Wednesday, December 19, 2018 ... Deutsch/Español/Related posts from blogosphere

U.S., Israel, Hungary, Poland, Czechia against migration compact

Two very related non-binding documents were approved in the New York U.N. headquarters. On Monday, "The Compact For Refugees" was approved. Czechia voted "for" despite the assurances by our authoritative prime minister Babiš just a day earlier that he had persuaded the government to change the position from "abstain" to "against"!

In this situation, even the most fanatical doughnuts (this is how Babiš's stupid voters i.e. almost all voters are generally called because their guru likes to distribute doughnuts among them) could see that there was something... untrustworthy about this guy. He is obviously double-faced. Some people have nicknamed him Princess Scoobike, after a 1984 Czech TV fairy-tale about a clever princess who was both dressed and naked, who was half-walking, half-driving, and so on. ;-)

Fortunately, "The Compact on Migration" that was approved today saw a more disciplined Czech representative who voted "against", just like Poland, Hungary, as well as Israel and the U.S. I can't write "Visegrád" because the fourth Visegrád Group country, our Slovak brothers, abstained. At least I hope that they weren't "for" – 12 countries abstained in total. Those included Chile, Australia, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Latvia, Libya, Singapore, and one more that I missed.

Both documents are non-binding but both of them have the clear goal to accelerate migration and make it easier for the people to move from some countries (usually poor and messed up countries) to other countries – and to make it harder for the people in the target nation to defend their territory against this migration. The Compact on Migration apparently wants to legalize illegal migration, the Compact on Refugees wants to extend the category of refugees and their rights. These are dangerous games.

A few days ago Peter Fellin sent me the video Incels spark a civil war in Europe. I only learned that word a month ago or two – "incel" is an acronym for "involuntary celibate" and refers to (mostly young) men who are forced not to have sex although they would like it – due to the lack of opportunities.

The video argues that various countries develop a very significant sex gap – excess of men. China and India do so through the selective abortion of girls. Europe is joining this dangerous world due to the selective immigration of Islamic and black men. In some regions, it's enough to dramatically skew the equilibrium between men and women – the ratio 120-to-100 is being approached by China as well as some European regions. At least a part of the dissatisfaction with the immigration is due to the original but young male settlers' dissatisfaction with the new numerous "sexual competition". The arguments make sense. The video also says that these original male "incels" must be considered victims – just like the "refugees" are claimed to be victims of various events and circumstances in their poor and messed up countries. (On the other hand, I assure you that there are lots of very active female and old anti-migration activists in Czechia.)

It's politically correct to talk about gender gaps in STEM, gender pay gap, and all stuff like that – but almost no one talks about a sex gap that is far simpler, more obvious, and more dangerous, namely the very difference between the number of men and women.

Back to the U.N. Compact for Migration. I think it is rather scary that only five countries (although the U.S. is a rather important one) end up opposing this self-evidently dangerous document that could throw Europe and the world into a new Migration Period with all the unavoidable clashes between the ethnic groups. Without the Trump victory, the majority could have been even scarier – and while Hungary could be voting "against" even without Trump, I guess that Czechia wouldn't.

It's vital to keep on distinguishing legal and illegal immigrants, to enforce the existing laws that usually have damn good reasons to exist, and not to artificially help the migrants to migrate. Migration into another country is a nontrivial decision and act and it should remain so because the prosperity, stability, and peace of the target countries would otherwise be at risk.

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (0) :