A Question of Nationality

 

A Question of Nationality

Somehow, it’s become common in most western nations, for straight talking to be interpreted as hate speech where it’s quite possible that prosecution follows. Ironic though that the delegates sitting on the United Nations’ benches just sat glumly when President Trump told the European nations, ‘Your countries are being ruined by migration.’ None of them were brave enough to censure him… at least to his face.

Mass migration was one of the fears predicted by the climate change alarmists, saying the rising oceans were going to swap some countries; so far, there’s been no dangerous sea level rise, but mass migration has happened just the same! The so-called reasons, bad and unfortunate as those things are, aren’t new or different to the past; their countries have been volatile for a long time but there has been no mass exodus. The estimated demographic of migrants flowing into Britain are; 68% adult males, 21% adult women and 11% are children under 18 years old. Why aren’t they all women and children? Why aren’t the men behind fixing the problems they have run away from? Fixing their own country’s problems, may well the answer. Or some unified intervention perhaps? It could be said that young men go ahead and prepare for their families… well isn’t it dangerous to remain for women and children. And families are only going to make the situation more difficult for Britain and Europe.

Consider these quotes from UN officials regarding climate change, ‘It’s a pity we have to dismantle capitalism to fight climate change.’ And, ‘Nations will need to cede their sovereignty to properly fight against climate change.’ Another quote from some professors in a USA university, ‘The way to bring down economies is to flood them with people on welfare.’ And one more observation: The British voted for Brexit, something the European Union didn’t really expect to happen. If Britian was to make a success of being out of the European Union, would other counties want to go their own way too? So as far as the leadership of the European Union is concerned, would they want Britian to be successful?

There’s always been criticism of capitalism, which I’ll get back to, but since 1940. there’s also been a slow move to globalism, a bit like boiling a frog. Dismantling capitalism would mark the demise of democracy as we know it… and that is happened more quickly because the bureaucrats have taken the power away from politicians. There are a number of stakeholders who are pushing the globalisation or world government barrow. It’s led by the United Nations and World Economic Forum but many others have different but similar agendas; one that’s been about for years, and more people are aware of is the Fabian Society; with a wolf in sheep’s clothing as their logo. They too have a number of objectives, but basically a change to social democracy by stealth… which is the antithesis of democracy. But a move to socialism is gaining popularity, gaining a solid foothold in western democracies.

The only certainty in life is change, and if these schemes dreamt up by the likes of the Fabians are by stealth, globalisation and one world government has an ‘air of them and us’ about it. Not a happy place for all… especially with Marxism in the mix. Certainly, the current situation in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, isn’t making for happy places. Flying the national flag is ‘threatening’. Free speech is evaporating and there is a two-tier policing and justice feel. President Trump’s telling off of the UK prime minister said it all. Even language has been weaponised, but this time it’s in order to embarrass ethnic English, Scotch, Welsh and Irish about past historical events, but those who bellyache, should look at their own history. There’s also racism and different forms of bigitory.

One good thing about the climate alarmism is there’s a renewed consciousness about the environment, but few have cottoned on to two wider issues. Carbon dioxide isn’t a pollutant of threat, and it’s been said that if third world nations want living standards on par with, say, USA, it would require the resources of seven planets. Perhaps that’s just a phrase to show there would be a problem with natural resources. It’s resources, natural or otherwise, where capitalism has its problems. Healthy economies thrive on growth, and growth cannot continue by harvesting resources unabated; this is one of the reasons to dismantle capitalism. But, at what cost and why does socialism have to be the solution? Socialism has never been gentle.

Of course, the globalists are aware of this, hence United Nations’ Agenda 30 for which the western nations have all signed up to. Concerning resources their strategy is a ‘circular economy’, a totally different way of doing things. Detractors say it is the ‘you will own nothing and be happy’ theory, which might be the draconian version of it, but possible. It is strong on recycling and repurposing; it hasn’t been tried, so trust among nonbelievers isn’t high. It is an attempt to address a real problem though. Talking about trust, a reasonable thinker could look at all that is going on in the world, and judge it as all as a huge, purposeful distraction; because in less than five years, 2030 will be here, with it, Agenda 30, and if the strategy is the boiling frog syndrome, too much knowledge will make their imposition of it, all the harder.

There’s more than one way to skin a cat! It’s plain from what we see in Britian and Europe, that mass migration of cultures to another has failed. As a failed experiment it should be stopped, and because the experiment has been wholly purposeful, whatever has been put in place should be easy enough undo. But do you think the British government or the European Union, the bureaucracy or judiciary want it stopped? The United Nations (if it deserves to be retained) should have a role. The populous of Britian and Europe complain that the migrants receive better treatment that their own people, which is true… but if the migrants don’t have food and shelter, they will simply take it, they are there in numbers, and the chaos would make conditions worse. When people become refugees, it is proper for them to go to like cultures and the United Nation’s should have had a role in that; it has always had the responsibility to quell whatever problems there are in those volatile regions, but instead, they a facilitating the entry to countries that they want to deplete of revenue and nationality.

If Socialism was so good, why did all of those countries exit USSR? Why did the people of Hong Kong resist their take over? Why is there a South Korea? Countries formed because of their shared ethnic values; despite historical mistakes, people should take pride in their ethnicity; that way people live in a relatively comfortable peace… take the conflicts that are going on right now, what a waste of resources and human life. Socialism has never cared about human life… the end result is all that matters.

There’s powerful merit in the idea of national identity… sovereignty; it has served us well for centuries. Nevertheless, we do have to be conscious of resources… and perhaps there is a case for lifting poor countries out of poverty, but by how much? And who is to say? The more progress they make, the more resources they will need… what about rich countries? Is there a case for dismantling the throwaway/consumer culture and take back the jobs that technology has taken away? Are we prepared for manual work? And can the welfare culture survive, when humans again become a resource; everyone will need to be productive?

It doesn’t matter if it’s the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, the World Bank, a bunch of oligarchs, big corporates, the European Union, Fabians, the Musim Brotherhood or political parties, if they have an agenda, or an ideology… just stop! Somehow, left alone things have a developed pretty well; evolution. When imposing a new or different system, even with the best of intentions, there are always unforeseen outcomes, usually bad, and some of the intentions are usually seen as nefarious by others and when that happens, no good results.

We have but four years to change their minds.