Ultimate Notice

Any competent lawyer would stress that signing the UN pact (Marrakech), no matter the claim that such an endorsement is not legally binding, is nevertheless an engagement that certainly has legal implications. Why otherwise require that such a ‘pact’ be signed, and later be ratified?

One is signing an agreement to treat all migrants virtually as refugees, and never to obstruct their freedom of migration to wherever they choose to go, (providing the authorities of the choice of destination have agreed to this pact).
The wording of the agreement seems to have little regard for national sovereignty.

What makes it worse is that most signatory heads of State would never have even bothered to check whether the people, whom they claim to represent, approve or not of the idea. The people, after all, would be directly effected by the consequences, plausibly more so than the signatory heads of State.

Is this not an incredible initiative taken by the UN? It seems to contradict the institution's fundamental reason of being.
If the idiotic ideologues, including those of the UN, had their own way, nations would no longer exist, let alone pretend to be happily united. They would be absorbed and destroyed leaving a massive, Orwellian inspired Dystopia. A cultureless, conform, disciplined, egalitarian populus, of a ‘global’ Terra nullius ruled by megalomaniacs.

(This is the third, consecutive allusion to what seems an incredibly incongruous initiative taken by the UN. Apologies for repetition, but the issue is perhaps more important than most people seem to realise. For what it's worth, the 'Ultimate Notice' will be the last post of 2018. Hopefully the signatories of this 'pact' will take some time to dwell on the implications of what they have signed, and finally decide against ratifying their agreement to it).
Whatever the future holds, let it be a happy New Year for us all!


Text and image modifications (with apologies to the UN) © Mirino. December, 2018


Europeans, and perhaps especially the Brits, should pay particular attention to what agreeing to the UN immigration compact really means.
According exactly the same rights to migrants as one accords to refugees, and being bound in principle by signature not to oppose this liberty of movement of migrants in general, without question, and whatsoever, might only make sense to people who naively believe in the incoherent ideology of globalism, of which no one seems to have made any intelligent effort in anticipating the consequences.

The ideology of globalism seems to be based on the illusive aspiration of elite minorities to accumulate total world wide financial, social, and by extension military power. Such power could only be wielded by a totalitarian, neo-Marxist regime. This would supposedly be made up of elite minorities which could include the Bilderburg Group, the Rothschilds, sectarian multibillionaires such as George Soros, (or more likely one of, or all of, his four sons) certain high ranking members of the EU commission, certain 'elite' German ministers, (who secretly foster definite, historic revenge) obviously members of the UN who also seem to go out of their way in representing the interests of Saudi Arabia. The latter would not be adverse to protecting its future, as well as having the enormous and glorious responsibility of Islamic expansionism under the flag of Wahhabism, the official form of Sunni Islam.

Assuming this incredible scenario reflects to some extent the desired objective, can one imagine the consequences? Let's assume for argument's sake that most of Europe agrees to this pact, (which could also determine European federalism). The first possible consequence could be conflict with Russia. We already see the negative results of the Ukrainian coup encouraged by Obama, by the financier of anarchy, Soros, and by the expansionist EU. Such a conflict would put the USA under Trump in a very difficult position, and make US social division even worse.

But let's go further into the future and assume that the UN succeeds in getting most countries to sign away their sovereignty. What would the consequences be? Migrants, and we note that the majority are Muslims, would have the full freedom to go wherever they please, and gradually impose their ideology, their values, if not their archaic laws.
Wouldn't this imposed, doctrine gradually erode away natural cultural identity, natural cultural diversity, and therefore culture in general? Would it not create a regressive, virtually cultureless conformity?

Needless to add, this naively imagined path leading to peaceful, sublime, egalitarian, Utopia would be full of potholes and obstacles. For if there are beings who would renounce their cultural identity, their history, patrimony, root religion, their sovereignty, their very being, for an idiot's illusion, the devil's Dystopia, it's certain than the various sects of Islam will never renounce theirs. If the sheep and lemmings are submissive and peaceful enough in their blissful ignorance to follow blind fools or slaughterers, the divers sects of Islam, certainly the Sunni and the Shiite will be at loggerheads with each other regarding who should best represent and command the ever massively expanding, global community of Muslims.
The idea therefore that globalism determines world peace would be a dangerous fallacy. It's not difficult to foresee that the inverse would be the case.

Civilisation, ever animated by its essential, immutable soul: human nature, has gone through many centuries of trials and tribulations, but by the end of the day, common sense has always prevailed. If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't be here today to express our opinions, dearly hoping that common sense will prevail once more in this incredible case.

Text and image © Mirino. December, 2018