Opposition to what Piotrow alludes to as United Nations ‘Malthusian thinking’ on population control came from the Catholic states and the Soviet bloc. Piotrow’s observations are reminiscent of Sanger’s in regard to Karl Marx on Malthus. She states that the Soviets regarded ‘population control [as] a capitalist stratagem to postpone the real solutions — a reorganization of society and redistribution of wealth’.1063 The Soviet position was broadly accurate, and conservative, and it is such a conservative stance on this and many other issues that placed the Soviet bloc in ‘Cold War’ confrontation with the USA. The Catholic and Soviet states rejected the World Leaders’ Declaration of December 1967, circulated by John D. Rockefeller III, proclaiming that it is a ‘basic human right’ to determine the ‘number and spacing’ of children. The declaration stated, ‘We believe that the population problem must be recognized as a principal element in long-range national planning if governments are to achieve their economic goals...’1064 Yet how does this feigned commitment to ‘human rights’ accord with population control being part of ‘economic planning’? Again references to ‘human rights’ and ‘women’s reproductive rights’ are pure cant hiding social engineering agendas.
The social engineers had to bypass the Catholic and Soviet blocs in the UNO. At the instigation of Draper, on 14 June 1967, a meeting was chaired by U.N. Under-Secretary Phillippe de Seynes. This included Draper, John D. Rockefeller III, Richard Gardner,1065 and senior officials from the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and the Population Council. The aim was to establish a programme for the UNO on international population control. Secretary General U Thant promptly acted on the recommendation to establish a U.N. Fund for Population.1066 This became the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA). By 1972, UNFPA was making grants to private organisations, such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation, and drawing on them to assist with projects.1067
Just how quickly a nation’s population can fall was early demonstrated with the previously cited example of Japan. The birth rate fell from 34.3 per 1,000 in 1947 down to 17.2 in 1957. Piotrow states, ‘The decline was unprecedented in demographic history. Induced abortion, condemned by demographic, public health, medical, government, civic, and religious leaders as the least desirable birth control technique, was the principal method used. Only later, after 1952, was contraception specifically fostered to reduce the incidence of abortion’. Japan served as a propaganda tool for showing how economic success can be achieved with population decline.1068 When in 1922 Margaret Sanger had been sponsored by the magazine Kaizo to visit Japan and offer population control advice, she was called ‘Sangai-san’; ‘destructive to production’. But in 1965 she was awarded the Order of the Precious Crown of Japan.
The Western states having followed the same course as Japan now also have a demographic crisis with an aging population. The answer of the globalists is to compensate the population decline with what the United Nations calls ‘replacement migration’ from the Third World.
One of the most significant instruments for the imposition of this ‘replacement migration’ is The United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, signed on 19 December 2018 by 164 members of the U.N. General Assembly. Twenty-nine U.N. member states did not sign the compact, including the USA, Hungary, Austria, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Chile, Israel and Australia. Apologists for the agreement state that it does not undermine national sovereignty, that it will make migration a more ordered, humane process, and eliminate people smuggling. For example, Lord Bates, Britain’s Minister of State at the Department for International Development, states: ‘The compact “protects every state’s right to determine its own immigration policies, including in areas such as asylum, border controls and returns of illegal migrants.”’1069
While the declaration is called ‘non-binding’ on signatory states, and it supposedly does not subvert national laws, myriad U.N. declarations have become ‘international law’, and it is ‘international law’ to which the Migration Compact appeals. For example, the human rights and race relations acts, implemented across the world, are the types of ‘international law’ to which the Migration Compact alludes, which were based on the 1948 U.N. Declaration on Human Rights. U.N. members are signatories to many U.N. ‘covenants’ and as such are ‘obligated’ to report to the U.N. regularly in regard to how these ‘covenants’ are being implemented. Under ‘universal periodic reviews’ these include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, etc. In regard to U.N. conceptions on ‘human rights’, for example, the New Zealand government explains: ‘Under this mechanism, the human rights situation of all UN Member States is reviewed every 5 years’.1070
That the Migration Compact is based around other U.N. ‘covenants’ that have become ‘international law’, with U.N. sanctions against those states deemed offenders, is indicated within the Compact ‘preamble’.1071 As with other U.N. declarations and covenants, much of the Migration Compact outlines the monitoring of compliance by signatory states. Sections entitled ‘follow-up’ and ‘implementation’ are devoted to this. The International Organization for Migration is the U.N. policing agency for the purpose.
In arguing for an increase of draconian measures against states deemed to be in violation of ‘international law’, particularly on how ‘human rights’ is defined by the U.N., an academic paper points out that while the U.N. claims not to intervene in the internal affairs of members states,
[h]umanitarian intervention is based upon the doctrine that there are limits to the freedoms states have in dealing with their own nationals. It should be distinguished from actions to protect a state’s own nationals abroad. When this doctrine was defined by Dutch international scholar Hugo Grotius and other 17th century legal scholars, it allowed one or more states to use force to prevent another state from mistreating its own nationals in circumstances so brutal and widespread that they shocked the conscience of the international community. Such interference in a state’s domestic affairs is defended by the argument that if certain practices continue to take place in a state despite protest and objections by neighboring states, then humanitarian considerations outweigh the prohibition of intervention and justify a decision to interfere.1072
In calling for an increase in the powers of intervention by the U.N., Buhm Suk Baek, author of the cited paper, concludes, ‘Admittedly, humanitarian intervention had been abused in the past by strong states to pursue other political, economic or military objectives’.1073 Baek approvingly cites the example of the way Yugoslavia was targeted in the name of ‘human rights’:
Under Security Council Resolution 757, the Council imposed a wide range of economic sanctions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) on May 30, 1992. These sanctions are also related to the protection of human rights as the Council announced its concern for the continued expulsion of non-Serb civilians and noted the ‘urgent need for humanitarian assistance and the various appeals made in this connection’ under the former Resolution.1074
Serbia is a particularly poignant example of how the ‘human rights’ ploy was used to dismember a state for the purposes of privatising and globalising its economy, with particular reference to the mining region of Kosovo, where privatisation was made an official war aim. The Rambouillet peace agreement imposed on Serbia states that ‘the economy of Kosovo shall function in accordance with free market principles’.1075
So what does the Migration Compact state? The fundamental premises are that (1) humans should have the right to move across the earth without regard to barriers, (2) this is a natural part of the economic globalisation process, (3) international capital has a significant role to play, (4) the compact is part of ‘international law’ and ‘global governance’.
When the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution on global migration in 2017, affirming the New York Declaration on Refugees and Migrants in 2016, it did so with the explicit statement that this involves ‘global governance’, refers to ‘actionable commitments’, formalising what appears to be a policing role for the U.N. International Organisation for Migration.1076
While apologists allude to the compact being ‘non-legally binding’, it states of this that the compact upholds ‘the sovereignty of States and their obligations under international law’.1077 On ‘implementation’, the Compact states that, ‘We reaffirm our commitment to international law and emphasize that the Global Compact is to be implemented in a manner that is consistent with our rights and obligations under international law’.1078 The first ‘vision and guiding principle’ of the Compact states:
This Global Compact expresses our collective commitment to improving cooperation on international migration. Migration has been part of the human experience throughout history, and we recognize that it is a source of prosperity, innovation and sustainable development in our globalized world, and that these positive impacts can be optimized by improving migration governance.1079
… We learned that migration is a defining feature of our globalized world, connecting societies within and across all regions, making us all countries of origin, transit and destination. …1080
This is the crux of the issue; the real aim buried among the usual moralising. Economic globalisation is the real reason for open borders, and a primary means of destroying barriers to international capital, not only economically, but socially, culturally and ethnically. This explains why the international oligarchs contrived this Compact, under the guise of ‘social investment’. While the U.N. refers to the integrity of the states, this is more double-speak as it also refers to states as being fluid and without fixity of heritage or destiny, ‘making us all countries of origin, transit and destination’.
While ‘national sovereignty’ is affirmed1081 in Orwellian manner, this is negated with the next passage, ‘that the State, public and private institutions and entities, as well as persons themselves are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international law’.1082 These are the repressive laws that have been enacted in many states, based on supposedly ‘legally non-binding’ U.N. covenants, where criticism of immigration policies can result in the jailing of dissidents for ‘hate speech’:
Human rights: The Global Compact is based on international human rights law and upholds the principles of non-regression and non-discrimination. By implementing the Global Compact, we ensure effective respect, protection and fulfilment of the human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, across all stages of the migration cycle. We also reaffirm the commitment to eliminate all forms of discrimination, including racism, xenophobia and intolerance against migrants and their families.1083
Any dissent is called ‘racism and xenophobia’. The legal prohibitions have long been enacted through race relations and human rights laws, while the news media in all Western states can be relied on to make pariahs out of those who object.
A primary ‘objective’ is the utilisation of data to promote global migration agendas. The Compact also alludes to co-operation between a broad range of ‘stakeholders’, including trade unions, media, academia, civil society, business in what it calls a ‘whole of society approach’.1084 It seems evident that the purpose is mobilisation against the spectre of ‘populism’.
The aim of the Migration Compact is supposedly to reduce ‘refugees’ by ensuring they are not compelled by their home states to seek refuge in other states. This is being used to implement another U.N. initiative, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The whole of Objective 2, ‘Minimize the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin’, is designed to restructure states socially and economically. This means ‘private and foreign direct investment’ (d), and there can be little doubt that the aim is to allow predatory capital to take over a state’s resources and utilities under the guise of ‘human rights’, ‘inclusive economy’, ‘gender equity’, etc.
The Compact refers to using migration to facilitate ‘labour market needs’, ‘labour mobility agreements’, ‘free movement regimes’, ‘visa liberalisation’, speed up of visa and permit processing,1085 and addressing ‘demographic realities’, meaning addressing the demographic decline of the European states through migration, through ‘consultation with the private sector and other stakeholders’, thereby changing the character of the state according to the requirements of global capital.
Objective 16 aims to integrate migrants into host communities, while ensuring their own identities are retained. Hence, there remains the quandary as to whether a society is to be a melting-pot or multicultural. When politicians a few years ago, such as Angela Merkel and David Cameron, realised that multiculturalism was not working, and that ghettoisation or self-segregation was taking place, they started expounding the old American ideal of the melting-pot. The U.N. gets around the quandary by Orwellian double-speak. The ultimate aim remains an ‘inclusive economy’, as the oligarchic think tanks call it, where the laws of social production will level out any dissimilarities between hosts and migrants, especially after several generations, in the hope that a standardised population will have emerged based on production and consumption. ‘Labour market integration’1086 is a key aim; and ultimately the real aim.
Objective 17 aims at the remoulding of the attitudes of the host peoples: ‘We commit to eliminate all forms of discrimination, condemn and counter expressions, acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, violence, xenophobia and related intolerance against all migrants in conformity with international human rights law. …’1087 This is a reiteration of present U.N. covenants, long enacted as human rights and race relations laws in many states. The same passage concludes: ‘We also commit to protect freedom of expression in accordance with international law, recognizing that an open and free debate contributes to a comprehensive understanding of all aspects of migration’.1088 This is again Orwellian double-speak. Any criticism of open borders and defence of the host people is called ‘racism’ and ‘xenophobia’ by U.N. ‘international human rights law’. Under U.N. Covenants there never has been ‘freedom of expression’ for dissent. There have been jail sentences and crippling fines for speaking out. Paragraph (c) of this section states that there should be indoctrination in the news media to ensure that there is standardised reporting in support of migrant globalisation:
Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media.1089
How can there be ‘independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets’, and ‘full respect for the freedom of the media’, when the aim is to impose a common standard of journalism and eliminate anything deemed ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobic’? Although the news media in the Western world has long been compliant anyway, it is part of a projected indoctrination programme, aimed at ‘awareness-raising campaigns targeted at communities of origin, transit and destination in order to inform public perceptions regarding the positive contributions of safe, orderly and regular migration, based on evidence and facts, and to end racism, xenophobia and stigmatization against all migrants’.1090
This is Herbert Marcuse’s vision of ‘repressive tolerance’, where freedom is universal other than when it does not accord with leftist dogma, and where this freedom is premised on an informed citizenry thanks to freedom of information, so long as that too conforms to dogma. Another important aspect is the mention above of ‘sensitizing and educating media professionals’ and of ‘awareness-raising campaigns’, these phrases referring to the intensive ‘group therapy’ methods for attitudinal change, to assure conformity, that are discussed in the chapter on ‘Behaviour Modification’.
Interference in the internal political process is also urged to suppress and smear any sign of political resistance:
Engage migrants, political, religious and community leaders, as well as educators and service providers to detect and prevent incidences of intolerance, racism, xenophobia, and other forms of discrimination against migrants and diasporas and support activities in local communities to promote mutual respect, including in the context of electoral campaigns.1091
Again, this appears to be an appeal to mobilization against political dissidence.
The U.N. Global Migration Compact is an initiative of global capital. The aim is the free flow of labour, as part of the free flow of resources. The Migration Compact refers frequently to the role to be played by private business. In implementing the Compact, it is stated:
We decide to establish a capacity-building mechanism in the United Nations, building upon existing initiatives, that supports efforts of Member States to implement the Global Compact. It allows Members States, the United Nations and other relevant stakeholders, including the private sector and philanthropic foundations, to contribute technical, financial and human resources on a voluntary basis in order to strengthen capacities and foster multi-partner cooperation.1092
The Migration Compact originates from the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. The Compact states: ‘This Global Compact presents a non-legally binding, cooperative framework that builds on the commitments agreed upon by Member States in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants’. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM), the monitoring organisation for the Compact, also states: ‘… Annex II of the New York Declaration set in motion a process of intergovernmental consultations and negotiations culminating in the planned adoption of the Global Compact for Migration at an intergovernmental conference on international migration in 2018’.1093
The seeding of the New York Declaration, and hence the U.N. Migration Compact, leads back to a Rockefeller Foundation plan for city crisis management across the world. The planning originates with a concept called ‘100 Resilient Cities’, established in 2013, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, ‘and managed as a sponsored project by Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors with support from the Brookings Institution’.1094 Resilient Cities explains:
Heads of state and government gathered at the UN General Assembly in New York last month against the backdrop of a burgeoning refugee crisis in South Asia and a lingering one across the Middle East and Europe. City leaders from across the globe also convened to discuss the role that cities play in providing assistance to refugees.
These discussions were facilitated by two major events. The Brookings Institution — together with the International Rescue Committee and 100 Resilient Cities — Pioneered by The Rockefeller Foundation — convened a high-level working group to elicit best practice recommendations for local communities grappling with displacement-related challenges. At the same time, New York City convened a Global Mayors Summit on Migration and Refugee Policy and Practice designed to uncover how cities overcome obstacles to implementing policies that promote, among other things, refugee integration, rights protection, and empowerment.1095
Bloomberg reports:
The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration gets backing from global business community. Numerous leaders of major multinational companies endorsed the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (Global Compact for Migration) today at the second annual Bloomberg Global Business Forum, a gathering of more than 70 heads of state and delegation, and 200 of the world’s most prominent business leaders, to strengthen economic prosperity and collaborate on trade issues, globalization, innovation, and competition.
In a press conference with the Presidents of Switzerland and Mexico, Alain Berset and Enrique Peña Nieto, whose Permanent Representatives to the United Nations led the negotiations, Michael R. Bloomberg, the Founder of Bloomberg L.P. and Bloomberg Philanthropies, and Mayor of New York City (2002–2013), announced the first wave of support from global business leaders for the Global Compact for Migration. These founding signers include Jim Coulter and Jon Winkelried, Co-CEOs of TPG; Dawn Fitzpatrick, Chief Investment Officer of the Soros Fund Management; Joe Gebbia, Co-founder and Chief Product Officer of Airbnb; Dara Khosrowshahi, CEO of Uber; Rich Lesser, CEO of BCG; Hamdi Ulukaya, Founder, Chairman and CEO of Chobani; and John Zimmer, President and Co-Founder of Lyft.1096
Bloomberg states the purpose behind the rhetoric, albeit still retaining some of that rhetoric in regards to ‘national sovereignty’, and the ‘rule of law’:
Every nation has a role to play in addressing this crisis, and this Compact is designed to help guide them. It provides a framework for how the international community can reap the economic benefits of immigration without sacrificing national sovereignty or rule of law — and I want to thank all of the government and business leaders who are supporting its implementation.1097
President Berset of Switzerland, who has combined a career as a financial adviser with that of being a social democratic politician, also stressed the economic motive for migration: ‘Without the foreign labor force, many of our industries would not function as they do now. Notwithstanding difficulties, migration must be seen as an enrichment — economically and culturally’.1098
What can be seen with such U.N. ‘covenants’ and declarations, signed by member states and imposed by a contrived ‘international law’ with an international army, is the creation of a universal ‘civil society’ on the basis of a ‘social contract’. Member states contract to become part of a global society. The ongoing U.N. declarations and covenants that are signed by member states increasingly extend the ‘social contract’ (or compact). Once a universal creed is agreed to by contracting parties, it becomes the legal expression of a universal general will, and anyone who contravenes that general will is liable to punishment or elimination.
The legalistic foundations of the UNO in establishing an enforced general will in the name of ‘liberty, equality, fraternity’ (or ‘human rights’ as it is now called) derive from Jean-Jacques Rousseau. One sees in Rousseau’s social contract the basis of U.N. powers to ostracise (‘sanctions’) and punish rogue states in the name of the general will, and the international community (sic). Even states that are not contracting parties to the UNO, such as Rhodesia, will be targeted if they have offended this universal ‘general will’. Rousseau wrote of this:
These clauses, properly understood, may be reduced to one—the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community; for, in the first place, as each gives himself absolutely, the conditions are the same for all; and, this being so, no one has any interest in making them burdensome to others.1099
Rousseau emphasised what this means in summary: ‘Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole’.1100 This is a modernistic, artificial construct that was intended to replace the traditional organic community. It is the difference between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, as previously defined. When extended into a so-called ‘international community’, it is a travesty. The feeling of a need for written constitutions and declarations to hold a society together, including an international community, is a symptom of the decay of instinct for organic community. Under the mantle of ‘modern science’, the cultural anthropologists, under the direction of Franz Boas, merely resurrected the 18th century notions of Enlightenment philosophers, such as Rousseau, in stating that man is a blank slate on which anything can be written, and by which his development can be directed. One of the most notable of these scientists, Ashley Montagu, wrote of this doctrine in the UNESCO periodical The Courier that ‘Man is not born evil or good — he is rendered so’.
No organism of the species so prematurely named Homo Sapiens is born with human nature. What human beings are born with is merely a complex set of potentialities … Being human must be learned …1101
‘Man is born without instincts, without those psychological dispositions which cause other animals to respond in a particular manner to a particular stimulus accompanied by a particular emotion’. ‘Man is a creature of habit’, and those habits are acquired from his culture and society, ‘organized around a number of urges, drives, or basic needs, as they have been variously called’, such as hunger, sex, rest and sleep, bowel and bladder evacuation, fear, and avoidance of pain. How a person behaves will be based on acquired experiences.1102 This is all a reformulating of Rousseau and other Enlightenment doctrines.
Montague quotes Abraham Maslow, founder of humanistic psychology, which became a fad during the 1960s, that ‘those human impulses which have seemed throughout our history to be deepest …. are now being discovered more and more to be acquired and not instinctive.’ Montague concluded that so far from not being able to change human nature, ‘we find that man is the most plastic, the most malleable, the most educable of all living creatures…’1103
Montague wrote as though such views were the consensus among scientists. Here can be seen the rationale for the UNO, to reconstruct a mass ‘humanity’ where all undesirable traits would be eliminated through global indoctrination, re-education and the repression of instincts that Montague and a multitude of social scientists and social engineers insist do not exist. The primary drives, in reference to Maslow’s doctrines, such as fear, pain avoidance, the need for food, shelter and sex, could be manipulated to condition reflexes and change the ‘habits’ of Man as a ‘creature of habit’.
Dr. Glenda Sluga1104 succinctly described the process for the establishment of the UNO and UNESCO and the concept of ‘One World’:
In that curiously utopian moment bracketed by the end of the Second World War and the onset of the Cold War, cosmopolitanism made its debut on the new international stage of the United Nations in its literal translation as ‘World Citizenship’ (from the Greek cosmos or world, and polites, or citizen). In the first few years of the UN’s operation, delegates and functionaries portrayed world citizenship as the path to permanent world peace, and as a necessary step in the evolution of mankind from tribes to nations, from national consciousness to ‘One World’. At the UN special agency, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization or Unesco, world citizenship was celebrated as the adjunct of an anti-chauvinist raison d’etre and as a cultural manifestation of the Enlightenment premise that humanity was evolving socially, politically, technologically, and even psychologically, towards a ‘World Community’.1105
Note that Sluga traces the ideology of the UNO’s cosmopolitanism to the Age of Enlightenment, the milieu of Rousseau and the salon intellectuals who theorised about the ‘noble savage’, abolishing property, religion, marriage, monarchy and other accoutrements of civilisation. Their legacy is the bloodshed of the Jacobin Revolution, Bolshevism and the globalist wars of the present. Sluga writes of Julian Huxley of UNESCO, as ‘often described as the consummate world citizen’; continuing:
In the history of Unesco’s early years, Huxley is often depicted as its hero, charting ‘the broad course to which the organization became committed’, and granting the natural sciences, and scientists, a central place in the shaping of Unesco’s internationally-targeted cultural and educational programs — and literally putting the ‘S’ in Unesco.1106