sexta-feira, 19 de janeiro de 2018

O guru da Nova Ordem Mundial

Escrito por Olavo de Carvalho









Diário do Comércio, 3 de abril de 2006


Alguns leitores estranham que, em plena ascensão do comunismo na América Latina, eu me desvie da atualidade explosiva para me empenhar, aqui e em outras publicações, num combate aparentemente extemporâneo contra Immanuel Kant e o iluminismo.

Há quem chegue a imaginar que criei birra do anãozinho corcunda de Koenisberg por sua semelhança física com o de Turim (Antonio Gramsci). Mas nada tenho contra anãozinhos, exceto quando por dentro são monstros enormes. Num livro publicado em 1999 descrevi brevemente o segundo. Seu antecessor alemão parece bem menos perigoso. Com freqüência, surge na mídia com as feições risonhas de um amante da paz e da liberdade. Ninguém pode negar que isso ele era realmente, mas em filosofia as palavras não valem pelo seu sentido-padrão dicionarizado, e sim pelo conceito específico e plenamente desenvolvido que nomeiam. Quando examinamos o que Kant entendia por paz e liberdade, sabendo que assim as entendem também os atuais candidatos a governantes do mundo, não podemos deixar de perceber que a parecença do filósofo com o fundador do Partido Comunista Italiano não é só anatómica, mas também moral, sobretudo na capacidade que ambos tinham de embelezar com uma linguagem idealística as forças históricas mais feias que estavam plantando no solo do futuro.

De modo geral, a influência cada vez maior e mais organizada dos intelectuais nos centros de poder mundial e a adoção generalizada da "guerra cultural" como instrumento primordial de dominação tornam a política incompreensível a quem não consiga acompanhar de perto a marcha das idéias. É uma ilusão mortífera imaginar que ainda existe uma esfera "prática" separada do debate cultural, religioso e filosófico. Os políticos ou líderes empresariais soi-disant "pragmáticos", que se gabavam de olhar com desprezo as discussões aparentemente bizantinas dos acadêmicos, são hoje uma raça em extinção. Para destruí-los, basta à intelectualidade ativista conceber estratégias que passem longe do horizonte de visão do seu imediatismo praticista. A vitória do gramscismo no Brasil explica-se, em boa parte, pela indolência intelectual dos líderes políticos e empresariais de fora da esquerda. Nos EUA, nada se debate no parlamento, se decide no judiciário ou se empreende no executivo sem ter passado, muito antes, pelo crivo dos think tanks, onde intelectuais de grosso calibre criam as categorias de pensamento que depois orientam toda a discussão subseqüente. Se você tenta acompanhar o desenrolar dos acontecimentos sem conhecer os pressupostos intelectuais mais remotos por trás dos conflitos de poder, acaba não entendendo nada. Um desses pressupostos é a filosofia de Kant. Exposta num estilo abstruso que repele até os estudantes de filosofia, ela é a última coisa pela qual um "homem prático" poderia se interessar. Por isto mesmo, ela vai se tornando realidade bem diante dos narizes deles, sem que tenham a menor idéia de para onde ela ameaça levá-los.

Umas poucas observações bastam para realçar a gravidade do assunto.

Em primeiro lugar, a noção kantiana de "paz eterna", tão própria a seduzir os sentimentais pela sua vaga ressonância bíblica, não significa outra coisa senão "governo mundial". Num estudo importantíssimo, o Pe. Michel Schooyans (1), filósofo belga que já leccionou no Brasil, mostra que as novas legislações uniformizantes que a ONU vem impondo ao mundo, como por exemplo o abortismo obrigatório a que me referi num dos artigos anteriores, são de inspiração diretamente kantiana. O governo mundial que a ONU está construíndo com rapidez desnorteante é a tradução jurídica exata do que Kant entendia como "comunidade humana". Essa comunidade, segundo o filósofo, emergia espontaneamente do fa[c]to de que os homens são todos dotados da mesma faculdade da "razão". Mas a razão, para Kant, não é a mesma coisa que era para os antigos e medievais. Estes a entendiam como o simples dom da fala e do raciocínio coerente, reflexo longínquo da Razão divina que criou e sustenta o mundo. Graças a esse dom, o ser humano podia apreender algo da ordem divina e cósmica do mundo, ordenando por ela, na medida de suas limitadas capacidades, a vida da sua própria alma. Para Kant, ao contrário, a razão é a autoridade legisladora suprema e insuperável, que não tem satisfações a prestar nem a uma ordem divina pré-existente, nem a quaisquer fa[c]tos do mundo real que não se enquadrem na sua auto-regulação soberana. Os estudantes de história da filosofia não ignoram que o iluminismo, de um modo geral, se caracterizara pela apologia da universalidade abstrata, com pleno desprezo pela variedade dos fa[c]tos singulares. Na Revolução Francesa, milhares de cabeças singulares foram decepadas para enquadrar as restantes na linha da universalidade da razão. Kant adorou isso. Imaginem agora o que pode resultar da transformação disso em princípio regulador da ordem mundial. Eliminar do mapa as nações que não se enquandrem na perfeição da nova ordem global será tão fácil quanto guilhotinar dissidentes. Se a cultura colombiana, por exemplo, é refratária ao aborto por querer permanecer fiel às suas origens cristãs, corta-se o crédito internacional da Colômbia como outrora se cortou a cabeça do poeta André Chenier ou do físico Lavoisier. Isso está de fa[c]to acontecendo, e é uma solução tanto mais tentadora porque o governo colombiano move uma bem suedida guerra contra o narcotráfico, que a ordem global em gestação preferiria, ao contrário, liberar como comércio legítimo (2). Para quem quer enquadrar o planeta num modelo jurídico uniforme, esmagando os adversos e recalcitrantes com a boa consciência de um apóstolo da paz eterna, nada mais inspirador do que os abstratismos de Kant.

Mas muito antes de insuflar essas idéias malignas nas cabeças dos burocratas de Genebra, Kant já havia feito um mal irreparável à inteligência humana. Ao consagrar o império da "razão" uniforme sobre a multiplicidade dos fa[c]tos, ele criou o dogmatismo cientificista que permite abolir continentes inteiros da realidade, sob o pretexto de que são refratários ao estudo científico, dando em seguida, a essa mesma ciência que admite sua incapacidade em estudá-los, a autoridade de declarar que não existem. Essa idolatria do método produziu resultados tragicômicos. A epidemia de charlatanismo antropológico no século XX esteve entre eles. Baseando-se na premissa kantiana de que de um juízo de fa[c]to não se pode deduzir um juízo de valor, cientistas sociais bisonhos professaram abster-se asceticamente de proferir julgamentos de valor sobre as realidades culturais que estudavam e acabaram tirando desse voto de castidade a conclusão de que, nesse campo, as diferenças de valor não existiam mesmo. A igualdade das culturas perante a suprema Razão kantiana é hoje um dogma imposto a todas as nações pelos pedagogos politicamente corretos da ONU. É imensurável a bibliografia destinada a persuadir o mundo de que, por exemplo, os rituais astecas de sacrifícios humanos eram um costume tão decente quanto a caridade franciscana.


















Quando o Prof. Peter Singer afirma resolutamente os direitos humanos das galinhas, estendendo às diferenças entre géneros animais o mesmo preceito que obteve tanto sucesso no concernente às diferenças entre culturas, ele está sendo rigorosamente kantiano.

Da mesma inspiração vem aquela regra sublime de que, como a ciência genética não consegue perceber nenhuma diferença entre um ser humano e um chipanzé aos três meses de gestação, os seres humanos não são realmente diferentes dos chipanzés. Fortalecida pela autoridade de Kant, cada ciência se crê autorizada a proclamar que tudo aquilo que está fora do alcance dos seus métodos é perfeitamente inexistente. Qualquer faxineiro sabe que um embrião humano, uma vez crescido, pode se tornar Platão ou Michelangelo, e que nenhum embrião de chipanzé pode esperar um futuro igualmente promissor. Mas, como a embriologia não estuda nada do que sucede aos embriões depois que eles deixam de ser embriões, essa diferença é kantianamente abolida em prol da soberania do método. E há muito tempo a supressão dessa diferença deixou de ser uma pura especulação acadêmica; ela já virou lei, e as cabeças que sua aplicação vai arrancando pelo caminho não são de chipanzés nem de galinhas.

Outro malefício incalculável que o kantismo trouxe à humanidade é a separação rígida e estereotipada entre "ciência" e "religião". Segundo Kant, a primeira diz respeito àquilo que podemos "saber", a segunda àquilo que podemos apenas "esperar", quer dizer, desejar e imaginar. Em suma, vigora aí a diferença entre "conhecimento" e "crença". Uma teoria científica você prova ou contesta. Numa doutrina religiosa, você apenas crê ou não crê, sem possibilidade de arbitragem racional. Essa distinção impregnou-se tão profundamente na alma ocidental que acabou por determinar o uso diário das palavras respectivas na mídia, nas escolas, nas discussões públicas e privadas. Esse é talvez o dogma terminológico de maior sucesso em todos os tempos. Até no automatismo do inconsciente a religião tornou-se "fé", e ponto final. Mas isso é um conceito pueril e insustentável, uma idiotice completa. Nenhuma religião do mundo começa com "crença". Começa sempre com uma sucessão de fa[c]tos que assinalam a súbita e humanamente inexplicável penetração coletiva numa esfera de realidade mais alta, de onde toda a existência aparece transfigurada por um novo sentido. Digo "fa[c]tos" porque é disso que se trata. A travessia do Mar Vermelho pode ter se transformado em objeto de "crença" para as gerações subseqüentes, mas, para aqueles que viveram o acontecimento, não foi nada disso. Jesus Cristo podia dizer ao cego e ao paralítico curados: "Tua fé te salvou". Mas é pura metonímia: a cura, se fosse pura matéria de fé e não um fa[c]to da ordem física, seria fraude e nada mais. Com a passagem do tempo, esfumando-se a memória viva dos testemunhos, o acesso a esses fa[c]tos pode requerer alguma "fé", mas não tem sentido confundir a natureza de um fa[c]to com o modo de conhecê-lo séculos depois. Ou esses milagres aconteceram, ou não aconteceram. E deslocar o problema para um passado remoto é só fugir do problema. Setenta e seis por cento dos médicos americanos acreditam hoje em curas miraculosas, porque as vêem acontecer diariamente e sabem que elas são até mais freqüentes do que a cura pelos meios terapêuticos usuais. O próprio Jesus Cristo, quando perguntaram se Ele era mesmo o enviado de Deus ou se seria preciso esperar por algum outro, não respondeu com uma "doutrina" para ser crida ou descrida, mas com fa[c]tos para ser confirmados ou impugnados (3). As religiões só se transformam em matéria de "crença" para um público que está muito afastado, no espaço ou no tempo, das suas fontes originárias. O conhecimento direto e o estudo cientificamente responsável dos acontecimentos miraculosos são as únicas vias do acesso intelectualmente válido à religião. O resto é uma discussão oca entre ignorantes tagarelas sentados na periferia da realidade. Hoje em dia, porém, qualquer fa[c]to tido por miraculoso está afastado, automaticamente, da discussão oficial, a não ser quando é uma fraude ou uma ilusão, isto é, quando, precisamente por não ser miraculoso de maneira alguma, pode ser explicado por algum psicologismo ou sociologismo fácil. Expulsos os dados inconvenientes, a "razão" kantiana impera absoluta no seu buraco de toupeira. O kantismo, consagração da covardia intelectual que foge de tudo aquilo que não conhece, bloqueia a possibilidade de vir a conhecê-lo. Nenhum autoritarismo dogmático, ao longo da história, foi tão mesquinho e tão danoso quanto esse. São inumeráveis os exemplos de seus efeitos desastrosos na cultura, na história e na vida moral.

E que ninguém me venha com aquela conversa mole de que Kant tinha a melhor das intenções, de que foi tudo culpa do zelo exagerado de discípulos incompreensivos. As conseqüências perversas do kantismo, como as do hegelianismo e do marxismo, não vieram séculos ou milênios depois: foram quase imediatamente subseqüentes. Um pensador que se acha capaz de virar do avesso o universo inteiro dos conhecimentos humanos não tem desculpa para ignorar os efeitos mais obviamente previsíveis da difusão de suas idéias. É indecente passar da arrogância intelectual suprema aos gemidos de inocência fingida. Não se pode conceder esse direito a Kant, como não se pode concedê-lo a Hegel, a Karl Marx ou mesmo a Nietzsche, malgrado o atenuante da loucura. Quem quer que anuncie ter compreendido o sentido integral da História humana tem a obrigação estrita de prever com acerto o próximo episódio, ao menos no que diz respeito ao seu próprio campo limitado de atuação pessoal. Se nem isso o cidadão consegue fazer, é porque não alcançou a plenitude da autoconsciência filosófica de um Platão, de um Aristóteles, de um Tomás de Aquino ou de um Leibniz. E, nesse caso, é só por devoção idolátrica que continuamos a considerá-lo um grande filósofo e não apenas um pensador interessante.



Notas:

(1) La face caché de l'ONU, Paris, Ed. Sarment Fayard, 2000.

(2) Uma vasta campanha nesse sentido é subsidiada pelo sr. George Soros, que ao mesmo tempo investe pesadamente na construção da nova ordem e na compra de terras... na Colômbia.

(3) Confira em Mateus, 11:1-6.












segunda-feira, 15 de janeiro de 2018

EU Refugee Tsunami 3.0: Globalist Summit Calls for More Migration

Written by William F. Jasper




George Soros and Martin Schulz













See here, here and here


See here


See here and here



See here



























See here












«A new German study, based on data that Angela Merkel’s government had kept hidden, has confirmed statistically what Merkel’s opponents have charged: The refugee tsunami to which Merkel opened Germany’s (and all of Europe’s) gates in 2015-2016, has also brought a huge crime wave. If this information had been allowed to reach German voters before last September’s federal elections, media darling Merkel likely would not have won her fourth term as chancellor. Merkel and her Left allies have always denied the refugee-asylee-migrant crime connection. Now that the facts are out (at least a small fraction — most of the data is still restricted) — the Left is trying to spin the evidence to argue for more Muslim migrants and more migrant benefits. Incredible? Yes, but not surprising, considering the fanatical zeal of the “borderless Europe” ideologues, who continue to argue that the EU must accept millions more “refugees," almost entirely Muslims, and further de-Christianize Europe’s post-Christian culture to make the newcomers feel more welcome.

The new study, published by the Zurich University of Applied Sciences, was conducted by a team led by prominent liberal criminologist Christian Pfeiffer. To the extent that the American establishment media hasn’t completely covered up the results of the study, it has, in the main, joined the open borders lobby in spinning it to support even more suicidal migration surges. A good case in point is the January 3 Bloomberg View column by Leonid Bershidsky.

The op-ed’s title, “Germany Must Come to Terms With Refugee Crime,” undoubtedly misled many readers to conclude, at first glance, that finally left-tilted pundits and politicians might be waking up to the harsh realities of their destructive migration policies. However, the subtitle is a giveaway that Bershidsky is headed in another direction: “Rare statistical data on violence by asylum seekers confirm the far right's fears, but not its recipes.” So, let’s look at both the data and the “recipes” to which the Bloomsberg opinionist refers.

“Anti-immigrant parties have long linked Muslim immigration to crime, but verifiable data to support their arguments have been scarce, not least because police services and statistical agencies have been reluctant to track this aspect of criminality so as not to increase tension in societies,” writes Bershidsky, acknowledging the de facto censorship of inconvenient data that the Merkelites have long denied or downplayed. “That makes a newly published German study an important reference point,” Bershidsky writes. “It's one of the first attempts to measure the effect the refugee wave of 2015 and 2016 has had on violent crime in Germany, and while it can be construed to support parts of the anti-immigrant agenda, it also suggests reasonable policies to mitigate the problems."


 Admissions but No Mea Culpas or Reversals 

An important aside: Note that Bershidsky, following the current canons of left-wing media bias, begins by branding Merkel’s opposition with the obligatory “far right” label. Note too, that the very first word in his opening sentence is “anti-immigrant.” That was not an accidental choice. Open borders advocates routinely and deceitfully use the “anti-immigrant” charge to falsely paint proponents of sensible and sustainable immigration policies as being opposed to all immigration. It is then just another small step for the refugee/migration propagandists to smear as racists and Nazis those who would place rational restrictions on immigration.

However, neither the Alternative for Germany (AfD) nor any of the other major “far right” parties are opposed to all immigration; they oppose migration, the new dogma of the Left, which asserts that all people have the right to migrate wherever they choose, and that national borders must not be allowed to hamper these desires.

The Bloomsberg piece notes that the government-commissioned study uses data from Germany's fourth-most-populous state, Lower Saxony, home to Volkswagen. Here is one of the important admissions against interest that found its way into the Bershidsky column: “The researchers asked for data that specifically concerned asylum applicants, both successful and unsuccessful, who had arrived in 2015 and 2016. The state police — in keeping with the unspoken taboo — hadn't published such statistics, but they obliged the research team. It turned out the asylum seekers had reversed the decreasing violent crime trend in Lower Saxony. While such crime went down by 21.9 percent between 2007 and 2014, it was up again by 10.4 percent by the end of 2016. Some 83 percent of the cases were solved — and 92.1 percent of the increase was attributable to the newcomers.”

A few other news stories have mentioned that the asylum applicants are responsible for a more than 10 percent rise in violent crime, but rarely mentioned is the fact that the sharp reversal of the previous downward trend makes the migrant violent crime wave all the more dramatic.

“Again in keeping with anti-immigrant politicians' arguments, the rise in violent crime can partially be explained by the new arrivals' demographic structure,” Bershidsky states in another admission. “About 27 percent of them were men between the ages of 14 and 30; that group made up just 9 percent of Lower Saxony's general population in 2014. And it is young men who commit about half the violent crimes in Germany.” This, of course, was another point that Merkel’s critics repeatedly hammered. An alarmingly high number of the “refugees” were single, young, military-aged men who, predictably, would add to the crime problem, not to mention the likelihood that some would already be members of terrorist groups, and still others would follow a familiar pattern of being recruited into radical Islamic sects once inside Germany.

See here





See here


See here







Admission: Except for Deception on Migrant Crime, Merkel Would Have Lost 

Then comes the bombshell admission: “Had the German government admitted this stark reality, Merkel's political punishment for her generosity to refugees might have been harsher and the AfD might have done even better.” And had Bershidsky and his media mafia pals admitted this stark reality and not covered for Merkel, she surely would have been toast in last fall’s election.

“German government agencies were ill-equipped to deal with such an inflow of asylum seekers, and German society is paying the price for that lack of preparedness,” Bershidsky continues. “Germans, however, are good at acknowledging and correcting mistakes, and the Pfeiffer paper provides some quality clues on what can be done to improve the situation. It's not quite what the AfD would have done.”

Hmm. What “quality clues” does the Bloomberg scribe find in the Pfeiffer paper? For one, he points to this purported conclusion from Pfeiffer and his study co-authors:

The vast majority of young, male refugees live here without partners, mothers, sisters or other female caregivers. As a result, the violence-preventing, civilizing effect that comes from women is very limited. Groups of young men with a violence-oriented internal dynamic can form among the refugees. Demands for family reunification finds here a criminological justification.

Of course! To solve the refugee/migrant crime-violence dilemma merely import all of the young migrant males’ “partners, mothers, sisters or other female caregivers.” But, naturally, that would also mean — under the “family reunification” rubric — also importing their fathers and brothers, as well as cousins and uncles, whom many Muslim immigrants/migrants attempt to pass off as “brothers.”

It’s not hard to see where this is going. According to Bershidsky, “Germany has learned the hard way that it must have more control over who comes in.” Yes, yes, “But,” he says (and this is the kicker), “it must also move on from the trauma of Merkel's shock decision to working more meaningfully with the newcomers, who are, for the most part, here to stay, whatever politicians may think of it. That means providing strong language and professional training, offering more housing options and allowing families to reunite to address the gender imbalance…. Integration includes using both sticks and carrots to teach newcomers about both the opportunities that come with moving to Europe and the limits it imposes.”

That’s right, move along now, don’t get fixated on “Mutti Merkel’s” (Mommy Merkel’s) disastrous refugee policies. Stripping away the pretended intentions to exercise “more control,” it is clear from the Merkelites — including Bershidsky and other media allies like him — that the plan is to go heavy on the carrots, while relegating the sticks to the rhetorical type calculated to pacify the angry natives.

The Bershidsky/Bloomberg take on the Pfeiffer study is not surprising. Bershidsky, a Russian “journalist” who is, most likely, an intelligence asset for Putin’s FSB/SVR network, has repeatedly attacked all efforts to enforce reasonable immigration controls as xenophobic reactions of the “far-right.” And Bloomberg has faithfully supported Merkel and reliably denounced and smeared her opponents, most especially the AfD.


French Desperation Undercuts Proposed German “Family Reunification” Plans 

The “solutions” proposed by Pfeiffer, Bershidsky, et al, even if they would alleviate violent criminal tendencies of migrant youths — and there is no convincing evidence to support that fantasy — would exacerbate another daunting problem that is also unsustainable. At about the same time that the Pfeiffer study was being released, mayors from seven major French cities sent a letter to the central government appealing for emergency aid, due to the fact that their municipal social services have been completely overwhelmed by the huge influx of Middle East asylum seekers.

“The year 2017 ends with a massive rise in the demand for asylum,” say the mayors, “and the arrival of newcomers puts extreme tension — particularly with the onset of the cold wave — of the classic public and institutional policies.” According to an English translation of the letter, published on December 16, the mayors of Strasbourg, Grenoble, Rennes, Toulouse, Lille, Bordeaux, and Nantes stated: “In a proportion never before known, the mechanisms allocated to housing asylum seekers, led by the State, often with the support of our communities, are indeed completely saturated, despite the steady increase the number of places.... The evidence is there, before our eyes, in our streets, in homes and shelters: there is urgency.”

There is similar urgency also in Germany, though once again Mutti Merkel and her media allies have managed to hide and censor data that might show the true extent of the enormous financial and social costs of Merkel’s migration policies.

See here and here











See here



Dramatically expanding the refugee/migrant influx in the name of family reunification is a prescription for increased social turmoil, crime, riots, terrorism, and government bankruptcy. The Merkel-induced migration crisis has become one of the most calamitous disasters in modern history. It will take a truly heroic reversal to save not only Germany but all of Europe. Doubling down on the same suicidal policies that produced the crisis will only guarantee that Germany, France, and the other erstwhile Christian nations of Europe enter into a speedier death spiral».

William F. Jasper («Merkel Exposed: Germany, France Reeling Under Refugees' Crime Waves, Welfare Costs», in The New American, 05 January 2018).


«Dimitris Avramopoulos, the European Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship, recently published a startling opinion, advocating for more immigration as an inescapable reality to which European citizens should just adapt without any further discussion.

The article illustrates much of what is wrong with European institutions, in particular the European Commission, a mixture of bureaucratic arrogance, false creed based on dogma rather than facts, and a disdain for democratic debate.

The Commission, based in Brussels, is not elected but, according to EU treaties, it has a monopoly — yes, a monopoly — on initiating legislation at the European level.

Each Commissioner is an appointed bureaucrat, one for each member state — often a former top politician, now sidelined in his country of origin, therefore with very little democratic legitimacy.

“It is time to face the truth…. The only way to make our asylum and migration policies future-proof is collectively to change our way of thinking first,” wrote Avramopoulos. Does he think that grass-roots citizens do not think? Like Zeus — another Greek — on Mount Olympus, the truth comes from the upper floor of the Berlaymont building, the official headquarters of the European Commission in Brussels, as a top-down process. Hey, stupid dudes who want to control immigration, just listen the new self-proclaimed God-bureaucrat and shut up because: “we cannot and will never be able to stop migration”. Period.

It is very clear, from survey after survey, Eurobarometer after Eurobarometer, election after election, that a huge majority of European citizens are not only worried about immigration but want — if not to stop it — to reduce it drastically, and regain the lost control over borders and over who is allowed to get inside Europe and who is not. Brexit and the recent election campaigns in the UK, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic had immigration as a core issue. This trend is extremely clear and these “signals” cannot just be dismissed by Avramopoulos writing that “Migration is an emotional, sensitive issue… influenced by rising nationalism, populism and xenophobia.” So, any reluctance to slow down immigration is categorized as “racist” and disqualifies whoever intends to raise an objection to the future Brave New World dreamed up by the European Commission?

According to our Commissioner, this populism and racism has, “limited our opportunities to put in place smart, forward-looking migration policies”, policies that will be thought and implemented by, guess who? The enlightened European institutions, of course.

In a normal democratic process, every country should, ideally, be able to decide, through national parliaments, its migration policies. At a European level, the willingness of the majority of citizens should be taken into account. But Avramopoulos could not care less. According to this unelected Greek Commissioner, this is because “at the end of the day, we all need to be ready to accept migration, mobility and diversity as the new norm”. The new norms, like the size of apples or the curvature of cucumbers, should, according to the European Commission, be determined by the European Commission. Migration will not be a question open for debate. It will be a “norm” determined by the Commission.

So, do we really have to accept migrants and refugees? According to the Commission, “It is not only a moral imperative but also an economic and social imperative for our aging continent”. This is another false cliché. In his book Exodus: How Migration is Changing Our World, Oxford Professor Paul Collier explains that he has reviewed all the major scientific articles supporting the claims that migrants will be able to pay for the social benefits of aging Europeans, only to conclude that he was absolutely not convinced at all. First of all, many of the migrants are not qualified; and second, they receive social benefits, so there is little or no incentive for them to work.

Articles supporting the claims of the officials — that Europe needs more migrants in order to fund the healthcare and pensions of aging Europeans — neglect that this plan can only succeed if the migrants work. These assumptions, therefore, appear to be based on ideological bias rather than scientific evidence.

But what about the almost four million young unemployed citizens already inside the European Union? The unemployment rate for them has actually been between 15-20% in recent years. Don’t politicians have “a moral imperative” (to speak like Avramopoulos) first to give them a job and a future before welcoming more new migrants? In Greece, Avramopoulos’s country, the unemployment rate for youths is not 17% — the current European average — but more than 40%. In Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy — countries with extremely high rates of unemployment — there is also a generation of young and educated people, but they are unemployed and face an uncertain future. Many young Greek people do not see any reason to stay in Greece and would like to leave the country. Does Commissioner Avramopoulos plan to replace them with migrants or does he accept this internal, almost forced, migration within Europe as their fate? Another “norm”?













D. Avramopoulos and António Guterres



See here


















Perhaps the saddest aspect of his article is that Avramopoulos is not a leftist or a green or even a social-democrat politician. He is from New Democracy, a right-wing party. He is the living proof how far the Left has come to dominate the intellectual landscape in European institutions and imposed its way of thinking. With “right-wing” politicians such as Angela Merkel or Avramopoulos betraying their own constituents, one should not be surprised by the rise of “populism” that they themselves so often denounce».

Alain Destexhe («Mass Migration: The European Commission's New "Norm"», in Gatestone Institute (January 8, 2018).


«The news headlines from media outlets are ablaze with reports that President Trump, during a January 11 Oval Office meeting to discuss immigration with a bipartisan group of senators, became frustrated with a proposed immigration plan that would facilitate the admission of immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador, and African countries and let off steam by using vulgar language.

Sources coming from some who attended the meeting but would not be identified publicly alleged that Trump asked the senators why they would want people from Haiti, Africa and other “s***hole countries” coming into the United States. The unverified story immediately stole the news cycle, with pundits, analysts, and politicians insisting that the alleged remark is evidence of Trump's racism.

Did the president actually make the remark? Or is this another hit piece fabricated by Trump's “Fake News” enemies, who seem hell-bent on bringing him down, by one means or another? And, even if he did use the expletive alleged, has the context been stretched or massaged to make it "racist" and "hateful?" These are important questions that are not being asked. It is not surprising that the anti-Trump media and the president's political enemies are treating the allegation as fact and spinning the story in the most negative way possible. However, even some of the president's supporters have been quick to express alarm and dismay, apparently willing to fully accept the story at face value.

Speaking on a Fox News program on January 12, the well-known libertarian-constitutionalist judge Andrew Napolitano said this about the president’s reported statement:

I’ve known [Trump] for 30 years. I know him well and I like him and admire him. But this is a new low ... the language, the racial implications are reprehensible and he deserves the criticism he’s going to get. The flip side of this is, a lot of his supporters will agree with that tone and elected him because he uses, from time to time, that tone, and will cheer him on.

President Trump denied using the reported language in a pair of tweets early the next day, stating:

“The language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough, but this was not the language used. What was really tough was the outlandish proposal made — a big setback for DACA!

“Never said anything derogatory about Haitians other than Haiti is, obviously, a very poor and troubled country. Never said ‘take them out.’ Made up by Dems. I have a wonderful relationship with Haitians. Probably should record future meetings — unfortunately, no trust!”

Considering the viciousness of the non-stop vitriol to which he has been subjected, and knowing how radical and dishonest so many of his political opponents are, it is amazing that the president had not foreseen this danger and recorded the meeting. The Washington Post, which broke this anonymous-sourced story, is hardly a beacon of truth and has been relentless in its attacks on President Trump. The same can be said for CNN, BuzzFeed, and other anti-Trump media platforms that claimed to have corroborated the alleged comment independently — as usual, with anoymous sources.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) who attended the meeting, was the first source with a face to publicly weigh in on the issue. Sen. Durbin said that Trump used all of the language that has been attributed to him in media reports, and he characterized the president's alleged remarks as "racist" and "hateful." Senator Durbin is an extreme leftwing Democrat who has been a strident opponent of the president from the start of his administration. This new attack should be viewed as another move to assist the impeachment effort that Durbin, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and other Senate Democrats have been promoting since December of 2016. At any rate, what it amounts to at this time is President Trump's word versus that of Senator Durbin.

While we cannot know with certainty whether Trump made the remarks attributed to him, the use of vulgarities by American presidents is not without precedent. Back in 2012, Curt Autry, a news anchor with NBC12 News in Richmond, Virginia, wrote a report titled “Top profanity in POTUS history,” in which he quoted salty language made by presidents Obama, Clinton, George W. Bush, Reagan, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. Autry wrote:

Richard Nixon may hold the unofficial record for being the most openly profane U.S. President — probably because he recorded much of what he said in the Oval Office. In a taped 1971 conversation between the President and two of his aides, Nixon called Mexicans “dishonest,” said that blacks lived “like a bunch of dogs” and that San Francisco was full of “fags” and “decorators.” And that was just one conversation.

Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan









As most of our parents used to tell us, however, “just because everyone else is doing it doesn’t make it right.”

The most important aspect of this story, however, is not language, but policy. During many articles published in recent years, The New American has reported on the harmful economic, cultural, social, and national security effects of uncontrolled migration to our country. An excellent description of the philosophy which guides our reporting on this subject is found on the website of our affiliated organization, The John Birch Society. On the JBS website, we read:

The John Birch Society supports regulated, legal immigration and welcomes legal immigrants to assimilate into the American culture by learning the founding principles of freedom, the proper framework of government and the English language. JBS advocates ending government assistance to illegal immigrants and not granting amnesty. It has been shown that when this occurs illegal immigrants often deport themselves.

Those who oppose unlimited immigration are sometimes accused of being “anti-immigrant” or of going against our nation’s long history of welcoming immigrants. However, there are vast differences between today’s migration patterns and those that occurred during the peak migratory years of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

One important factor that distinguished the largely successful immigrant experience of the 19th and early 20th centuries from the out-of-control situation that exists today was that during the earlier periods our borders were largely controlled and nearly all immigrants admitted to our nation were here legally. Another factor that helped keep earlier immigration at manageable levels was that the extensive system of government benefits that presently entices immigrants to come to America illegally, where they often create a drain on taxpayer resources, simply did not exist.

Many of the early 19th-century immigrants to America possessed skills that enabled them to immediately go to work as productive citizens, so they had little need for today’s government “safety nets” — had they existed back then.

In contrast with the situation that existed more than a century ago, today’s immigrants often rely on government services such as medical care, food stamps (now called SNAP), and housing assistance, in addition to education for their children. If the number of these immigrants is not controlled and too many settle in one area, they produce a heavy burden on local and state resources.

Another factor is the impact that such migrants have on our culture and our political system. Most immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island a century or more ago came from Europe and shared in the Judeo-Christian culture that existed here since our nation’s founding. Though some had been affected by socialist trends in Europe, they eventually learned English, became culturally assimilated, and were educated in the principles of free enterprise and limited government. This assimilation was successful largely because their numbers were small enough so that they never overwhelmed the existing population.

The nations that Trump singled out with his reportedly insensitive remarks do not have a history of limited government or economic conditions that encourage self-sufficiency. As a result, migrants from these nations are difficult to educate in principles of responsible citizenship. Their experiences have taught them to regard government not as a guarantor of God-given rights, but as an often-corrupt distributor of rationed goods controlled by the state. A migrant who has spent his entire life living under a third-world despotic regime is not a good candidate to become a citizen who can participate as an intelligent voter in our constitutional republic. To admit these things does not make one racist, it makes one open to recognizing the obvious».

Warren Mass («Trump's Alleged Coarse Remark Aside, Is Immigration From Undeveloped Countries Good for America?», in The New American, 12 January 2018).






See here



































«A new law in Switzerland seeks to stanch the flow of immigrants into the small Alpine confederation renown for its historic adherence to principles of liberty and federalism.

Regulations promulgated by the law, which became effective this month, prevent immigrants who have received welfare in the past three years from being granted the vaunted status of “citizen” until they have paid the money back to the government.

An Austrian article written in German and translated into English by this author sets out the significant impediments to immigrants who seek asylum for the sake of banking Swiss francs.

Other provisions prevent temporary asylum seekers from applying for citizenship unless they have been granted a “settlement permit” (roughly the equivalent of Permanent Resident in the U.S.) after five or ten years.

Additionally, presence in Switzerland alone will not qualify an immigrant for consideration of citizenship status, either. The Swiss government now mandates a modicum of integration into Swiss culture before an immigrant can become a citizen.

And, in keeping with its confederate constitution, while a certain level of language proficiency will satisfy the general government, the threshold is higher in several cantons (states) where the flow of immigrants has been higher.

What has prompted Switzerland to take such a hard line against the flood of foreigners washing into their confederacy?

In October, Breitbart reported:

Swiss national councillor Simonetta Sommaruga has revealed that the problem of asylum seekers arriving into the country with no papers is so extensive the government does not know the true identities of nine out of 10 migrants.

According to Sommaruga, between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2016, Switzerland saw a total of 151,300 asylum seekers register in the country under false identities. The figures came after Swiss People’s Party politician Barbara Steinemann made the government concede that as many as 96 percent of underage asylum seekers had no form of identification, Basler Zeitung reports.

Despite this terrifying statistic, the socialist mayor of Zurich, Corine Mauch, sent a letter to 40,000 foreign nationals in the city warning them of the tightening restrictions on the horizon.

The description of the genuine danger represented by immigrants entering a country using fake names, and the legislative attempt by Switzerland to manage the country’s immigrant population and protect the value of citizenship reminds one of a statement made by James Madison about the benefits brought by immigrants and their acceptance as citizens, that is to say, their naturalization.

In a 1790 House of Representatives debate on naturalization, Madison declared:

When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuses; it is no doubt very desirable, that we should hold out as many inducements as possible, for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours.

But, why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, ’tis to encrease the wealth and strength of the community, and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community, are not the people we are in want of. And what is proposed by the amendment is, that they shall take nothing more than an oath of fidelity, and an intention that they mean to reside in the United States: Under such terms, it was well observed by my colleague, aliens might acquire the right of citizenship, and return to the country from which they came, and evade the laws intended to encourage the commerce and industry of the real citizens and inhabitants of America, enjoying, at the same time, all the advantages of citizens and aliens.

I should be exceeding sorry, sir, that our rule of naturalization excluded a single person of good fame, that really meant to incorporate himself into our society; on the other hand, I do not wish that any man should acquire the privilege, but who, in fact, is a real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.

While there is much to learn from Mr. Madison’s speech, one thing for sure is that all Americans benefit from the boon that is immigrants seeking to add “to the strength and wealth of the community” and that the “swell of the catalogue of people” is of no intrinsic increase to the strength of the union of states.




Coat of Arms of Switzerland



Location of Switzerland in Europe




























It appears Switzerland, for one, is following the advice given over 227 years ago by the Father of the American Constitution, and is preserving its constitutional confederacy at the same time».

Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. («Switzerland's New Immigration Statute Sets High Hurdle for Citizenship», in The New American, 13 January 2018).





EU Refugee Tsunami 3.0: Globalist Summit Calls for More Migration


Europe’s refugee/migrant crisis is back with a vengeance. And the ruling class elites are pushing for a United Nations Global Compact on Migration that would spell the end of Europe — and national sovereignty worldwide.

Europe’s refugee/migrant crisis is back with a vengeance. Italy, which is being swamped by migrants pouring across the Mediterranean from northern Africa, is saying “Enough!” On July 2, at a meeting with EU interior ministers, Italy’s interior minister Marco Minitti called on other European countries to open their ports to the “rescue” boats that are bringing waves of new migrants to Italy.

“If the only ports refugees are taken to are Italian, something is not working.” Minitti told the Italian newspaper Il Messaggero. “We are under enormous pressure,” he added.

According to the UK’s daily newspaper The Independent, “More than 500,000 migrants have landed at Italian ports — most arriving in Sicily — since 2014 and the numbers are on the rise. Since the start of this year, 83,650 people have reached Italy by sea, a 20 per cent increase compared to the same period in 2016.”

The UK Telegraph reported on July 2 that “Over the past week alone, around 10,000 migrants have been ferried to Italy after being rescued from overcrowded, rickety boats travelling from Libya. More than 2,160 have died trying to reach Europe from Africa so far this year.” The trans-Mediterranean deluge is being stoked by private NGOs (non-governmental organizations) that are sponsoring “charity” boats to meet the smuggler boats at sea, supposedly out of humanitarian concern. This has encouraged smugglers to ramp up their dangerous transport business, telling migrants that they will be rescued by the NGOs or the Italian Coast Guard, if the overloaded boats are in peril of sinking.

Summer is the time when the migration push escalates, and Europeans are now headed into Migration Crisis 3.0 — the third year in a row of over-the-top chaos. The disaster that had been building for years in the European Union burst into full-blown, undeniable calamity in 2015. The results of the EU’s promiscuous migration policies — mounting terror attacks, mass rapes by migrant mobs, crime waves, riots, Islamification, skyrocketing welfare costs, etc. — caused the predictable public backlash, aiding the June 2016 vote by British voters to exit the EU (Brexit) and fueling the explosive rise of nationalist/anti-EU parties throughout Europe. National politicians and bureaucrats from the EU and United Nations who had engineered the debacle backpedaled and reversed course — but only rhetorically and temporarily.


From Immigration to Migration 

Not satisfied, apparently, with the chaos they have already wrought, the globalists responsible for these disasters — most notably, the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, SWP, in German), and other affiliates of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) — are pushing to bring millions more Muslim migrants to the EU. It’s as if they are declaring: “Damn the torpedoes — and the public outcry — full speed ahead!”

On June 28-30, the Global Forum on Migration and Development (GMFD) held its 10th annual summit, with this year’s overarching theme being, “Towards a Global Social Contract on Migration and Development.” The terms “Global Social Contract” and “Global Compact” appear to be interchangeable phraseology for the same agenda aimed at doing away with national sovereignty and national borders. That agenda calls for, as we have reported many times previously, establishing a legal “right” in international law to “migration,” as opposed to “immigration,” which is a privilege granted by the destination country, according to the criteria determined under its sovereign authority. If a nation loses control over this authority, then it becomes merely a vassal state to whatever entity it has allowed to usurp this primal power.

The GMFD summit held in Berlin, was aimed at solidifying support for the “New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants,” which emerged from the Summit for Refugees and Migrants hosted by the United Nations General Assembly last September 19 and the Leaders Summit on the Global Refugee Crisis hosted by President Obama the following day. As we reported last year during the run-up to those events (“Soros Migration Rent-a-Mob Amps Up for Aug. 28 Wash., D.C. Refugee Rally”) the usual suspects (the Soros, Ford, and Rockefeller foundations) invested heavily in creating the appearance of popular support by funding plenty of street radicals to demonstrate for this “global governance” scheme.



See here









See here



The UN-Obama events and the recent GMFD Summit in Berlin are part of an extensive orchestrated effort to achieve a Global Compact for Migration in 2018. For the first time since the formation of the GFMD in 2007, two countries — Germany and Morocco — will co-chair the forum, from January 2017 to December 2018, at a time when migration policy topics are high on the political agenda around most of the world.


Using “Hate Crime” Gestapos to Quash Dissent 

The New York Declaration adopted by the UN General Assembly is heavy on penalizing as hate criminals all who might have the temerity to challenge the UN plans for mass migration. “We strongly condemn acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against refugees and migrants,” the document declares. And, it continues, “We deplore all manifestations of xenophobia, racial discrimination and intolerance. We will take a range of steps to counter such attitudes and behaviour, in particular with regard to hate crimes, hate speech and racial violence. We welcome the global campaign proposed by the Secretary-General to counter xenophobia and we will implement it in cooperation with the United Nations and all relevant stakeholders.”

And who will those “relevant stakeholders” be that will help the UN implement its global campaign against xenophobia? Well, besides the obvious groups here in the United States that are already splattering the “xenophobe” and “racist” charge on all who question the plans for massive influxes of migrants and refugees — the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, Center for American Islamic Relations, etc. — there are the vicious “antifa” storm troopers who have been rioting, burning cities, and violently, physically attacking all those they accuse of being “intolerant” for opposing the migrant invasion. Sitting above these “stakeholders” are groups such as the GMFD, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the Global Migration Group (GMG), the International Migration Initiative (IMI), the Columbia Global Policy Initiative (CGPI), and others. These organizations combine public and private funding, along with muscle from national governments and UN agencies, to push the open borders agenda.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) notes on its website, that “the GFMD’s strong link with the United Nations is maintained through the Special Representative of the [UN] Secretary General on International Migration and Development (SRSG), Mr. Peter Sutherland.” Sutherland, readers may remember, is a key one-worlder who has been at the center of the UN scheme to de-Christianize and Islamize Europe. He is a former chairman of Goldman Sachs, former European chairman of the Trilateral Commission, and a former member of the ultra-secretive Bilderberg Group Steering Committee. In an October 8, 2015 interview with UN News Centre, Sutherland called national sovereignty “an absolute illusion” that had to be “put behind us.”

“I will ask the governments to cooperate, to recognize that sovereignty is an illusion,” Sutherland said, “— that sovereignty is an absolute illusion that has to be put behind us.” He continued: “The days of hiding behind borders and fences are long gone. We have to work together and cooperate together to make a better world,” he said. “And that means taking on some of the old shibboleths, taking on some of the old historic memories and images of our own country.”

In testimony before the British House of Lords in 2012, Sutherland criticized Europeans who “still nurse a sense of our homogeneity and difference from others.” “And,” he declared, “that’s precisely what the European Union, in my view, should be doing its best to undermine.”

Yes, the “better world” envisioned by Peter Sutherland and his ilk is one in which all vestiges of national and local independence, all checks and balances on centralized force, and all cohesive “homogeneity,” are swept away. Sutherland, naturally, is a boon companion of George Soros, Henry Kissinger, (the late) David Rockefeller, and the rest of the uber-globalists who are so keen on battering down national borders and fomenting chaos (political, social, economic, moral, and spiritual) as a means to attaining their New World Order.

Sutherland and the Global Forum on Migration and Development are being mightily aided in this latest push for national suicide by the usual euthanasia experts from the European Council on Foreign Relations and the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, SWP, in German), both of which are affiliates of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the British Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), the two main organizations pushing for world government since the early part of the last century.

Among its efforts in this area, the ECFR produced a study, in December 2016, for its elite membership titled, “The EU’s migration policy in Africa: five ways forward.”

The ECFR study promotes the Valletta Action Plan that emerged from the EU Summit on Migration held in November 2015 at Valletta, on the island of Malta. The core of the Valletta Action Plan is a whole new group of faux “development” programs that are transferring even more plunder from already-over-taxed European taxpayers to African and Middle Eastern governments: the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa; the European External Investment Plan; the EU-Africa Migration Partnerships; and the European Development Fund. These and other initiatives that came out of the Valletta confab, say the EU cheerleading section, will “address the root causes of migration.” Of course, any time politicians claim to be addressing the “root causes” of any problem it is usually a cue to grab your pocketbook, because they invariably are envisioning an endless and mind-numbingly expensive stream of projects aimed, ostensibly, at ameliorating ill-defined social “crises” of their own imagination — or real crises of their own creation.

Early in June, the German SWP affiliate of the CFR released two reports to bolster the GFMD’s migration summit, which convened at the end of the month, as noted above. The reports, by the SWP’s Steffen Angenendt, Anne Koch, are titled “International Cooperation on Migration Policy: Dare to Do More! — The Global Forum on Migration and Development in Berlin Opens Up Opportunities” and “Global Migration Governance and Mixed Flows: Implications for Development-centred Policies.”


















See here


See here, here and here


Together with many other statements by European government officials and globalists from the top business, banking, and media circles, the SWP reports clearly show that the ruling class elites intend to press ahead with an expanded version of the EU-wide migration policies that have already devastated the continent. As we reported a year ago ("Revolt — and Revenge — of the Elites: More Globalist Sabotage of Brexit") following the Brexit uprising, many of the one-worlders dropped all pretense of caring about their phony appeals to “democracy.” Jeremy Shapiro, research director for the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, penned an op-ed titled, “Brexit was a rejection of Britain's governing elite. Too bad the elites were right.” James Traub, a member of the American CFR, penned an even more arrogant diatribe under the haughty title, “It’s Time for the Elites to Rise Up Against the Ignorant Masses.” Traub, of course, counts himself among the all-wise elites, whom he credits with being “sane,” while all who oppose the power grabs and totalitarian designs of said elites are ignorant “far-right nativists” who are “mindlessly angry.”

The pontificators of the globalist punditocracy have been proclaiming that recent defeats of anti-EU candidates in national elections in Austria, Netherlands, and France are a signal that the populist backlash has crested and is headed for history's dustheap. But that is wishful thinking on their part; they have no idea how severe the next backlash will be when — not if — the next migrant wave sweeps across Europe and the sane middle of the European electorate realizes the depth of the betrayal by the same elites praised by the likes of Shapiro and Traub (in The New American, 04 July 2017).