Global Compact for Migration (GCM): Should it Promote Human Rights or the Political Agenda of the Globalists?

The United Nations member states are expected to accept (sign) in Marrakesh, Morocco on the 10-11 December 2018 the United Nations Convention on Immigration and Migration (Global Compact for Migration or Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration).  In Morocco the agreement will be voted on and it will be clarified, whether there is a consensus among the member states towards the compact. Acceptance requires (the signature of) at least two-thirds majority. Thereafter, the GCM is formally proceeding to the vote of the UN General Assembly.

There has been very little public debate about the GCM agreement in Finland. Less than a month ago it was raised for discussion when Laura Huhtasaari (Finns Party), a Member of Parliament, urged the government to bring the GCM agreement for a parliamentary plenary session to deal with.

I got the GCM agreement text and its unofficial translation in my hands only about two weeks ago. Internet discussions I found on the subject make me think that people do not see the forest for the trees. Or would I say that people argue about fence posts without seeing the fence. It shows that they can not discriminate and differentiate things. And that’s what the GCM agreement seeks for. The term “discrimination” has only a negative meaning in the compact. Discrimination, however, has a positive meaning as well, which relates to clear perception and definition of things.

In my view, the biggest contradiction in the GCM agreement is that many (if not most) of the authors of the agreement come from countries, whose human rights situation is catastrophic, such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Nigeria, South Africa, Afghanistan, etc. However, the agreement emphasizes that it rests on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which the Western World is committed to, even though according to Wikipedia the UDHR is not a legally binding document. It is said that the GCM Agreement is not binding, but the western countries are under obligation to comply with it, since the compact has the word “commit” in its various forms over 80 times. Taqiya, Lucifer’s voice can be heard throughout the agreement text.

I wrote in September 2015 in the article “We do not have human rights” that God did not give us human rights as a birthright. If human rights would be our inherent property, no one could take them away from us. In my view, the only human right we have is to become friends with our true self, our inner navigator. Only by listening to the voice of our heart or the voice of reason, that is common sense, we obey God.

Religious doctrines have nothing to do with God’s law, that is, the laws of nature that are the basis of our lives. However, the Declaration of Human Rights emphasizes everyone’s right to believe in anything and to act according to one’s faith. So if someone believes that he will serve his God by eliminating all infidels or gentiles, according to the UDHR he has the right to act according to his belief.

It should be noted that any political ideology or agenda and a historical, scientific, economic or social perception may become in human mind a kind of religious doctrine with holy alliance, which sole aim is to preserve and strengthen its own dominance. This has become more and more clear in recent decades when the so-called pluralistic democracies can handle only one official truth and ignore facts when observing and studying the universe.

Dissidents are silenced in one way or another: alternative views do not get media coverage, research grants or other funding. They are disqualified either in public debate or in all silence. Representatives of “false” views will be defamed by whatever means, and in the worst case, their lives and their career will be destroyed.

Wikipedia states (in Finnish) that “the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted as a result of the Second World War, which required tens of millions of lives. The purpose of it was to create a supranational mechanism to avoid the recurrence of a massacre like the Jewish Holocaust, and to end the persecution of sexual minorities.”

When we think realistically about these noble goals and whether the Declaration of Human Rights has been able to end persecution, the conclusion is negative. Not even the first article of the Declaration of Human Rights on freedom and equality has come true within democratic societies, which essentially respect the rule of law and the reciprocity principle.

Some people are more free and more equal than others. In my opinion, this is due to the natural fact that people’s starting points, civic skills and resources are very different. Equal rights does not mean similar rights.

The lack of equality is also due to the lack of reciprocity: some people simply do not have empathy or even do not want to imagine the position of others. They do not listen to the voice of reason and conscience is a foreign word to them. They think that the Declaration of Human Rights should be applied only to their own rights without any obligation to other than at most to their own reference group.

This was a topic of criticism when drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Many thought that the Declaration of Human Rights underlined too much the rights of an individual and ignored the fact that the rights have corresponding responsibilities that ensure the realization of the human rights of other members of society. However, it was considered that the last articles 29 and 30 of the Declaration of Human Rights were sufficient to emphasize these responsibilities:

Despite the emphasis on responsibility it has become increasingly clear that the Declaration of Human Rights is used to defend the rights of criminals at the expense of victims. Entrepreneur, who defends his / her property (and his / her existence) is liable to pay indemnity for dissemination of information that violates privacy of thieves after publishing images of them. When robbers get caught red-handed and have to face the pointer of the owner’s gun, they can get compensation for their mental trauma and suffering. Some people are convicted for expressing and publishing their opinions, that means for executing their civic duty. An immigrant seeks mitigation for his rape sentence on the grounds that his country of origin is in bad condition and he has thought that sex is free in Europe (and people are easy prey).

The mainstream media, schools etc. have been for decades pronouncing the Holocaust of Jews, even though objective history research tells quite another story. The rights of sexual minorities are emphasized in every turn, and the easiest way to get to the public today is to declare yourself homosexual, lesbian, or transgender or to share some of your own perverted fetish.

Last week I heard about a case when a severely disabled person went to a doctor to apply for a certificate for rehabilitation. When the doctor did not believe (or understand) him, a physiotherapist was needed. The doctor was an immigrant from an Islamic country, who simply did not understand, why disabled people need rehabilitation.

In my ears this sounded as if the doctor did not understand, why people, who need rehabilitation need rehabilitation. I do not argue that all people coming from Islamic countries would not understand it. Nor do I say that in Finland or in the Western World all people would understand and accept it, unless they themselves need rehabilitation. In recent years the basic services of citizens have been arbitrarily cut.

The Western social order, and especially the principle of legality, is in real danger, if countries employ such people in decision-making positions, who do not understand or accept the basic principles of organized civil society. They are easily manipulated by people, who interpret the Declaration of Human Rights on the basis of their own interests to consolidate their own power, without thinking about the functioning of society as a whole.

The civic skills and other characteristics that democratic, organized societies demand from their members are quite different from those in developing countries. Maintaining these skills and, in particular, fostering reciprocity, requires special skills and enthusiasm from decision-makers. The duty of every citizen, especially decision-makers, is to act in accordance with Articles 29 and 30 of the Declaration of Human Rights, so that balanced development of society and the realization of citizens’ fundamental rights are possible.

Civic Duties

The purpose of the GCM is to promote migration in all its forms, regardless of the reason why migrants have left their country. The agreement does not take into account that all organized and developed, democratic societies have undergone critical, warring phases. If the people in these countries would have en masse escaped from war and miserable conditions, they would not have been able to generate prosperity. For example, young men fleeing the war in Finland were deserters, who were punished for not defending their country.

This is where citizens’ duty to society is highlighted, as mentioned in Article 29 of the Declaration of Human Rights. Citizens’ responsibility to society does not apply to states only at international level, but also at national level society must ensure that citizens’ fundamental rights are realized throughout the country. Citizens must defend their living environment and ensure the sustainable development of society at all levels.

In my view, the United Nations should not promote mass migration as human right. Despite the great technological and economic development, mentally and spiritually people are still underdeveloped. They are not so moral and accountable that they would take each other’s needs into consideration. Democracies turn into kleptocracies and people are going over where the fence is lowest, which leads to decay of organized welfare societies. In such an environment it is hopeless to expect the realization of human rights.

The 30. article in the Declaration of Human Rights specifically emphasizes that it is not allowed to interpret any segment of the declaration in a way that a state, group or person could engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms defined in the declaration.

Migration is at its best a good thing. It gives people the opportunity to expand their world view, face new challenges and grow mentally. All this benefits at its best both the country of origin and the host country. However, the rules of the game must be clear and fair to all parties, so that migration would be constructive.

In my opinion, the most important obligation relating to human rights is respect for the truth. Everyone has the right to receive and share truthful information. A person, who distorts or spreads modified truth is directly violating rights of others. Just as human rights are personal, respect of truth should also be a personal obligation in all communication. Fact-checking should be every person’s responsibility, because we are all informants.

No one should have the right to outsource thinking. Effective action according to common sense requires respect for the facts. Because as Voltaire said: The only barrier to truth is the belief that you already know it.

Read also:

We Have No Human Rights
One World Religion (NWO)

United Nations: Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

Mark Collett: The Fall of Western Man

Videos: