The United Nations website continues to promote a 2000 UN study on the need for “replacement migration” in eight countries including the United States.
Some of the countries cited in the paper from 18 years ago are now experiencing the reality of replacement migration, including France, Germany, Great Britain, and even the United States of America.
The globalist push for “replacement migration” was not a conspiracy theory in 2000, and it is not a conspiracy theory now. In fact, you can check UN.org yourself to read the paper, which concludes that replacement migration is necessary.
“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,” according to the report introduction published on the UN website.
“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,” according to the UN website.
“Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration. Fertility may rebound in the coming decades, but few believe that it will recover sufficiently in most countries to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future,” according to one of the conclusions of the report.
Look no further than the United Kingdom to see the effects of the UN-supportred “replacement migration” plan.
Big League Politics reported this week on the bureaucratic plot to block the Brexit vote from actually being realized in policy:
The Mayor of London is calling for a second vote on Brexit after the British people already decided to exit the European Union in democratic vote during June of 2016.
“The British people should get the final say on Brexit. Retweet if you agree,” said Sadiq Khan who is politically liberal and part of Britain’s Labour Party.
The British people should get the final say on Brexit. Retweet if you agree. pic.twitter.com/naHVcw0BKB
— Mayor of London (@MayorofLondon) October 7, 2018
But the people already had the final say, and they voted “Leave.” It was the same type of right-wing populism in Britain that voted to exit the bureaucratic EU in favor of a more “Britain-first” approach to governance that would later propel President Donald J. Trump to victory in November of 2016. Indeed, populism and nationalism are trending worldwide.
Khan echoed his call for a second referendum only weeks after publicly announcing this position in an op-ed, and winning enough support within his party to run for re-election in 2020.
“People didn’t vote to leave the EU to make themselves poorer, to watch their businesses suffer, to have NHS wards understaffed, to see the police preparing for civil unrest or for our national security to be put at risk if our cooperation with the EU in the fight against terrorism is weakened,” Khan said in the piece.
But none of that has actually happened. All of the negative externalities listed by Khan are pure speculation, considering that the British government has yet to give in to the demands of the people and actually leave the European Union. Instead, they have stalled at every turn, hoping to force a second referendum.
And Khan is dutifully playing his part in ignoring the will of the “Leave” voters.
“Another public vote on Brexit was never inevitable, or something I ever thought I’d have to call for. But the government’s abject failure – and the huge risk we face of a bad deal or a ‘no deal’ Brexit – means that giving people a fresh say is now the right – and only – approach left for our country,” he said…”
Biden’s Syria Strikes Killed at Least 22 People – More than Both of Trump’s Strikes on the Country
Biden’s airstrike killed 22 people.
President Joe Biden has surpassed President Trump’s body-count for US involvement in Syria’s bloody and seemingly endless civil war- killing more people in one batch of airstrikes than were killed in both of Trump’s military actions targeting Syrian government forces in the country in 2017 and 2018.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has indicated that 22 pro-Assad militia fighters were killed in the airstrike, which reportedly struck three trucks after they crossed the Iraq-Syria border. The airstrikes were staged in response to missile attacks that killed an international contractor and injured US military service members earlier this month, with the Biden administration pointing to Iranian backing of Shia militias in both Iraq and Syria.
Trump’s first missile strike on Syrian government facilities in response to a chemical weapons incident in 2017. Ranges of causalities range from nine to 16 deaths. President Trump oversaw a far more aggressive military campaign to destroy the ISIS caliphate, while dealing with the Syrian government in a more conservative and measured fashion.
Observers maintain that President Trump’s second missile strike on the Syrian government didn’t even kill anyone, with the Syrian government describing six soldiers and three civilians as having been injured in the series of missile strikes that targeted scientific and alleged chemical munitions facilities.
President Trump was in office for four years and avoided inflicting casualties of the kind Biden has in just over a month- on a questionable intelligence basis. Biden’s action may suggest his administration intends to further pursue aggressive action and regime change in Syria, a long-sought priority of the western globalist establishment.
Someone should ask @PressSec her own question verbatim about Biden’s Syria bombing at tomorrow’s briefing (and while the context of her tweet was Trump’s bombing of Syrian forces, the question still applies): https://t.co/9ebYPywQPB
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 26, 2021
This military action was by every indication more lethal and serious than anything Trump implemented in Syria or Iraq during his presidency- including the killing of Iranian terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani. The corporate-establishment media has largely glossed over the event, refusing to scrutinize the questionable intelligence behind the consequential airstrikes.
White House2 days ago
Secret Service Members Confirm That Joe Biden’s Mental Faculties are Indeed in “Bad Shape,” Dan Bongino Says
Around The World3 days ago
Biden Authorizes Attack on Syria, Kamala FURIOUS It Wasn’t Her Call
White House4 days ago
SLEEPY? Biden Yet to Deliver First State of the Union Amid Confused Public Appearances
Free Speech2 days ago
Wikipedia’s Founder is Creating New Free Speech Competitor to Website, Citing Leftist Domination
Free Speech3 days ago
Trump Preparing Case Before “Facebook Supreme Court” to Restore Platform Access
States4 days ago
SICK: California Bill Proposes to Fine Retailers That Maintain Separate Clothing and Toys Sections for Boys and Girls
States4 days ago
Michigan Republicans Demand Inquiry Into Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s Murderous COVID-19 Nursing Home Policies
Congress2 days ago
Arizona’s Paul Gosar Proposes Amending Coronavirus Package to Replace Pork with $10,000 Stimulus Checks