Black Pilled: Why the ruling elite want to replace you [video]

The elite controlled UN promotes mass immigration of muslims and third world people to Europe and the West, and hence the replacement of the white population, through their policies and agreements, such as these:

United Nations projections indicate that over the next 50 years, the populations of virtually all countries of Europe as well as Japan will face population decline and population ageing. The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require comprehensive reassessments of many established policies and programmes, including those relating to international migration.

Focusing on these two striking and critical population trends, the report considers replacement migration for 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). Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to offset population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/ReplMigED/migration.htm

For the first time on 19 September 2016 Heads of State and Government came together to discuss, at the global level within the UN General Assembly, issues related to migration and refugees. This sent an important political message that migration and refugee matters have become major issues in the international agenda. In adopting the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, the 193 UN Member States recognized the need for a comprehensive approach to human mobility and enhanced cooperation at the global level and committed to:

  • protect the safety, dignity and human rights and fundamental freedoms of all migrants, regardless of their migratory status, and at all times;
  • support countries rescuing, receiving and hosting large numbers of refugees and migrants;
  • integrate migrants – addressing their needs and capacities as well as those of receiving communities – in humanitarian and development assistance frameworks and planning;
  • combat xenophobia, racism and discrimination towards all migrants;
  • develop, through a state-led process, non-binding principles and voluntary guidelines on the treatment of migrants in vulnerable situations; and
  • strengthen global governance of migration, including by bringing IOM into the UN family and through the development of a Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration

https://www.iom.int/global-compact-migration

Advertisements

Lauren Southern vs Larken Rose on open borders [video]

This was essentially a debate between idealistic anarchism and pragmatic anarchism/libertarianism. But closed borders are actually not really even against anarchist principles like Larken Rose is claiming, and here’s my short and concise response to his point about the borders of a country being “imaginary lines”:

The borders of a country are no more imaginary lines than the borders of an estate owned by one man or a group of men. You can, as a nation, to claim all the lands in your country that are not owned privately to be property of the whole nation. That is, the people of the nation would have shared ownership over the lands within the borders of the country.

And as anarcho-capitalists recognize property rights, they should have no problem with the people of the nation deciding for themselves who’s allowed to cross the borders, just as you don’t have to let in anyone on your property, and you CAN point guns at them to stop them from entering. That’s not just theory but this is how it actually is! We Finns can stop any outsider, i.e., non-Finn, from entering our country of which lands we have shared ownership over, and it’s not in the least bit immoral, but in accordance with the anarcho-capitalist principle or property rights!

Larken also argued that it’s not ok for some people, who DON’T want to take in immigrants, to decide for the whole nation when some people want to. Well, let’s say three men own an equal share of an estate, and two of them don’t want to let some outsider in on the property, but the third one does. What happens? His entry is of course denied. Now, in an anarcho-capitalist country where the people have shared ownership of the lands not owned by any individual or group, if 60% of the nation DON’T want to take in immigrants, but the rest do, what would happen? Their entry would be denied if the property rights, which anarcho-capitalists like Larken acknowledge, were respected. That’s not democracy, that’s capitalism, the majority of the stockholders decide. I.e., Larken fails again with his argument, my position is on a more solid ground philosophically.

So is Larken Rose, as brilliant as he is, and as much as I respect his work on anarchism and the tyranny of statism, in the end just another white man who’s been cucked by the cultural marxist anti-white propaganda, and hence indifferent about the replacement of white people, his own kind, in his own country and other Western countries. And then he, perhaps subconsciously, tries to rationalize his racial nihilism with arguments like that the borders between countries are imaginary lines that shouldn’t exist. Again, they’re no more imaginary than the fences of an estate claimed by an individual.

As to America, the country was created by Europeans who came there and claimed the lands, and they’re now the owners of the lands within its borders so it’s perfectly legitimate for them keep out people who they don’t want there. The European settlers created the country to reflect their values and serve their interests, of course they shouldn’t bring in people who have a different set of values and conflicting interests. It’s pure common sense, and not in the least bit immoral.

Rocking MrE: How multiculturalism is used to destroy nation states [video]

The more radically different people are, the more they will compete with one another for control of power. This leads to conflict, hence the reason that diversity plus proximity equals war… global elites want to create order out of chaos. They do this by stoking up tension between different groups, some with pre-existing animosity in unavoidable proximity to one another. This then pave the way for government intervention that forces people to sacrifice freedom for security… so, not only is there conflict when radically different cultures come into close proximity with one another, but this also requires a heavy hand to maintain order, i.e., the actions of a strong-arm interventionist state that keeps people in line through authoritarian methods. This is what the true goal of the multiculturalism agenda is, and this leads to a monoculture that destroys real multicultural identity.

  • Rocking MrE