of the government is not long-term sustainability, right?
So before the government started controlling access to the cod, it had lasted for 400 years and everyone had a grand old time.
Then they overfished and destroyed that resource within a couple of years because the government said, hey, here are all of these things.
And everybody then went to overfish.
They knew they were overfishing, but if they didn't do it, the next guy would and blah, blah, blah, right?
So what this means is that the government in the third world can now pursue policies that destroy local resources and it's the West's fault and therefore the West has to take all of the refugees or all of the people who are fleeing from the overuse of local resources.
which of course just means that they have more incentive to destroy local resources, and it's just going to be one of these vicious cycles.
Objective four, ensure that all migrants have proof of legal identity and adequate documentation.
But, you see, if they are rewarded for destroying these things, then they will destroy these things, because people respond to incentives.
So, you can ensure all you want, but...
Legal access...
Objective 7. Address and reduce vulnerabilities in migration.
Ensure migrants have access to public or affordable independent legal assistance and representation in legal proceedings that affect them, including during any related judicial or administrative hearing, in order to safeguard that all migrants everywhere are recognized as persons before the law and that the delivery of justice is impartial and non-discriminatory.
So what this means is that they're aiming to set up a situation where it's cheaper to just let them go and come into your country than fight them legally.
So this just means, I mean, if you cross a border without papers, this is the way it used to work in the sane universe, if you cross a border without papers, well, where are your papers?
You don't have any papers? You can't produce any papers?
You have no permission to be here?
You're done. You're shipped out, right?
Now, that is relatively cheap, and it's cheaper than letting someone come in and consume your welfare.
But what they aim to do here is to make sure that everyone gets all these lawyers and all these bureaucratic procedures and all this judicial stuff, and therefore what happens is it becomes too expensive to fight mass migration, so you just let everyone in.
Objective 8. Save lives and establish coordinated international efforts on missing migrants.
Develop procedures and agreements on search and rescue of migrants with the primary objective to protect migrants' rights to life that uphold the prohibition of collective expulsion, guarantee due process and individual assessments, enhance reception and assistance capacities, and ensure that the provision of assistance of an exclusively humanitarian nature for migrants is not considered unlawful.
So now the migrants, you see, have a right to life.
It's not a right to freedom.
It's not a right to the pursuit of happiness.
It's not a right to... I mean, the word rights has just been so corrupted to the point where it just means whatever bureaucrats feel good in giving you that costs them nothing.
So, what does that mean?
It means that if a migrant attempts to cross, like a bunch of migrants attempt to cross the Mediterranean in a leaky boat during a storm, That they have a right to life and no amount of money is too much to spend to save them.
Alrighty. Borders.
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.
So, preventing irregular migration.
But you see, if everybody has a right to come to Western countries, what does irregular migration even mean?
I don't know what that means.
Nobody knows what that means.
So, manage national borders while at the same time saying that everybody has a right, because of climate change, to come to Western countries.
So, I don't know what that means.
Human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status.
So here's an example of, and there's different degrees of word salad.
Most of it's a word salad. Here we go.
Are you ready? Brace yourselves.
Put on your biohazard foggy-brained crash helmets.
Enhance international, regional and cross-regional border management cooperation, taking into consideration the particular situation of countries of transit on proper identification, timely and efficient referral, assistance and appropriate protection of migrants in situations of vulnerability at or near international borders in compliance with international human rights law by adopting whole-of-government approaches, implementing joint cross-border trainings and fostering capacity-building measures.
Can you imagine?
How incomprehensible all of this would be if they didn't have the adoption of whole-of-government approaches, joint cross-border trainings, and fostering capacity-building measures?
Boy, that clears it all up for me.
How about you? So, we mentioned this before.
I wanted to go into a bit more detail.
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 non-custodial 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.
So you have to exhaust all other potential legal alternatives before detaining people.
And you have to provide them free health care, shelter, food, water, and legal representation on the taxpayer's dime.
So... Okay.
I mean, if you're paying people to break your laws, right, because if they just come into your country without permission, and then you give them a bunch of welfare, you're paying people to break your laws.
And then you say, well, putting them in jail is very much the last resort.
And so, let's say that somebody owes $5,000 in taxes, but it costs the government $50,000 to try and collect it.
Well, they're probably not going to try and collect it, right?
Unless they want to show us as a signal or as an example to other people who owe more.
So, if you're not allowed to throw people in jail who have broken your laws in an obvious manner, and you have to provide to them all of these goods and services and free legal counsel and so on, you have no borders.
And again, basic services.
So, 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.
You see? What are human rights?
It used to be rights to property and to not have your person violated through violence, right?
The non-aggression principle and a respect for property rights, that used to be what was called human rights.
Human rights are safe access to basic services.
In other words, a human right is the right to other people's forced labor.
It used to be called slavery.
It used to be called exploitation.
It used to be called exploitation back when the left cared about these things.
Safe access to basic services.
We further commit, they say, 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.
Give everyone everything.
I mean, let's give everyone everything.
And if you don't, you're going to get sued.
And it's going to cost you more than what you would have given them, so give them everything.
Inclusion. Objective 16, empower migrants and societies to realize full inclusion and social cohesion.
Social cohesion. So you're supposed to get social cohesion.
We're the multiplicity of often oppositional religions, with multiracial, multilanguage, multihistory religions, sorry, culture or environment, at the same time as when you bring all these religions and races and groups and histories and cultures together, the left keeps poking everyone.
With these red-hot pokers of racist, xenophobia, white privilege.
It's one thing to have a whole bunch of people trying to live together if everyone's trying to get along.
It's another thing when you have the mainstream media and academia and just about everybody and their dog constantly poking at each group saying, oh, those people are privileged.
Those white people are racist.
These people are victims. Right?
So you can't get social cohesion.
Well, it's hard to get social cohesion even at the best of times.
It was hard even in the 19th century when you had mostly immigrants from Europe who were white coming to America.
Social cohesion was pretty tough.
The Irish were looked down upon, the Italians were looked down upon, and...
But you didn't have endless cries of racism and sexism and all this and that going on.
So it was tough enough, even with similar histories culturally, even with being the same race, when you bring multiracial, multiethnic, multilanguage, oppositional histories, oppositional religiosity in many cases, when you bring that all into one place and everyone's being poked by the leftist, racist and race-baiting poker, well, you know, it's not going to work.
I mean, it's not going to work. So, promote mutual respect for the cultures, traditions, and customs of communities of destination and of migrants by exchanging and implementing best practices on integration policies, programs, and activities, including on ways to promote acceptance of diversity and facilitate social cohesion and inclusion.
So, mutual respect.
Does Islam have a huge amount of respect for non-Muslims?
Well, I think there's some questions there.
Is there great respect from people from sub-Saharan Africa for whites and the histories of European culture?
Well, no. Often there's white privilege and there's all of this crazy race-baiting intersectionality and there's white people stole land in South Africa and white people wiped out the natives and white people are racist and imperialistic and, right, so how are you going to have respect?
Here's another word salad for you.
C. Develop national short, medium, and long-term policy goals regarding the inclusion of migrants in societies, including on labor market integration, family reunification, education, non-discrimination in health, including by fostering partnerships with relevant stakeholders.
Family reunification is kind of important there, which is you take one, you take them all, up to a really faded-out gene pool.
So that's kind of important.
And it's funny, too, because...
If whites say that they prefer to live with other whites, well, that's just being xenophobic and racist and so on.
But when people from sub-Saharan Africa or from places like Somalia or Libya and so on, when they all gather together in their own communities, that's diversity.
See, if people from Libya, if blacks from Libya want to live with other blacks from Libya, that's just wonderful and it's enriching and so on.
But if white people want to live with white people, well, they're just Nazis.
And this is another reason why this multicultural stuff just doesn't work, can't work at the moment.
And it's funny how they talk about empowering migrant women, but you have to have respect for cultures that denigrate women enormously and mutilate their genitals when they're young.
Now, here comes the really terrifying part.
No free speech, in my opinion.
And I think there's a good case to be made this right.
Objective 17. Eliminate all forms of discrimination and promote evidence-based public discourse to shape perceptions of migration.
We talked about this before. They break it down a little bit more.
33. We commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law.
See, they're not interested in xenophobia unless it's directed against migrants.
In other words, if migrants have issues with Europeans, Like there was some Swedish migrant who said, well, the problem is there's too many Swedes here.
We should be here only.
So if there is xenophobia and racial discrimination from the migrants to whites, that doesn't exist.
This is only a problem when it's against all migrants.
And what that means is white people shut up and pay.
Come on, let's be honest about this.
We know what this means, right? They say, we further commit to promote an open and evidence-based public discourse on migration and migrants in partnership with all parts of society that generates a more realistic, humane and constructive perception in this regard.
We also commit to protect freedom of expression in accordance with international law, recognizing that an open and free debate contributes to a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of migration.
So they want to promote...
Something that generates, like discourse that generates more realistic, humane, and constructive perception of migration.
Which is propaganda, right?
We want to pay for propaganda.
We want to generate propaganda.
We want to force the taxpayer to pay to be propagandized about how wonderful it is to have lots of people come in who take from the taxpayer.
And, you know, then, of course, we want to eliminate all forms of criticisms of migration.
And we want to propagandize, right?
So we want to eliminate criticisms of migration.
We want to propagandize about migration, but we sure also want to protect freedom of expression.
You've got to pick one!
And we all know which one they're actually going to pick.
B. Empower migrants and communities to denounce any acts of incitement of violence directed towards migrants by informing them of available mechanisms for redress and ensure...
That those who actively participate in the commission of a hate crime targeting migrants are held accountable in accordance with national legislation while upholding international human rights law, in particular the right to freedom of expression.
Now that's very interesting.
That's very interesting.
So hate crimes are when, of course, as far as I'm no lawyer, as far as I understand it, hate crimes are when you attack someone because of religion or whatever it is, right?
So this is a violence against migrants, right?
Now, what about the violence of migrants against the host population, right?
So statistically, it's much more likely, as far as I understand the numbers, it's much more likely that a migrant is going to attack, say, a white European than a white European going to attack a migrant.
But here you see You are going to basically say to all the migrants and communities, here are all the legal resources against you.
Sorry, here are all the legal resources you can use against people who you perceive as, well, if they're attacking them physically, of course, then that should be, it's illegal and it's assault and so on, and maybe there's a hate crime element involved in it.
But what does that have to do with the right to freedom of expression?
That's the confusing part.
So, if you go beat up a migrant, that's horrible, and that's illegal, and you should go to jail, right?
But what does that have to do with freedom of expression?
I don't understand that at all.
I don't understand that at all.
And, of course, you're supposed to respect the host cultures, right?
Migrants are supposed to respect the whole culture, the host culture.
But Europe, of course, up until recently, had freedom of speech.
England was actually the originator of the concept.
Of freedom of speech.
You can read John Milton's wonderful essay called Areopagitica about all of this from hundreds and hundreds of years ago.
So this is very confusing that they are basically saying that if you physically attack a migrant, somehow that has something to do with freedom of expression.
And it doesn't. That's violence.
Criticizing migration policy...
That's a freedom of expression issue.
But why you'd want to conflate that, I assume, is some nefarious intent here to unite criticism of migrants as a hate crime, right?
I mean, then, of course, you have no freedom of speech, so.
Or you can only talk about the weather, which is the same thing.
So, here we get to the awful point of the whole thing.
C. Promote independent objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, such 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 systemically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism, and all other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media.
Ah, it's really, really powerful and dangerous, dangerous stuff.
Media outlet. Internet-based information, right?
So you've got a blog, you've got a video channel, something like that, right?
So basically we have to educate media professionals To use the right terminology, to be sensitive towards migrant issues and so on.
It's ethical to do it that way.
Stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systemically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism, and other forms of discrimination towards migrants.
What does any of that mean?
Intolerance? Xenophobia?
I don't know what any of this means.
Racism? I mean, everybody gets called a racist these days.
So, stopping allocation of public funding, which means if the broadcasters who get government money criticize migration, they get cut off.
Material support, what does that mean?
Does that mean your web server?
Does that mean your DNS registration?
What does that mean? Material support.
Systemically promote intolerance.
What is promoting intolerance?
Nobody knows. This is a blank check.
This is a blank check to make sure that nobody criticizes mass migration at all.
Now, of course, if you have good arguments, you should be able to handle criticism.
If you have good arguments, you should be able to hear an opposing viewpoint.
So this is just a huge confession that they have no good arguments as to why the domestic population should welcome this kind of stuff at all.
In full respect for the freedom of the media, though, don't you?
Cut off their funding, stop material support, whatever that means.
According to vague and ill-defined terms, but, you know, we're really committed to the freedom of the media.
Yeah, yeah. Promote awareness, raising campaigns targeted in communities of origin, transit and destination in order to inform public perceptions regarding the positive contributions of safe, orderly and regular migration based on evidence and facts and to end racism, xenophobia and stigmatization against all migrants.
Well, um...
See, here's the thing. If groups act the same and you treat them differently, that's evidence of discrimination.
If groups act differently and you treat them differently, that's recognition of reality.
Just a basic fact.
G, engage migrants, political, religious, and community leaders, as well as educators and service providers to detect and prevent incidences of intolerance, racism, xenophobia, and other forms of discrimination against migrants and diasporas and support activities in local communities to promote mutual respect, including in the context and other forms of discrimination against migrants and diasporas and support activities in In other words, this whole program of mass migration requires the subversion of democracy,
In other words, it's going to be pretty tough for you to campaign for borders anymore because prevent...
Incidences of intolerance, racism, xenophobia, discrimination against migrants, including in the context of electoral campaigns, which means you're going to be in lots of trouble.
You're going to have government funding cut.
You may run afoul of the law.
If you criticize migration and want to have borders again, you're going to be in big, big trouble.
But enjoy your democracy, everyone.
It's going to be great.
I'm going to do a longer conclusion.
After this, I know this has been fairly lengthy and a longer conclusion as to explaining why all this is happening and so on, but...
So as you can see, this is a nasty and sinister document of social engineering.
There's a lot to criticize in it.
I've gone through it. The important thing now is that you do something about it, which means call your MP, write, deal with this, put pressure upon your government to not sign this awful, awful document that is going to be incredibly destructive, I believe... Not just to the European countries, to the North American countries, but also to the migrants themselves.
You see, because there's no capacity to pay for this and there's no suggestion of how this all might be paid for, what's going to happen is the economies of the host countries are going to be utterly destroyed.
And then people are going to be stranded far away from home with no social services, no benefits, and a huge amount of conflict...
The likes of which can scarcely be imagined can then easily result from such a situation and it is in order to prevent these kinds of disasters that I make this kind of video.
So yes, this is the time now you need to do something about it.
You need to put pressure upon your own governments to avoid signing this dastardly document.
It is absolutely against the traditions of the West.
It is going to destroy any capacity you have for property rights because the entire world is We're good to go.
Very, very far away from your community's ultimate control over the composition of your countries, your counties, your provinces, your neighborhoods, your street, your life.
Do not let it happen.
This is a time when...
A revolution of the pen is necessary.
You have to do something about this.
Please, share this video, like this video, subscribe to this channel.
If you'd like to help out, I would really appreciate it.
Freedomainradio.com slash donate is very much appreciated for the time, effort, and energy to put together these kinds of presentations.
But most importantly, you have to do something about what is coming down the pipeline.
There's still time to act. It's not till December.
Do it now. Or it's going to be too late.
This is going to accumulate. This is going to grow.
And I'm really aiming to help you not end up regretting why you didn't act when you had the chance.
