United Nations –Replacement migration agenda

Comments about your favorite candidate, the newest PROPOSED law, and the FEMA camp near your hometown should go here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

United Nations –Replacement migration agenda

Post by Firestarter » Thu Aug 31, 2017 10:07 am

A lot of people in the European Union have noticed that huge amount of migrants are imported every single year.

The United Nations “replacement migration” report from March 2000 exposes that the UN pushes global migration to hide the success of depopulation Agenda21: http://www.un.org/press/en/2000/2000031 ... 4.doc.html
-- 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.

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, in particular, replacement migration and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.
User avatar
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: United Nations –Replacement migration agenda

Post by Firestarter » Tue Sep 05, 2017 4:34 pm

From 2014 on the number of asylum applications in the EU is at a peak: In 2014 it reached 626,000 and in 2015 even doubled to a whopping 1,255,640 first time asylum applications…
A relatively large amount of these immigrants became refugees because of the war against Syria.

Already in 1983 plans to attack Syria from 3 neighbouring countries were made.
CIA officer Graham Fuller proposed a plan to deal with Syria under Assad’s predecessor — his father, Hafez al-Assad — and is dated 14 September 1983.
Fuller’s analysis, describes Assad as a nuisance hindering the interests of the USA and Israel. Destabilisation of Iraq and Iran also features prominently in this plan to get rid of the elder Assad: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cia-do ... yria-1983/

See the following excerpts from Fuller’s document:
Syria at present has a hammerlock on US interests both in Lebanon and in the Gulf — through closure of Iraq’s pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalization of the war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey.
Faced with three belligerent fronts, Assad would probably be forced to abandon his policy of closure of the pipeline. Such a concession would relieve the economic pressure on Iraq, and perhaps force Iran to reconsider bringing the war to an end. It would be a sharpening blow to Syria’s prestige and could effect the equation of forces in Lebanon\
Syria continues to maintain a hammerlock on two key U.S. interests in the Middle East:
— Syrian refusal to withdraw its troops from Lebanon ensures Israeli occupation in the south;
— Syrian closure of the Iraqi pipeline has been a key factor in bringing Iraq to its financial knees, impelling it towards dangerous internationalization of the war in the Gulf.
Diplomatic initiatives to date have had little effect on Assad who has so far correctly calculated the play of forces in the area and concluded that they are only weakly arrayed against him. If the U.S. is to rein in Syria’s spoiling role, it can only do so through the exertion of real muscle which will pose a vital threat to Assad’s position and power.

There is evidence from Judicial Watch that the Obama administration (with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State) financed, armed and trained Syrian terrorists (including ISIS).
Until September 2012 weapons that had belonged to the Libyan army were shipped from Benghazi to Syrian terrorists. Including weapons for Al Qaeda, that was later renamed into ISIS: http://www.salon.com/2015/05/28/the_ben ... ing_about/

There is also a (censored) October 2012 document from the DoD, published by Judicial Watch, that confirms that the Obama administration shipped weapons from the Port of Benghazi to rebel troops in Syria: http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content ... rsion1.pdf
Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were Sniper rifles, RPG’s, and 125 mm and 155mm howitzers missiles.
Official documents show that the Obama administration helped the extremist groups that were created in the Middle East by earlier US administrations.
According to CNN, the US and some of its European allies (including Britain!) have in fact used defence contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to use chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria, as well as in neighbouring Turkey and Jordan and “involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials”: http://www.globalresearch.ca/obamas-gun ... st/5450832

In 2012, Google helped Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, to gain new members.
The then director of Google Ideas, Jared Cohen, coordinated support for these “rebel” groups. Google employed it’s expertise to help the conflict in Syria gain traction. In July 2012, Google provided a software tool, to tracked defections in Syria, which, with the help of Al-Jazeera, helped the Syrian “rebels” (terrorists).
According to US officials and Google, this should encourage people to take up arms and join the ranks of the “rebels”. Then Director of Policy Planning for President Obama, Jake Sullivan, let Hillary Clinton know that “this is a pretty cool idea”.
Another email by Sullivan shows that according to the Obama administration Al Qaeda (AQ) “is on our side in Syria”: https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/wi ... eda-syria/

For more information on Syria: http://lawfulpath.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=1071
User avatar
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: United Nations –Replacement migration agenda

Post by Firestarter » Tue Sep 19, 2017 4:24 pm

In 2016, there was a new proposal to triple Canada’s population to 100 million (adding some 65 million people) by the end of the 21th century, by importing at least 400,000 to 450,000 permanent immigrants per year.
The authors of this plan are the 14 members of Canada’s Advisory Council on Economic Growth. To most Canadians, the idea is preposterous.
Dominic Barton, who lives in London, the global managing partner of McKinsey & Co, worries that without significant population growth, Canada’s international “relevance” will suffer.
At current, historically high immigration levels, Canada’s population is estimated to grow by more than 20 million in the next 35 years: http://ipolitics.ca/2016/10/27/a-canada ... ey-insane/

This Canadian plan is by no means “new”.
In 1968, the Mid-Canada Development Corridor Foundation argued that a population of at least 100 million was needed to have a sustainable and independent economy.
In 1975, a study by Canada's Department of Manpower claimed that economies of scale leading to "significant benefits to Canadian industry" would occur only after the population had reached 100 million.
In 2010, the journal Global Brief argued that Canada needs a 100 million population for geostrategic, defence and diplomatic reasons.

The strangest argument to me, when hearing over and over again that mankind is the biggest threat to our environment, is that more people would keep Canada's environment better protected.
Densely populated places, like California and France, do better at conservation than empty zones like the Asian steppe. The threats of global warming – notably ocean-level rises – will require large-scale infrastructure projects that must rely on a large tax base. The most progressive climate-change policies are found in the most densely populated countries: https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/n ... m&page=all
User avatar
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: United Nations –Replacement migration agenda

Post by Firestarter » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:33 pm

If I understand correctly, one of the main reasons that the British people voted for Brexit, is because they have been fooled into believing that the European Union causes the massive flood of migrants to Europe.
I have already shown that the British colony Canada aims to import tens of millions of migrants before the end of the 21st century.
I expected, and found evidence, that also the British colonies Australia and New Zealand import millions of migrants. It seems more than a little improbable that the British colonies import huge amounts of migrants, but this is caused by the EU…

According to the Economist (owned by Rothschild), the British colonies Canada, Australia and New Zealand are relatively the largest migrant importing countries of all "Western" countries.

In the 1970s, the average number of children per Australian woman fell below 2, and has stayed there. Yet since then Australia’s population has grown by 70%, thanks almost entirely to immigration. Over 28% of today’s residents were born overseas — an even higher share than in Canada or New Zealand.
The number of newcomers continues to grow. Net overseas migration (immigrants minus departing Aussies) has nearly doubled since 2000.
Immigration has also made house prices explode. In Sydney the average home costs AUD 1.2 million, up almost 20% in only a year.

By mind control techniques and biased polling, the Scanlon Foundation, which works to “integrate immigrants”, showed that the sense that immigration is too high has fallen substantially since the 1990s.
In 2015 pollster Gallup, claimed that Australia was the only big “Western” country where more people thought immigration should rise (30%) than thought it should fall (25%).

According to campaigning millionaire Dick Smith:
THE prime reason for the decline in living standards for many Australian workers is our staggering population growth.
https://www.economist.com/news/asia/217 ... rn-country
User avatar
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: United Nations –Replacement migration agenda

Post by Firestarter » Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:45 pm

In 2012, the UN's special representative for migration, Peter Sutherland, said that the EU should "undermine" its "homogeneity", by importing migrants.
Sutherland has attended meetings of the secretive Bilderberg Group and is a former chairman of oil giant BP. In 2012, he was the non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International.

Sutherland explained to the House of Lords committee that migration is a "crucial dynamic for economic growth (...) however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states".
Sutherland said:
It's impossible to consider that the degree of homogeneity which is implied by the other argument can survive because states have to become more open states, in terms of the people who inhabit them. Just as the United Kingdom has demonstrated.
The United States, or Australia and New Zealand, are migrant societies and therefore they accommodate more readily those from other backgrounds than we do ourselves, who still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others.

And that's precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.

British higher education chiefs want non-EU overseas students to be exempted from migration statistics.
Immigration minister Damian Green has said exempting foreign students would amount to "fiddling" the figures and the current method was approved by the UN.
Committee chairman Lord Hannay, a peer and former British ambassador to the UN, said that Green's claim of UN backing for including students in migration figures "frankly doesn't hold water - this is not a piece of international law".
Sutherland agreed with Hannay, saying:
Absolutely not; it provides absolutely no justification at all for the position they are talking about.
(archived here: http://archive.is/LjoMO)

In Finland mortality rates have taken over birth rates in 2010: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/popu ... ds/9094395

Because of dropping fertility rates and migration, Italians are expected to be a minority in their own country by 2080.
Cerberus 2.0 predicts that in 2080 the native Italian population will be reduced to about 27 million people and in 2100 it will be further reduced by 60% to 20 million, which is similar as the statistical predictions for Japan: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01- ... own-nation

In 2016, it was reported that fertility rates in the USA are at an all-time low.
In 2010 there were 64 births for every 1000 women in the age group 15 to 44. From the first quarter of 2015 to the first quarter of 2016: the fertility rate decreased from 60 to 59.8 births per 1,000 women.
This follows a trend in recent years, with general fertility rates declining more than 10% since 2007.

While pregnancy in total is decreasing, the birth rate among women 30 to 44 is increasing; from the first quarter of 2015 to the first quarter of 2016: the fertility rate increased from 95.6 to 97.9 births per 1,000 women.
This rise is probably caused by infertility treatment. The older age is related with age related complications; an increase in pregnancy-induced complications for mother, foetus and newborn: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/fertility- ... d=41233697
User avatar
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

An extra 10,375 Brits died in first 7 weeks 2018

Post by Firestarter » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:01 pm

More than 10,000 additional people in England and Wales died in the first weeks of 2018 than is usual for the time of year.

In the first 7 weeks of 2018 there were 93,990 deaths in England and Wales, compared with an average of 83,615 over the same weeks in the previous 5 years. Because there was a similar increase in 2015 as well, the rise is even higher.
No possible causes have yet been invented.

Health officials have acknowledged the 12% rise – the equivalent of one every 7 minutes.
Experts say the additional deaths in England and Wales: are not the result of flu or bad weather. They say it is unlikely that a factor like a virus is to blame because there wasn’t a similar increase elsewhere in Europe or in Asia.

Professor Paul Cosford, PHE medical director, said:
There has been a period of about four weeks or so during which mortality has been higher than we would have expected.
In week six [the week ending February 11] there is about 11,300 or so deaths in an average year, but we have had probably about 12,400-12,500.
Danny Dorling, professor of geography (!!!) at Oxford, said:
We’ve had a very big increase in the number of deaths and it’s not because of the flu. We had another similar increase in 2015 as well.
These two things are unprecedented in the post-war period so the concentration of deaths looks to be when the whole health and social care system is doing particularly badly, then those who are particularly frail are more likely to die.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... -2018.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/9XeDC)

I guess that the state propaganda can invent something a little more “politically correct”, but if there’s something like a depopulation agenda that could explain the additional deaths.
It looks like more migrants have to be imported to Britain to prevent the streets from looking empty.
User avatar
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: United Nations –Replacement migration agenda

Post by Firestarter » Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:17 am

The charade continues; as the people surviving in the EU are so fed up with migrants flooding Europe, we’ve reached that most politicians are saying that they’re against migration, but keep the flood going...

Under EU asylum rules, first-arrival countries are responsible for processing asylum claims, putting a disproportionate burden on southern states nearest north Africa and Turkey (Italy, Spain and Greece). According to the state media Italy’s new Prime Minister, Giuseppe Conte, pushed the EU summit in Brussels to the brink of collapse by threatening to veto the entire summit communiqué.
Germany’s “extreme right” interior minister, Horst Seehofer, reportedly had “threatened” to close Germany’s borders to migrants, putting long-time German Chancellor Angela Merkel in a difficult position. Can you imagine how terrified the European Kings and Queens are for Germany’s interior minister and media Italy’s PM trying to get media attention?

In a supposedly very tense atmosphere at 4:35 a.m., a “deal” was reached that countries on a “voluntary basis” can decide (unspecified) to set up “controlled centres” to detain migrants. They also plan to set up “controlled centres” outside the EU. The euro jumped 0.6% on news of the “deal”.
This means that the EU will supposedly fund migrant processing centres in countries like Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco, Niger and Tunisia. So far no countries have agreed.
Austria, France, Germany and Italy have already made clear they have NO plans to open secure centres on their soil.
As it is on a “voluntary basis” in reality nothing has changed and effectively NO deal was made…

The UN agency for refugees and the International Organisation for Migration struck a different tone in support of migration and called for “strong leadership from European Union member states on upholding the right to asylum and the rights of migrants”, while stressing that they oppose closed detention centres and the EU could not outsource the problem: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... ag-emerges

Italian interior minister, Matteo Salvini, praised the deal:
I’m satisfied and proud of our government’s results in Brussels. Finally Europe has been forced to discuss an Italian proposal.
I said it and I’ve done it. To the smugglers and their Italian accomplices, Italy says no!

Angela Merkel explained on Friday:
We’re not there yet, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Donald Tusk, the European council president, told reporters that it is “far too early to talk about a success”. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/29/worl ... erkel.html
User avatar
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Migration, Hungary, art. 7, Sargentini

Post by Firestarter » Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:01 pm

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has opposed the mandatory mass migration policy of the EU and said in a recent interview:
We believe that a large number of Muslims inevitably leads to parallel societies, because Christian and Muslim society will never unite.
Hungary’s PM Orban, who once campaigned against the Communist oppression in Hungary, has allied himself with other politicians that oppose mass migration, like Italy’s interior minister Matteo Salvini.

That’s obviously a violation of the so-called “European values”, so Dutch member of the EU, Judith Sargentini, compiled a report to trigger article 7. The report indicates 12 “problem areas” in Hungary, including: the rights of migrants and refugees, rights of minorities (including Roma and Jews), independence of the judiciary, freedom of expression, and corruption.
The European parliament also alleged misuse of EU funds by Orbán’s son-in-law.

MEPs from the European People’s Party, turned against Orban and voted for punishing Hungary. Its leader Manfred Weber hopes to become the next European Commission president.
In an unprecedented move, the proposal was approved by 448 votes to 197, with 48 abstentions. To be adopted, the proposal required an absolute majority of members (376) and two thirds of the votes cast.
This has resulted in a temporary loss of EU Council voting rights for Hungary.

Viktor Orban spoke in the European Parliament before the vote:
Hungary will be condemned because Hungarians have decided their country is not going to be a country of migrants.
Poland is also facing the article 7 procedure.

Hungarian foreign minister, Péter Szijjártó, denounced the vote with:
Today’s European Parliament decision was nothing else but a petty revenge of pro-immigration politicians against Hungary.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... dermining/
(archived here: http://archive.is/nmliD)

Amnesty International's (funded by George Soros) expert on “human rights” in the EU, Berber Biala-Hettinga, hailed the vote as "historic", because this makes clear that mass migration is “not up for negotiation".

Besides the involved politricksters from the EU and Hungary, Israel’s favourite Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, got the most media attention and tweeted after the vote:
Hungary is the example for all EU countries and Orban is a hero and deserves the Nobel Prize.

Do NOT look into the many corruption scandals that involve the Order of Garter, like for example the Spanish Royal dictators: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... f=8&t=1417

The Dutch MEP who spearheaded the vote, Judith Sargentini, was applauded by many MEPs after the vote.

I never cared much for people that are hip or popular…
When I was in high school from 1986-1992 on the Spinoza Lyceum in Amsterdam, there were a couple of students in my class that I found disgusting. One of these was none other than Miss Judith Sargentini (these days the applauded member of the EU Parliament for GroenLinks).

I despised most of my teachers; the teacher I respected most was economy teacher De Vries. He only taught the regular economy topic about half the time. The rest of the time he spent telling us on the corruption of the Dutch government and about our high school. In the summer, he sometimes bought us ice cream from the school cafeteria.
He explained that art subsidies are a total fraud, where the most worthless art gets subsidised and the Dutch government stores these ugly pieces in some buildings.

He regularly called one of our rectors, geography teacher, De Groot (he also had some rank in the army) the “snake with the blue eyes” and a paedophile, probably in his 50s at the time, because his boyfriend was a former student of the Spinoza Lyceum and a little more than 20 years old.
He also called history teacher Gijs (?) Korthof, who was also involved in local politics for the PvdA party (Labour) in Amsterdam, probably in his 50s at the time a paedophile for having an affair with Judith Sargentini (15/16 years old at the time).
The age of consent in the Netherlands is 16; so maybe legally this wasn’t even paedophilia.
For some reason Korthof always gave Miss Sargentini top grades…
User avatar
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Hungary targeted to protect banksters

Post by Firestarter » Sat Sep 22, 2018 5:10 pm

Ever since Viktor Orbán became Hungarian prime minister in 2010, international institutions have been making trouble with Hungary.

When Hungary was caught up in the global financial crisis in 2008, orchestrated by John Paulson and other Goldman Sachs banksters, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and EU put Hungary in debt chains with a €20 billion ($26 billion) loan.
A long-running dispute between Hungary and the IMF escalated in July 2013 when the director of the country's central bank, Orbán's former economy minister, Gyorgy Matolcsy called on the IMF to close its office in Budapest, saying it was no longer needed and the promise to repay the “loan” by the end of the year.

An IMF spokeswoman responded that “the IMF’s presence in member countries is at the invitation of country authorities, the IMF will not seek to replace” IMF’s representative in Hungary, Iryna Ivaschenko.

Since 2010, the EU launched several proceedings against Hungary for “breaching EU treaties”.
The EU Commission warned that Hungary will return to weak growth in 2013 and the budget deficit will rise again, back up to 3% of GDP: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hung ... 7U20130715
(archived here: http://archive.is/AeDqG)

Many experts predicted “Orbanomics” would lead to economic disaster. Instead Hungary’s economic growth was a high 3.5% in the first quarter of 2015, faster than almost every other EU country in 2014. Public debt was reduced to 77% of GDP and the government has reduced the deficit to below an EU-mandated target of 3%.
See the economic growth of several East European countries including Hungary…

Jorg Decressin, deputy director of the IMF’s European department, commented:
The bottom line is the 3.6 per cent we’ve seen [in 2014] is not sustainable and much of it was achieved because as you come out of recession, you get a strong rebound. This will have to be increasingly funded by the banking sector.
Obviously they don’t want the banksters to pay…

What makes Orban so unpopular with IMF and EU, could be his “unorthodox” tax measures. His government reshaped the taxation system; a flat-rate 16% income tax, while imposing crisis taxes on telecom, energy, media and financial sectors. Instead of bailing out the banks, letting them pay!
Orban has forced utilities to cut household bills and loss making banks to pay €3 billion in compensation to bank customers who took out foreign currency mortgages.
Firestarter wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:01 pm
That’s obviously a violation of the so-called “European values”, so Dutch member of the EU, Judith Sargentini, compiled a report to trigger article 7. The report indicates 12 “problem areas” in Hungary, including: the rights of migrants and refugees, rights of minorities (including Roma and Jews), independence of the judiciary, freedom of expression, and corruption.

Such measures helped his Fidesz party win another term in office in 2014…
Orban’s taxation measures have provoked accusations of discrimination against foreign investors from the European Commission: https://www.ft.com/content/027eaf9a-05e ... 144feabdc0
(archived here: http://archive.is/J4uuC)
User avatar
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Hungary targeted to protect banksters

Post by Firestarter » Tue Sep 25, 2018 4:49 pm

Last June, the Hungarian parliament approved new Hungarian legislation, making it illegal to be “facilitating illegal immigration” with jail sentences up to a year.
Viktor Orban’s government accuses Soros of using his organisations to orchestrate mass immigration that undermines the identity of Europe.
As part of the new laws, nongovernmental organizations that help migrants seek asylum get taxed 25% on foreign donations. The Open Society Foundations, which was founded and is controlled by the Hungarian born Rothschild agent George Soros, claims this will make it possible to “target all funding for human rights groups and NGOs”.
These “charities” are often used for tax evasion and money laundering...

The Open Society moved a regional office from Budapest to Berlin last month over the "repressive" policies of the “nationalist” Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
Open Society Foundations has filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECHR) over the legislation that makes it illegal for individuals or organisations to support asylum seekers, claiming the law establishes a “dangerous precedent”: https://www.politico.eu/article/open-so ... ekers-ecj/

Open Society filed its cases before the ECHR and the Hungarian Constitutional Court on the same day. This mean means that the ECHR must declare it not applicable, as you can only file a case with the ECHR AFTER all legal procedures in the country have been used!
Of course the lawyers for the Open Society already know this, so have filed this case for reason not yet known...
Post Reply