Ominous UN Study Reveals Global ‘Migration Replacement’ Solution For ‘Low-Fertility’ Developed Nations


One can’t help wonder if the likes of Trump and the rise of what is termed the ‘far right’ is the stop cock for a preplanned flood. Me being the cynic that I am wonders if this whole ‘browning of America’ mime was just a talking point pushed on rather … receptive minds of the progressive left… They certainly went for the Agenda 21 sustainability tripe and packed themselves dutifully into cities. I hate to think that I am sucked into the same narrative only I am part of the group that is suppose to rebel against immigration so that mass migration stabilizes and rich progressives get the cheap labor they need to continue living a carefree life without the bother of actually raising children themselves… Oh God… am I a pawn??? Am I just a rather receptive mind of the right pushing UN objectives while thinking that I care about the Constitution and The United States of America??? Where is that bottle of bourbon… where to hell is my gun… Oh yeah… I live in Britain… they took my gun long time ago.

And… Is this just a way of continuing and widening the distribution of those people the UN has decided to ‘redistribute’

OH my… revelations just keep coming to me… how is it that a very liberal US president is replaced by one who is hard on immigration while the conservative government of Canada is replaced by an uber liberal in the name of Trudeau. A president like his US predecessor is welcoming any and all refugees…

It wasn’t the Russians who manipulated the US elections… IT WAS THE UN !!!:astonished:


They are really pushing the migration message this morning.


The timing of this tweet from the UN in Geneva could not be any better.


One thing I have discovered about economists is that they look at the entire economic world, not geopolitical segments of it. I read an economist that I most generally always agree with in principle and when he talks about the US he appears to quite like the country of his birth, when he talks about a particular economic benefit, he always speaks in terms of a borderless world… he seldom addresses the cultural and political issues that are involved


I guess that makes sense, but if the economic policies that they are advocating for (borderless world) would create social and cultural division then it probably wouldn’t work out the way they are saying because there would just be too much unrest.


I haven’t read the Economist article, yet I envision a borderless world to be one where, like swarming locusts, any seemingly successful nation is inundated, bled dry, then the swarm moves to the next most desirable area. I suspect the world would be desperately poor in such a system.