There is too much info to put it all here so I will put bits and pieces and the link.

Firstly I must point this out Quote "Almost all UN member states, except for the United States, Austria, Australia, Croatia, Hungary and possibly also the Czech Republic and Poland, are expected to sign it."
But will that change in the future?

Now details.
UN Member States: Migration Is a Human Right
UN member states are not only supposed to open their borders for the migrants of the world, but should also help them pick and choose their future country by providing them with comprehensive information about each country they may wish to settle in. ABSOLUTELY CRAZY, they are going to go to will give them the most for nothing.

The United Nations, in a non-binding agreement that almost all UN member states will sign at a ceremony in Morocco in early December, is making migration a human right.

The finalized text of the agreement, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, although officially non-binding, "puts migration firmly on the global agenda. HOW LONG WILL IT BE NON-BINDING

This agreement is not about refugees fleeing persecution, or their rights to protection under international law. Instead, the agreement propagates the radical idea that migration -- for any reason -- is something that needs to be promoted, enabled and protected.

Once migrants have arrived at their chosen destination, the signatory countries commit to:

"Provide newly arrived migrants with targeted, gender-responsive, child-sensitive, accessible and comprehensive information and legal guidance on their rights and obligations, including on compliance with national and local laws, obtaining of work and resident permits, status adjustments, registration with authorities, access to justice to file complaints about rights violations, as well as on access to basic services."

countries must:
"Promote mutual respect for the cultures, traditions and customs of communities of destination and of migrants by exchanging and implementing best practices on integration policies, programmes and activities, including on ways to promote acceptance of diversity and facilitate social cohesion and inclusion."

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13263/un-migration-human-right

Australia must not sign any of these things. Ideally, we should sever ties with the UN to protect our sovereignty and avoid world government.

Unfortunately, neither Liberal nor Labor can be trusted to do the right thing by Australia.

You know there is a problem when they have to punish dissent and threaten the MSM if they speak out about what is proposed.

Something as far reaching as this should have been well reported by media, has anyone seen any details from the media?

To make this objective a reality, the signatory states first commit to:
Quote
"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." (Objective 17)

Almost all UN member states will sign an agreement that says media outlets that disagree with government policies will not be eligible for public funding? On top of this, the agreement claims, bizarrely, that it is being written "in full respect for the freedom of the media", as if that is going to make anyone actually believe it.

Second, the signatory states 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." (Objective 17)

The agreement, conveniently, offers no definitions of what constitutes "racism" or "xenophobia" in this context. What, for example, is "related intolerance"? Is criticism of UN migration policies, for instance, "intolerance"?

The UN is far from united far from effective and as useless as
We need to ask is it the home of the seeming plan to make us one world without caring about the pain along the way, not worth being a member lets try some thing better

Remember one important thing it is also the same bureaucrats at the UN who are pushing the climate change scam.

Both are designed to work against Western nations.

Climate change we have to pay carbon credits etc a lot going to other 3rd world nations.

UN migration 3rd world nations people can on mass move to western nations and get to choose which one will give them the most.

Think about that what person in there right mind would want to stay in Africa, PNG or lots of other countries where they get nothing when they can move to say Australia and get preferential treatment for immediate housing, welfare and medical. It defies logic that 1st someone came up with that crazy idea then expect western countries to agree to it.

So much for refugees being good for countries, it now turns out the person charged with putting the needles in strawberries is a 50 YO refugee named My Ut Trinh from Vietnam who arrived in Australia by boat more than two decades ago.

Philip S.,

He's a reason why refugees are good for Australia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munjed_Al_Muderis

Thought you'd like to know.

Just watched the story on this horrible illegal entrant to Australia. She will not be suitably punished if the current softness of courts is anything to go by, so it is hoped that the creature can be deported.

How about more information on this
woman. We don't know who you're talking
about.

Foxy You have provided 1 good refugee story I have provided 1 bad refugee story, I think that is stalemate.

So you like the new UN agreement and think absolutely anyone who wants too should be able to come to Australia?

Philip S.,

Here are some well-known people in Australia who have
come from a refugee background:

1) Anh Do (comedian, author, artist)
2) Les Murray (sport-football)
3) Frank Lowy (property owner - Westfield)
4) Tan Le (technology)
5)The Hon. James Spigelman (law)
6) Majak Daw (AFL)
7) Judy Cassab (artist)
8) Dr Karl Kruszelniki (Radio DJ/scientist)

I'm just getting started.

Foxy Good, but for every one you provide I can provide one to oppose it.
You are wasting your time by using this argument as I believe very few people would have an objection to refugees under controlled circumstances but it is the fact this UN agreement applies to everyone we have no say.

You did not answer the question although it was staring you in the face so just for you here it is again.

So you like the new UN agreement and think absolutely anyone who wants too should be able to come to Australia?

Does Australia have a problem, you decide.

ASIO has more than 400 “high-priority” counter-terrorism investigations on its radar, according to the agency.

Instead of monitoring all persons thought to be capable of carrying out an attack, ASIO cherrypicks who to watch closely based on “a range of prioritisation systems and review mechanisms”.

The domestic intelligence agency reportedly operates on a “grid” framework which categorises the level of surveillance and investigation it applies to any of the hundreds of Islamic radicals who at any one time are of security interest to the agency.

About 240 Australians have had their passports cancelled on the advice of ASIO to the foreign minister.

It looks like the purpose of this is to make refugees less likely to commit crimes, and to help them integrate into society.

What exactly is it that you're scared of?

Philip S.,

I didn't take your question seriously because it's
not logical. We have an Immigration Department that
decides on who comes here. It has criteria that must
be met. They decide who and how many. It has always
been that way. And I fully support that. Just as we
have laws in this country that we are all supposed
to abide by and those that break our laws pay the
penalties.

Now regarding your supplying us with lists of law
breakers - we could go on and on but to what end?
I still would bet that my list would outnumber yours
as there are more law-abiding citizens in this country
than ones who break our laws. That's why so many
people want to come here. It is a safe place to live.

Philip S- Thanks for raising this discussion- and agree with your summation- Scary.

More and more the UN seems to need a broom. Perhaps the issue is related to the fact that it appears to be strongly influenced by the legal and medical professions which according to Bob Whittaker- "Why Johnny Can't Think- America's Professor Priesthood" are dominated by the extreme new left- pro-world government/ globalist, pro-change/ progressive, communist/ Trotskyist (international communism, permanent revolution), Marcusian (Logos vs Eros- extreme radicalism) / New Freudian (pansexuality).

Patrick Deneen- "Why Liberalism Failed" Professor at the University of Notre Dame talks of Liberalism (as opposed to Conservatism) both social and economic (Socialist and Free Trade) has caused many of the issues it claims to solve.

Paraphrasing Patrick Deneen- "Two young fish are swimming and pass an old fish who says "How's the water today?". The young fish look at each other strangely and say "What's water?". According to Deneen- Liberalism is the water that the electorate swim in but don't really understand.

Freedom and change seen as an "absolute good" by many and dominate both the left and right of self serving political parties have seduced the electorate of their legitimacy. Liberalism is a strong influence over both the Labor and Liberal party in Australia (Democrat and Republican Parties in the US). This is seen by Deneen as the underlying reason for disillusionment with politics.

Any party opposed to Liberalism (Conservatism- Traditionalism) is labelled as extreme.

The "left" generally argue that "social" freedom/ change (and economic regulation) is the solution.
The "right" generally argue that "economic" freedom/ change (self regulation of industries) is the solution.

The left and the right "appear to be in opposition" but in fact they both believe certain concepts are "absolute good" namely that of freedom and change.

Conservatives (presented as extreme by the "liberalist left and right") believe that freedom should be earned and also believe in responsibility and tradition.

It could be argued that the majority of the population value responsibility and tradition but don't understand the issues

You do realise Foxy that one of the heroes you listed was up on rape charges. Or have you become a Greens member who don't really cares whpo steals, rapes or lies.

Can't read the original story because of The Australian paywall, but the AC website advises that the Australian government will endorse the UN global deal on refugees, despite Dutton's assurance that they would not.

Canem Malum - Thank you you are the only one to have ever appreciated when something that should be of concern to people is ignored by MSM but reported here.

FOXY
It is highly possible that Liberals won't be in Government for long, what will Shorten do?
What is the election is so close the only way a party can Govern is with Greens support, they could say we will support you if you sign.

Quote "I didn't take your question seriously because it's not logical. We have an Immigration Department that decides on who comes here."

Foxy it appears you are not aware some agreements that the Government sign actually override Australian Laws.

Foxy you think this is a good thing.
The signatory states 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." (Objective 17)

The agreement, conveniently, offers no definitions of what constitutes "racism" or "xenophobia" in this context. What, for example, is "related intolerance"? Is criticism of UN migration policies, for instance, "intolerance"?

Migrants, according to the agreement, must also be "empowered to realize full inclusion and social cohesion" in their new countries (objective 16). This means, among other things, that countries must:

"Promote mutual respect for the cultures, traditions and customs of communities of destination and of migrants by exchanging and implementing best practices on integration policies, programmes and activities, including on ways to promote acceptance of diversity and facilitate social cohesion and inclusion."

All cultures are equal and must be equally respected. Presumably, this means that, for example, the tradition of female genital mutilation (FGM), which almost all Somali women experience in Somalia, must be acknowledged in London and Paris as deserving of "mutual respect" in the same way that it would back in Mogadishu.

runner,

You stated that one of the people on my list was
up on rape charges?

Do tell. And who is that?

Kindly provide the evidence please.

Foxy,
Majak Daw was charged with rape. He was subsequently tried and found NOT GUILTY.

But it seems runner wants people to be treated as guilty until proven innocent.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Philip S,
You're putting two and two together and getting twenty two. Evil customs deserve no respect whatsoever, and this UN agreement won't change that.

ttbn - Quote "the AC website advises that the Australian government will endorse the UN global deal on refugees, despite Dutton's assurance that they would not."

I have not seen that article, if it is right I would be extremely confident they are not saying what the implications of signing it are and what the different objectives of it are.

1st Dutton only said he would not sign it in its present form, but he is irrelevant to that now new person as the Minister for Home Affairs,
also Turnbull gone.
Also, as above. It is highly possible that Liberals won't be in Government for long, what will Shorten do?
What is the election is so close the only way a party can Govern is with Greens support, they could say we will support you if you sign.

Aidan You are not even worth a reply, you can't even read and comprehend the implications of the link I provided above it appear here and on other threads you are like a little troll.

"Evil customs deserve no respect whatsoever, and this UN agreement won't change that."

That is until the lawyers get into the act!!

Lawyers drafted this Act: Crimes Act NSW s 45 making FGM an offence.

"It is important to explain the fact that FGM is illegal in Australia and New Zealand . Health care workers who are concerned that a child
may be at risk of, or has undergone, FGM have legal obligations to report this."

This UN agreement, like all of them, can only apply subject to internal Australian laws. Just like Manus island and UN refugee agreements.

nicknamenick it might be illegal try telling that to the increasing numbers that are being subjected to it.

New Report: FGM Prevalence in Australia 2018
March 7, 2018

252% more Australian women with FGM: 2018 FGM Prevalence in Australia

200,000+ survivors and 11 girls a day born at high risk in Australia

No FGM Australia has released a new report identifying high numbers of Australian women and girls who are either survivors of, or at high risk of FGM

No FGM Australia has just released the “FGM Prevalence in Australia: 2018” report which uses global prevalence figures and ABS data to estimate the number of Australian women and girls born overseas who are survivors of FGM or are at high risk of FGM.

The figures are staggering:

A “survivor” group of over 200,000 Australian women and girls are likely to have had FGM or be at risk of FGM
11 girls a day are born to the “survivor” group
A “missing half million” – Australian women who come from countries where FGM is known to be practiced but no prevalence data is available. These women may also be survivors or at risk
A further 35 girls a day born to the “missing half million” group

This is the second time No FGM Australia has published this report – the first was in 2014, and the numbers have increased significantly since that time – 252% increase in the “survivor” group, and a 367% increase in the number of girls born in Australia each year at high risk of FGM.

http://nofgmoz.com/2018/03/07/new-report-fgm-prevalence-australia-2018/

OK but the topic is Australia being bound by UN . FGM remains illegal. People taking drugs doesn't mean the anti-drug laws are cancelled.

The total African population in Oz seems to be covered by your quote. Some did have FGM in Africa but saying the lot "are at risk" in Oz is a bit sloppy. They are also "at risk" of drug overdose , but they don't pour crack on their kids' cornflakes each day or reverse cars onto toddlers .

nicknamenick
Quote "OK but the topic is Australia being bound by UN"

I agree but you are the one who introduced the subject.

Not my quotas, I just posted something that indicated the problem was getting worse.

Posted by Philip S, Wednesday, 14 November 2018 6:18:25 PM - Thank you you are the only one to have ever appreciated when something that should be of concern to people is ignored by MSM but reported here.

Answer- My pleasure Philip S. The Main Stream Media is out of touch and, like the UN and the legal profession, needs a broom. The problems at the ABC are too big for a broom and needs defunding. I've discovered Fox on "free to air" and have been substituting it for ABC News coverage. I was put off Fox many years ago during the "Outfoxed" era but seems more in touch now than other providers. I don't have the same research capability as Armchair Critic but I like to know what's happening.

Philip S
Ooooh no I never .
"(FGM), which almost all Somali women experience in Somalia,
Posted by Philip S, Wednesday, 14 November 2018 6:18:25 PM.

Your figures don't say 1/2 million African women in Australia (really?) may have had FGM in Africa.It says nothing about FGM in Oz.

typo : your figures say 1/2 million

nicknamenick Try reading this part, they are drawing a long bow but to try to make a dramatic point.

QUOTE "report which uses global prevalence figures and ABS data to estimate the number of Australian women and girls born overseas who are survivors of FGM or are at high risk of FGM."

Just out of interest did you follow the link to download the report, so you could read it.

Congratulations you actually posted comments that make sense rather than your usual scatterbrained nonsense. Keep it up.

Yes Philip , it says the same nothing : ( except throwing in "1 million women" in Oz...!).
We are at risk of satellite junk hitting our pc in Oz.
and....

"Taking a person outside Victoria to another state or territory or overseas for this FGM procedure is also illegal. The maximum penalty in Victoria is 15 years imprisonment. If you have a Medicare card, you can access a public hospital for de-infibulation free of charge."

Medicare won't pay for FGM , they'll send the cops to arrest all UN criminal scary knife-wielding cultural pirates. Absolutely . It's the law.

They can send Is Mise who will shoot the lot , no questions asked.

nicknamenick
Congratulations you actually posted comments that make sense rather than your usual scatterbrained nonsense. Keep it up.

That did not last long!

Philip S
The UN has a policy on migrants.
Australia has laws. On migrants.
They are different.
UN is not Australia.
UN is not scary .
Philip's logic is scary. He pastes stuff he doesn't read properly. He can't read what nnn posts. Reading is needed in order to reply sensibly. Philip bad.

nicknamenick Quote "He can't read what nnn posts. Reading is needed in order to reply sensibly"

Just how many of the following posts of yours were understood and received sensible replies or even a reply?

Following are just a few of your posts, I did not have to go back far months ago you posted a lot that I could only assume you were drunk or high on something at the time.

Teddy bears?
Neither are NRL and AFL forwards. Real men shoot it out, the State of Origin needs machine-gunners and grenade chuckers. With beer slabs to winners handed out by Police commissioners.
**
Most Australians vote for US candidates , Belly is a campaign organiser . How about asking them can our votes be counted as partial preferences , say at 10% value of stateside yanks?
**
What's the optimal length for a piece of string? If they don't know then why say that 3 tons of it is a bit much to fit in your pocket?

"Optimal " is irrelevant . Ice-age is not good for Woolworths fresh food , tropical swamp in central Oz keeps Coles prices up ,up.
Goldilocks had it right. Polar bears don't.
**
What's the temperature of the dark side of the moon?
**
Polly lies through his very, Christian to the back molar, teeth,
when one is being belaboured with hate speech. We can choose , nowhere is my rationale have I raised my usual topic.
**
Will preparation services are provided free for people eligible for a full Centrelink Age Pension
**
He's said the US has no legal power when it does, will make Mexico pay but doesn't , will send the army which can't act against civilians and will burn Nth Korea but won't . A promise of gas ovens should mean they're safe .
**
Have you seen the price for a politician in Australia? Thank goodness for Coles going down even if they overpay farmers who can survive on goannas and yams.
**
Usually cricket balls come from India or here but recently a player bowled a made in Over . They must have extra stitches for spin.
**
"Yes mine is from plug in here, strange country."
No it just means you don't have to post it back for re-charging
**
Don't you ever wonder why you get very very few comments to your posts.

Maybe the answer is here
They can't understand what nnn posts. Understanding is needed in order to reply sensibly.

However , in this topic , it's been written clearly . And you can't read the clear quote you posted. Do you have a sensible comment?

1 comment post as opposed to well over a hundred, I will stand by my record.

Don't you ever wonder why you get very very few comments to your posts.

Maybe the answer is here
They can't understand what nnn posts. Understanding is needed in order to reply sensibly.

OK mate your quote about FGM is irrelevant to Australian events , you spent how long dredging my posts from other topics and you won't discuss the point . And now you're pasting your own words....

So much for being refugees, country shoppers more like it.

Forty of the 300 Nauru refugees who elected to resettle in America are pleading to come back because 'it's the land of the free but there are a lot of catches'

Forty of the 300 refugees who left Nauru to resettle in the U.S. are pleading to come back to the island after claiming life in America is more difficult than they expected.

Nauru's President Baron Waqa told The Australian that life on Nauru is much cheaper, allowing refugees holidays to Fiji, healthcare, free housing and jobs.

He said it is not surprising some refugees have asked to come back.

'The US is a difficult place to live with a lot of competition when it comes to work,' he said.

'It is the land of the free but there are a lot of catches.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6393585/Forty-300-Nauru-refugees-elected-resettle-U-S-pleading-come-back.html

//allowing refugees holidays to Fiji, healthcare, free housing and jobs.//

I find that hard to believe. Nauru is an economic basket case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru#Economy

Unemployment at 90% and they're giving free housing and jobs to refugees? Pull the other one, President Waqa, it plays Jingle Bells.

Why does the Daily Mail bother printing this crap? And why do people accept it as gospel when it's obvious bollocks?

'Why does the Daily Mail bother printing this crap?'

because pigheaded people like you won't accept any facts or truth that reveals the failed dogmas you quote. Even the sbs has been dragged kicking and screaming having to admit the lies they have been telling for years.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/nauru-president-claims-refugees-resettled-in-us-are-trying-to-return

Toni Lavis 1st don't forget Australia pays for them plus extra to get it done.

If it is a lie I guarantee it will quickly be called out in the media, or by the refugee advocates if they do you are right, if they do not it is you who is talking crap.

To be reviewed in a few days to determine who is right.

I had a strange thought today, and it's still probably difficult to articulate.
In a glimpse I could see it, and then the thought was gone almost before I could write it down.
Sometimes I look too deep into things so bear with me here...

I've told you all before that all these smaller progressive battles 'feminism, equality, racism etc.' are just distractions (meant to divide us against each other) from the bigger goal.
Which is: New World Order, and a One World Government.
[Now, put this thought to the side]

What if I said something really nutty?
- Now, again bear with me on this -

What if I said 'Racism is essential to Nationalism'?;
Could we test this argument on its own merits and just see where we go?

Is 'Nationalism' essentially 'Tribalism'?
And without 'Tribalism', is there any real Sovereign National Identity and Culture?
Without tribalism; and adherence to a particular set of ideals or principles - what makes Australia different to any other Western country?

Why must the idea of 'Racism' HAVE to mean something bad?

Why must it be associated with 'ATTACK' or 'ABUSE' on the basis of being different?
Why can't we acknowledge that different countries and cultures are essentially different?

Or do we actually believe that Chinese are the same as Mexicans or Africans?

- Oppose 'Racism' in all it's forms they say -
They want us 'Sell the idea we are all the same no matter where we come from'.
That where we came from doesn't matter.
That Chinese are the same as Mexicans who are also the same as Africans.

They always say Australians were (and are) racist; (and racism is bad)
But watch Kingswood Country, that's not really how it was.
Our 'Racism' , if you take a step back wasn't 'Aussies hating on Wogs', and 'Wogs hating on Aussies' in a hostile sense, it was more of a kind of 'initiation into Australian Nationalism and Culture', a right of passage to become an 'Aussie' and adopt our culture.

Ted and Bruno were actually mates.

And so:

If you attack 'Racism' in all it's forms;
Are we not also attacking 'Tribalism' and our ability to have an individual National Identity and culture?

If your aim is to bring about a One world Government,
Then you need to destroy Nationalism in any country it exists, right?
You can't build something new without tearing down the old.
- Push immigrants and have us in-fighting and divided (in every country) on all these previously mentioned smaller arguments that don't matter.

So we now identify and are 'tribal' with the smaller PC issues, instead of our original National Identity basis, which is eroded away by immigrants and PC.

So now, as a result we are the same in every single country, ALL overwhelmed and ALL in-fighting over the same PC correct BS...
ALL Generic.

Now no western country has any real National Identity anymore,
And every countries national identity is essentially 'PC'.

Why?
Do we not ALL fall for it?
Every single one of us?

"That racism is bad and we must oppose it in all it's forms."

Look Closer:

The whole idea of 'Attack Racism in all it's forms';
What is the default inevitable outcome?

Answer = 'Globalism'.

I don't know if my logic made sense, but there you have it.

- It's another Trojan Horse, designed to trick us into selling the country out. -

You comment reminded me of this I saw a while back, I think it encompasses your thoughts and what the big picture is.

Former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America.
“First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country.” History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.” Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficult times with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.”

Second, to destroy America, “Invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

Third, “We could make the United States an ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: “The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.” Lamm said, “I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would! replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.”

“Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.”

“My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology.’ I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.”

“My sixth plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other- that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common Language and literature; and they worshipped the same Gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. ! Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. “E. Pluribus Unum” — from many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the ‘Pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we will balkanize America assuredly as Kosovo.”

“Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bi-lingual/bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of ‘victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”
In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed.

“Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book “Mexifornia.” His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read that book.”
There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today.
Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate ‘diversity.’ American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America – take note of California and other states – to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell’s book “1984.” In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” and “Ignorance is strength.”

Now if you think I'm full of crap, then what we need to do is test my theory.
If I asked the following question:

"In one word please describe how you identify yourself"

What percentage of citizens in this country do you think would answer that question with the word 'Australian'?

Why is this important?
Because if people identify themselves as being something other than 'Australian', then being Australian doesn't mean anything over and above whatever else it is that they identify themselves as; and then it should be accepted that what I'm saying does in fact hold merit.

Racism is essential to Nationalism.
'Opposing Racism in all it's forms' is a path that leads directly to Globalism and One world Government.
- Do not pass go, Do not collect $200 -

Also, for the record you cannot have a Nation with Open Borders and free movement of people at the same time.
A country cannot manage it's economy under these circumstances.
It's ripe for Cloward and Piven.

That's a one way ticket to national debt slavery and rule by bankers.

This planet is one giant business, and the corporate elite are steering us towards total enslavement.

Armchair Critic Quote "Now if you think I'm full of crap, then what we need to do is test my theory."

Who is this comment directed at?

No one in particular Philip S.
- All the leftist detractors on this forum -
It's just my speil, and the way I talk and the way I write.
I was responding to the content and not necessarily to you.

Armchair,
I, for one, think you're full of crap.
So let's put it to the test:
"In one word please describe how you identify yourself"
Engineer!

Does that mean being Australian doesn't mean anything over and above being an engineer? Not necessarily, as I could be of the view that nearly everyone on this board is Australian, which makes it useless as an identity. But hypothetically if it did, so what? I'm still an Australian – why should it matter how we preference our identities?

You have no evidence to support your claim that "racism is essential to nationalism". Indeed iif nationalism were dependent on racism, we'd be better off without nationalism. And if 'Opposing Racism in all it's forms' really were a path that leads directly to Globalism and One world Government, so what? The expense of government at the world level could be more than offset by the reductions in military spending needed at the national level.

And your claim that "you cannot have a Nation with Open Borders and free movement of people at the same time" makes no sense. If you have open borders, how can you not have free movement of people.

There's no good reason why a country cannot manage it's economy under these circumstances. And there's absolutely no similarity to Cloward and Piven.

A single world CURRENCY would be a one way ticket to national debt slavery and rule by bankers. But nobody is proposing that.

AC and Philip S- Thanks for your comments. We all know the usual suspects will punch on - sometimes we have to take them for the long game. That's fine.

I don't know how Aiden calls himself Australian while being anti-nationalist.

Canem Malum don't know about you, but when I read that a while back it is exactly how things are happening in Australia.

PC etc the army may put in a 3rd toilet for those who identify as gender neutral.

Gender neutral toilet idea pathetic: Bailey
November 16, 2018

Australian military bases could soon have gender-neutral toilets for transgender and intersex personnel under a new push to be 'inclusive' - an idea Conservative Party Victorian Senate candidate Kevin Bailey has labelled "pathetic".

The Daily Mail reports, Defence Force has ordered commanders to re-evaluate facilities after concerns were raised there were no loos for those who did not identify as male or female.

Briefs circulated to senior members called for gender neutral bathrooms to be made available to sex and gender diverse (SGD) members where it was 'feasible' to do so.

Documents, accessed under Freedom of Information laws, suggested rebranding disabled toilets as an option.

Taxpayers will be forced to fork out for the new facilities which would be rolled out across army, navy and air force bases across the country.

'The Chain of Command must consider how to accommodate SGD members in environments where ablutions may not be segregated and or private (such as some barracks ablutions, field toilets and open communal same sex showers),' one of the briefing notes read.

'Commanders are to manage SGD member use of ablutions on a case-by-case basis taking into account the facilities, nature of training or operations, and needs/requests of the relevant member(s) and their colleagues.'

Posted by Philip S, Saturday, 17 November 2018 8:04:24 PM-

Answer- Read Marcuse- Logos vs Eros- A synthesis of Marx and Freud- for the purpose of deconstruction of society. The purpose is to create disfunctional conditions in society that cause it to implode. ie. the "new left" wants to create chaos in our institutions. Don't you think this chaos is going to hurt us? The solution is to support traditional conservative values.

I'm sure this is one way of viewing the current political landscape...

Hi Aiden,
- In regards to 'Engineer', 'Everyone being Australian' and of myself being 'full of crap';
And for the benefit of others understanding my 'personal forum rules of engagement';

I want firstly state that I like to pick things apart and try to get to the truth of things;
And the way to do this is to separate arguments that do hold merit from arguments that don't.
Also I believe you're entitled to use speech however you like to drive your points home; and this includes humiliation.
- So if someone else says or does something stupid, then you have the right to call it out and point and laugh and make them feel stupid.
It's a non violent form of correction and helps people to learn from their mistakes so they don't make the same mistake again.

And so by the rules of my forum engagement, and if I was scoring this argument, I'd say this:

Firstly you scored an instant bonus point by using speech effectively to drive your point home - throwing my 'full of crap' comment back in my face and backing it up with an argument that held merit.
+ 1 Bonus Point

For finding a flaw in my argument by stating a counter-argument that held merit - 'Engineer'.
+ 1 Point

But you didn't just mention one 'flaw' in my argument;
You named another - 'Everyone being Australian', and that changes things.
(and you get a point for identifying that second 'flaw' too)
+ 1 Point

One 'flaw' could be something I overlooked and pointing it out only made me 'look' stupid.
But finding two 'flaws', well you didn't just make me LOOK stupid, you moved another step closer to 'proving' that I AM stupid.
(and for that you get another bonus point)
+1 Bonus point

[Cont.]
This is the way I roll.
And I stand by my own 'Rules of Forum Engagement' because I WANT to get to the truth of things and I recognise the only way to do it is separate arguments that do hold merit from those that don't.

I've had a long day, kids birthday parties and gatherings with friends.
I'll try to respond to more of what you and the other forum members said tomorrow.

Thanks for your comments, for now I'll give credit where credit is due.

[But know this: I'll acknowledge you won a battle here but you should know I'm definitely not ready to concede the war in this 'Battle of ideas'.
And there's always Pro's and Con's on both sides; my stubbornness (or being off my game) might just give you more opportunities to call out my stupidity again in future, but we shall just have to see how it plays out.]

Well played Aiden.

This is how I play.

Point out the flaws in my arguments and advance the path to the truth on any issue;

- You can use humiliation and abuse against me to prove your argument if you wish; but your arguments MUST HOLD MERIT.

However, be warned, DO NOT use humiliation or abuse against me if your arguments DO NOT HOLD MERIT;

- Because I most certainly will turn it around ON YOU every time, to make you look even more stupid, and occasionally it's a deliberate trap.

If you think I'm skating on thin ice, consider the distinct possibility that I may have deliberately ventured out there fully knowing the risks, and that I didn't just accidentally find myself out there.

If you successfully point out the flaws in my arguments and advance the path to the truth on ANY issue YOU WILL earn my respect, and I WILL NOT hold it against you whatever methods you used to drive your points home, so long as the issues you raise HOLD MERIT.

By winning the argument ON MERIT you've PROVEN your wisdom or intellect on that issue was superior to mine, as well as proving the methods you used to get there worked; and I WILL give credit and respect for advancing the path to the truth as a process.

Canem,
>I don't know how Aiden calls himself Australian while being anti-nationalist.
I made a commitment to this nation and I've stuck with it. Why do you consider me to be anti-nationalist?

Is it because you can't comprehend how I reject the claim that nationalism is based on racism? Or because I reject Armchair's non sequiters about what the effects of open borders would be?

Or is it that you think having government at a world level would somehow make nations obsolete? If so, you can rest assured that's not a view I share.

Armchair Critic- I thought your comments had overtones of Desmond Morris - The Human Zoo - "From Tribes to Super Tribes".

Armchair Critic- Also- You did say that your "idea" was in development and you were trying to understand the role that the "concept and propaganda of racism labeling" plays in the political sphere. Perhaps there are certain parts of the sphere that like to keep this a mystery. But your research capability is legendary so I'm confident that over the weeks and months reading you will make much more headway than I could at my best.

AC,

You've made me think about how I would identify
myself. I've written previously on this forum
that I don't have the answers to the big questions
in life. But everything is relative, everything has
its story, and everyone has obstacles to overcome.
They are our greatest teachers.

Each of us goes through transitions and transformations.
The important thing is that we acknowledge them and
learn from them.

Back to the question - how do I identify myself.
First off - I'm a female, a daughter, wife, sister,
grandmother, neighbour, friend, story-teller, writer,
researcher, educator, and also a dreamer.
I am the people I love. Family to me is everything.
There's probably more that I could add - but Thanks
for making me think a little about these things.

Philip S.,

I've been reading all of your posts and can
see just how emotional this all is for you.
However, you need to be re-assured that
Australia will not sign any agreement that
forces us to go against our interests.
Or is to our detriment.
No government of ours would give up our
sovereignty or sign something that would
place our security in danger. No government
would be foolish enough to do that. If they
did they would not be in government for very
long.

Foxy, I have come late to this discussion, but one of your first posts
stated that our immigration process means we check each applicant.
You did not seem to realise that the immigration document has a policy
statement that immigration is a human right.
There is no indication that that "human right" is any different to any
other human rights in its enforcement.
In a less wordy way, it means those wanting to immigrate may do so to
any country of their choosing.

Other human rights administered by the UNHCR are also not enforceable.
Other countries that ignore the human rights agreement that most
countries have signed have signed their own Islamic Human Rights document.

BTW there are two documents up for signing. The one that is being
discussed here is the immigration policy and the other one is on
refugee policy. I have not read that one so do not know anything
about it.

Bazz.

As I understand it - they're not expecting the US,
Australia, and some others to sign the document in
question. And human rights or not - I still don't
expect that we will. As Dutton made quite clear -
we shall not be giving up our sovereignty.

UN declarations are ambits . “everyone has the right to education”.
Yes which means that there is regulation of it . No-one expects that a country has to give 6 years medical education to any illiterate alcoholic blind quadraplegic. Same with right to migrate using amphibious missile assault boats to crash the border.

Bazz Thanks I missed the comment by Foxy.

Foxy Quote "We have an Immigration Department that decides on who comes here. It has criteria that must be met. They decide who and how many. It has always been that way."

Are you off your medication, TOTAL BS, if you are right please explain the over 50,000 that Rudd and Gillard let in?

Also remember only a small percentage of those arrivals were checked out properly.

Immigration had no say in there arrival.

Also the Government you have today may not be the one you have next time.

Are you absolutely sure Shorten will continue boat turn backs?

Philip S.,

Australia has very strigent rules for any
one entering our territory without a visa for
example - they are placed in a holding facility
while security and health checks are performed.
Not sure where you get your numbers from but
during 2015-2016 - we took in 17,555. And as
I wrote earlier - it was a government decision
to do so.

As for what Mr Shorten will do should he get into
government? As far as I'm aware - Labor's policies
are very similar to the current government. After
all it was thanks to Kevin Rudd - who made sure
that anyone coming to Australia by boat would not
be allowed to settle in Australia. Still, I guess
we shall have to wait and see - predicting anything
in politics is risky at the best of times. Who knows
Scott Morrison may just win.

Philip S keeps mixing migrant behaviour with law. Signing an agreement on ideal standards does not change Australia's powers to make laws . Even letting in the boats is an example of laws , as was Labor's refugee camp on Christmas island. But PS uses bluster to avoid thinking sensibly.

Posted by nicknamenick, Sunday, 18 November 2018 6:02:57 PM-
Philip S keeps mixing migrant behaviour with law. Signing an agreement on ideal standards does not change Australia's powers to make laws . Even letting in the boats is an example of laws , as was Labor's refugee camp on Christmas island. But PS uses bluster to avoid thinking sensibly.

Answer- My view. The UN and other organisations have been using the UN Conventions to pressure nations into signing convention into law. They use the threat of loss of trade etc as a penalty for non-compliance. An example is the CCPR Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the Hate Laws that use political correctness to undermine free speech. Voltaire and others believed that free speech is a pre-condition for legitimate government

Foxy - It appears you playing silly games. You know I am talking about boat arrivals over 50,000.

July 19, 2013 Kevin Rudd declared that anyone seeking to come to Australia without a visa would never settle here, but he did nothing regarding legislation talk is cheap and they kept coming.

The Liberal finally ended it.

Philip S.,

Rudd's policy in 2013 - was that any asylum seeker found to
be a refugee would be resettled in PNG. Those not deemed
legitimate refugees would be sent back to their country of
origin - or moved to a 3rd country if it was unsafe for them
to return to their own country, or remain in detention
indefinitely. In no case would they come to Australia.

nicknamenick Quote "But PS uses bluster to avoid thinking sensibly" That is your opinion.

Can you back up with examples where bluster has been used, at present you only have one but even then it is only your opinion of my comment.

I can back up my following statement about you with literally hundreds of examples.

Your posts that defy translation, give people the belief you must be high on drugs or are trying to disguise your intelligence by commenting like the court jester.

Could it be your posts are written like the court jester so you do not have to comment sensibly?

It is worth reminding you of this posted by yours truly.
Don't you ever wonder why you get very very few comments to your posts.

Maybe the answer is here
They can't understand what nnn posts. Understanding is needed in order to reply sensibly.

Statistics will follow shortly for nicknamenick comments.

'
Rudd's policy in 2013 - was that any asylum seeker found to
be a refugee would be resettled in PNG. Those not deemed
legitimate refugees would be sent back to their country of
origin - or moved to a 3rd country if it was unsafe for them
to return to their own country, or remain in detention
indefinitely. In no case would they come to Australia.'

only after opening the gate to 60000 plus illegals and causing 1200 plus drownings. He came kicking and screaming after criticising Howard for stopping the boats. For Labour to claim any credibility is outright dishonest. But that's lefties for you.

Canem Malem,
Who used threat of loss of trade to enforce CCPR?
Does the new UN agreement mean that all countries signing will have open borders with no controls except handing out welcome brochures?
I doubt both of those.

runner,

It was the government of Malcolm Fraser who authorised
the immigration of more than 50,000 Vietnamese from
Indian Ocean refugee camps. At that time the
"open-door" immigration policy enjoyed bi-partisan support.

And of course - there were more illegal immigrants who
arrived by plane than by boat - 60,000 is just an estimate.

The following link is a brief history of asylum in Australia.
I hope it helps you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_Australia

Both sides of politics had difficulty is trying to solve
this problem. And it's not over yet.

A list of US Reservations and Declarations of the UN CCPR
http://www.bayefsky.com/html/usa_t2_ccpr.php
My understanding is the CCPR wasn't signed by the US until 1993 some 30 years after it was finalized by the UN - this was due to pressure from various organizations and was subject to significant caveats due to national laws.

An example of the use of the International Court (a transnational organisation similar to the UN- could be considered to be the legal arm of the UN - compare with the separation of powers of the Westminster System) to pressure national government.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/27/world/asia/myanmar-un-human-rights.html

Un Sanctions are used to pressure nations- other organizations such as the Group of 77 can use pressure on nations policy.

Group of 77 Policies-
The group was credited with a common stance against apartheid and for supporting global disarmament. It has been supportive of the New International Economic Order. It has been subject to criticism for its lackluster support, or outright opposition, to pro-environmental initiatives, which the group considers secondary to economic development and poverty-eradication initiatives.

My view is that generally official international organizations ("World Government") should be about the relationships between countries but not within. You could argue that disarmament is relevant but I can't see how apartheid is an issue about the relationship between countries even if it is a moral one. But it is perhaps not our role to judge another nations morality. Perhaps individual countries can choose to manage their relationships on the basis of the aparteid- but perhaps this is not the original intention of the UN. Perhaps this is an example of "scope creep".

The Charter of the United Nations was signed, in San Francisco, on 26 June 1945 and is the foundation document for all the United Nations work. The United Nations was established to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and one of its main purposes is to maintain international peace and security.

The law is often complex- people appear to be subject to laws at multiple levels- eg. Council, State, National, and now International.

When power is held at higher levels it disenfranchises the people and becomes more dictatorial and makes them more dependent and takes their self determination. Ironic given the UN says that taking away a cultures right to self determination is a form of genocide- when they are perhaps complicit in just that behavior.

Bazz,
"You did not seem to realise that the immigration document has a policy
statement that immigration is a human right."
Can you provide a link to substantiate that claim?

Aidan First it appears you only rread the article I supplied the link to.

A lesson in how things are, when you read this part "The finalized text of the agreement, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration," you would have seen that part of it is in red text that is because it is the link to the actual document.

It does not use the exact wording "immigration is a human right" but if you read it is exactly what they mean.

http://www.un.org/pga/72/wp-content/uploads/sites/51/2018/07/migration.pdf

Canem Malem
It seems you don't have any examples of trade threats on CPPR. Your quote on Myanmar's murders is about too much migrating , the opposite case. The US has numerous sanctions and trade threats for many reasons in foreign internal matters and spent a few dollars in Vietnam 1964-72.

Where does the new law say there are open borders ?

Hey Everyone,

Just to clarify that when I said 'Racism is essential to Nationalism', I did try to explain that I wasn't necessarily advocating the promotion of hardcore racial abuse between people in a manner that were to cause disharmony between them. I was just trying to examine the bigger picture.

You all should know by now that what gets my goat is the idea of Global Government.
- The idea that between the lot of us, we're incapable of deciding what's best for ourselves and our own country need to rely on foreigners absolutely disgust me on every level...
This isn't their country to decide what happens, it's ours.

So why are we adopting UN and Global Intergovernmental policies on the laws decided here?
That's not us deciding our future, that's some else saying "We know what's good for you".
That's not bloody democracy.
I'm not sure exactly what it is; but it isnt that.

And I suppose I was trying to look at 'tribalism'.
To go even further I guess I'm also trying to 'psychological evaluate the cause and effects of political correctness and understand the motives behind social engineering', if that makes any sense...

We look at this whole 'racism' issue.
It's not 'equally distributed' if thats the right word.

If whites had a TV show 'Living White' leftists and progressives would go beserk.
http://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/living-black
If we created a movie called White Panther that was a place for white tribalism;
Leftists and Progressives WOULD GO BESERK.

It seems 'Tribalism' and 'Culture' is fine and good, just not for whites.

So how do we look at this on a 'psychological evaluate the cause and effects of political correctness and understand the motives behind social engineering' kind of basis?

To Armchair Critic- As always kudos AC. Every culture should have their own nation. There is a recent phenomenon of "Third World Colonialism" mainly Indian and Chinese- it seems the major reasons are- 1. unmanaged population density within those nations- 2. an expansionist Islamic culture.
All cultures try to promote and expand their culture this expansionism can result in conflict. The potential for conflict appear to be related to the size of the historical differences, previous contact between the cultures. This is why cultural interaction and immigration needs to be managed.

Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 19 November 2018 4:47:54 AM- It seems you don't have any examples of trade threats on CPPR.

Answer- Thanks for your feedback nicknamenick. I don't expect that we will agree. Paraphrasing Voltaire- I don't agree with what you say but support your right to say it.
It's self evident and uncontroversial to us that the UN and associated groups engage in sanctions and use the UN as a forum for lobbying for or against issues internal to nations. I believe it's unfortunate that this seems to be done in the name of the UN. A government not of the people is a dictatorship. Hate Laws (Political Correctness Laws) are part of the CCPR- their effect is to legitimize change as the norm and devalue western tradition and free speech.

We have a responsibility to protect the legacy of our families, cultures, and nations.

nicknamenick speaking about your comment to Canem Malem "It seems you don't have any examples"

But it is evident you conveniently missed this one, where you have no examples.

nicknamenick Quote "But PS uses bluster to avoid thinking sensibly" That is your opinion.

Can you back up with examples where bluster has been used, at present you only have one but even then it is only your opinion of my comment.

I can back up my following statement about you with literally hundreds of examples.

"Your posts that defy translation, give people the belief you must be high on drugs or are trying to disguise your intelligence by commenting like the court jester."

I agree that internal matters are supposed to be beyond the reach of UN. But you don't really have facts to back up trade sanctions on migration or that there will be open borders.

Internally , in Oz 'hate-speech' is really libel and slander which go way back in British Law. You can't even go 100 kph through a supermarket car-park or collect groceries without paying , the dictators.

Aiden, I read it in a different document to the one linked by
Philip S. I cannot remember the exact words, but my
understanding was that it was certainly implied.
Scanning through what appears to be the original document as opposed
to the overview document that I previously read the crux of the matter
seems to be paragraphs 15 and 33.
I think a lawyer practised in this field would demonstrate that anyone
could complain of discrimination if they were refused entry.
It states that it is not compulsory for governments but ---
I seem to have lost the search facility for the document so cannot do a
proper search of the document at the moment.

Psychological Examination Political Correctness
Motives for Social Engineering

If you invite terrorists into the country, you can treat all citizens like terrorists.

If you empower women and disempower men,
You can push the critical mass of society over to view and promote things based on emotion rather than logic.
- Dumb down the populace -

If you promote Anti-Racism, you prevent white nationalism,
And if you empower minority ethnic groups and disempower white nationalists,
You sell the country out to Globalism.

If you put the special needs kids in with the normal kids,
You dumb down the normal kids,

If you empower abnormal and disempower normal,
The normal will become too scared to speak out.

That's all I've got so far...

Forgot to mention;
Apparently California (wildfires) were following a UN policy on not building firebreaks etc, over the last 30 years and this is the reason for the huge area burned out.

But also, homeowners are not allowed to rebuild under these laws (probably Bureau of Land Management BLM) so one has to wonder if in some places they wanted people burned out and run off the land, and it's not as far fetched as it sounds.

Toni Lavis On Friday November 16th you posted Quote.

"Why does the Daily Mail bother printing this crap? And why do people accept it as gospel when it's obvious bollocks?"

In response to a media report that said "Nauru's President Baron Waqa told The Australian that life on Nauru is much cheaper, allowing refugees holidays to Fiji, healthcare, free housing and jobs."

I replied to you with this response. "If it is a lie I guarantee it will quickly be called out in the media, or by the refugee advocates if they do you are right, if they do not it is you who is talking crap.
To be reviewed in a few days to determine who is right."

It has now been 3 days and not one article or media release calling out the article as being false or misleading, so it is evident it is you who are wrong.

What do you have to say now

UN policy firebreaks:
Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
. Areas under reforestation. Includes: areas with bamboo and palms provided that height and canopy cover criteria are met; forest roads, firebreaks and other small open areas; forest in national parks

Better landscape management needed to prevent wildfires
.. different land uses should be combined to maintain mosaic features in the landscape with natural firebreaks.

Special attention should be paid to timing of certain agricultural activities e.g agricultural burning should take place before the dry season and before the surrounding landscapes turn fire-prone. Burning should also be avoided during the high winds and hottest time of the day.

The Terrible Truth About the UN Migration Compact
http://youtu.be/5WRszRZBfYw

Armchair Critic - A good link, I recommend listening to it, it explains each point step by step and the implications.

Remember the Government we have now saying NO may not be the Government anytime in the future.

"Scott Morrison has flagged cutting migration".
No he's wrong , the UN governs Australia which has leftie ABC Q&A reality TV but no legal powers of any type whatsoever. Soros owns UN and will give your house to 3 families from Bangladesh.

Always interesting Armchair Critic

More truths of the cost of refugees is coming out in Sweden.

While tens of thousands of elderly Swedes are homeless, and over 300,000 pensioners are starving, the Swedish government spent €1000 a day on rent per migrant.

In 2015, Stockholm hosted a number of “unaccompanied refugee children”. Entrepreneurs requested up to €1000 in rent per migrant from the city, which did not protest, but with taxpayers’ money paid the price requested.

“Not a single child in Stockholm shall be homeless”, said Åsa Lindhagen, head of social services in Stockholm at the time.

“We shall not have any children living on the street, and when lots of children come here, our absolute top priority will be to ensure that they have a roof over their heads.”

Later medical age tests have shown that most of these “children” were in fact adults, who also lacked valid asylum reasons.

However, an amnesty law was recently approved in Parliament, which gives these men the right to stay in Sweden, despite earlier refusals, to attend a secondary education at the taxpayers’ expense.

€1000 per day per “unaccompanied minor” corresponds to a monthly rent of €30,000. For the whole country, the cost of the “unaccompanied minors” was €2.6 billion during 2015, which is almost as much as the annual cost for the police and the judiciary.

One night at the 5-star Grand Hotel costs from €200. Hostels in central Stockholm cost from €20 per night.

http://nyheteridag.se/betalade-10-000-kronor-per-dygn-for-ensamkommandes-boende/

Article is in Swedish translation is above.

If given the chance Australians might call for any future migration/refugee in take to be more elective
If told, just how many from at least the refugee numbers are still on social security, and how long they have been, they may call for closed borders
Industrie groups however will never do that.
In pursuit of that mad thing, constant growth, they think intake fuels growth
We may well be unhappy with the UN if not we should be millions are facing death by starvation, it should be able to fix that.
Left right or center people world wide fear the UN has an agenda they will not tell us,I do not trust them and think we are want it or not, being pushed toward one world
Helping overpopulated countries by becoming overpopulated our selves is no answer

Apparently Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau might sign it.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13349/canada-government-media

Scratch Canada from my holiday list.

For police to publish photos of teens they must be of great concern.

http://www.vicpolicenews.com.au/news/teens-wanted-following-wyndham-vale-home-invasion

Police are appealing for public assistance to locate three teenagers following an aggravated home invasion in Wyndham Vale earlier this month.

Investigators are still actively seeking the whereabouts of 17-year-old Deng Kuol, 16-year-old Bafal Gatluak and 16-year-old Mading Nyolic.

Detectives are appealing for the three teens to come forward to assist with enquiries in relation to the aggravated home invasion.

The teens are known to frequent the Collingwood, Sunshine and Werribee areas.

If you know the whereabouts of the three teens please call Triple Zero (000), contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or submit a confidential report at www.crimestoppersvic.com.au.

Media Unit

Apparently it is in MSM they are the violent criminals. Candidates for deportation.

http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/police-hope-naming-the-teens-wanted-over-a-home-invasion-will-help-catch-them/news-story/4085b815e003bacd5880c51ac7c9767c

Police hope naming the teens wanted over a home invasion will help catch them

Police have taken the unusual step of naming and releasing photographs of three teenagers they want over a home invasion in Melbourne.

Victorian police have taken the unusual step of naming and releasing photographs of three juveniles they want over a home invasion in Melbourne.

Investigators made applications in court to enable them to identify Bafal Gatluak and Mading Nyolic, both 16, and 17-year-old Deng Kuol, who are wanted over an attack at a Wyndham Vale home on November 17.

Detective Acting Inspector Brett Kahan told reporters the decision to publicly identify the teenagers was something they did not take lightly but deemed necessary.

“I think this an important step in respect to bringing these youths who are committing quite hard crimes into custody,” he said on Tuesday.

“They know they are wanted by police and they are actively avoiding police and we really believe this step will assist us in bringing them into custody quite quickly.”

Det Insp Kahan said police believed the three were still together and known to hang around the Collingwood and Sunshine areas.

He urged the public not to approach them and contact police if they spotted them.

Two other teenagers have been charged over a home invasion by a gang of youths, described as being of African appearance, in Melbourne’s west. Police say five offenders forced entry to a Wyndham Vale home just before 6am on Saturday November 17, armed with weapons and stole a car.

The occupants of the home, an 80-year-old man, a 66-year-old woman and 27-year- old woman, were not physically injured.

Scratch England from holiday trip.

Britain WILL SIGN United Nations proposal to make immigration human right
BRITAIN will sign a controversial new legislation proposal put forward by the United Nations (UN) which could see people who criticise EU migration policies jailed and makes immigration a universal human right.

International Development Minister Alistair Burt said the UK “is supportive” of the UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration document which is the subject of a major UK meeting next week. MEP Marcel de Graaff announced today: “It is declaring migration as a human right so it will, in effect, become impossible to criticise Mrs Merkel’s welcome migrants politics without being at risk of being jailed for hate speech.” But it has been pointed out that accepting the principles could technically see EU citizens in court for criticising migration between EU member states. Mr Burt said: “The UK Government is supportive of the UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, both as a step forward in international co-operation to tackle irregular migration and as a framework to help us deliver our commitments under the sustainable development goals.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1053064/United-nations-Global-Compact-for-Safe-Orderly-and-Regular-Migration-Alistair-Burt-italy

Lot of EU countries don't like it.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1053577/migration-law-rejected-european-union-united-nations-new-policies-human-rights

EU countries mass BOYCOTT of UN meeting making MIGRATION a HUMAN RIGHT
A NEW United Nations initiative to class migration as a HUMAN RIGHT is being boycotted by European Union (EU) member states, including Italy, France and Austria, who have all rejected the proposals in favour of tougher border controls.

This week’s unveiling of UN proposals for universal migrant rights is being treated with such suspicion that only Britain, Holland and Denmark have signed up unreservedly. The so-called UN Global Compact for Migration aims to set out universal rights and conditions for migrants – but one Member of the European Parliament has pointed out that of adopted then even the criticising of the very concept of migration would be considered a hate crime. Italy, a nation tacking a huge migrant influx, was furious about the new ‘meddling’ legislation and refused to attend the meeting in Marrakech on December 10 and 11.

Now other EU nation states have joined the backlash saying migration is an issue for national governments not the UN.

The UN’s Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration was provisionally approved by UN members in July.

President Donald Trump, who has maintained a hardline response to immigration in the US. Was not a fan.

The UK, Netherlands and Denmark have all said they are supportive of the pact, which was announced by MEP Marcus de Graff.

But the compact has since been rejected by UN states such as Austria, Poland, Israel, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Australia, Slovakia and Hungary.

Posted by Belly, Sunday, 25 November 2018 4:20:12 AM- Helping overpopulated countries by becoming overpopulated our selves is no answer

Answer- I agree.

Phillip S- Very concerning that the UK isn't doing anything about the problem. This could be related to internal problems. It's a relief probably temporary that so many nations are standing up to the UN. With people such as George Soros, Jeff Bezos, Clintons, behind similar policies this isn't the end of the story.

Italy has woken up to economic invaders and criminals.

Italy Adopts Hardline Immigration Law

Under the new law, the Italian government will only grant asylum to legitimate refugees of war or victims of political persecution. Asylum seekers may now lose their protection if they are convicted of crimes including: threat or violence to a public official; physical assault; female genital mutilation; and a variety of theft charges.

"I wonder if those who contest the security decree have even read it. I do not really understand what the problem is: it deports criminals and increases the fight against the mafia, racketeering and drugs." — Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior Matteo Salvini.

Italy will not sign the United Nations Global Compact for Migration, nor will Italian officials attend a conference in Marrakech, Morocco, on December 10 and 11 to adopt the agreement. The Global Compact not only aims to establish migration as a human right, but also to outlaw criticism of migration through hate crimes legislation.

The Italian Parliament has approved a tough new immigration and security law that will make it easier to deport migrants who commit crimes and strip those convicted of terrorism of their Italian citizenship.

Italy's lower house of parliament, the Camera dei Deputati, voted 396 to 99 on November 28 to approve the new law, which was sponsored by Interior Minister Matteo Salvini. The law had previously been approved by the Italian Senate on November 7. The measure was promulgated by President Sergio Mattarella on December 3.

Eases Revocation of Protection. Article 7 extends the list of crimes for which refugee status or subsidiary protection can be withdrawn. Asylum seekers may now lose their protection if they are convicted of crimes including: threats or violence to a public official; physical assault; female genital mutilation; and a variety of theft charges.

** I like this Australia should do it as some go back for holidays **

Furthermore, refugees who return to their country of origin, even temporarily, will lose international and subsidiary protection.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13392/italy-immigration-law

This article is about the rioting against taxes in France.

I would hate to see what will happen in France when the people find out Macron is going to sign the refugee convention.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6476125/Macron-Im-Sorry-TV-address-unveils-tax-cuts.html

Macron is to give 'I'm Sorry' TV address as he unveils more tax cuts after 'Day of Rage' violence in France saw 1,400 arrested, dozens injured and cars burnt out as 'Yellow vest' protests spread across Europe

Burned-out cars dotted the streets in several neighbourhoods in Paris on Sunday morning as cleaners swept up the broken glass from smashed shop windows and bus stops.

Throughout Saturday, Macron skulked behind the majestic walls of his presidential palace in Paris while outside, his city – and his country – once again erupted in fury.

Protesters smashed store windows and set fires around Paris and clashed with police, who fired tear gas throughout the day in the French capital.

The country is bracing for yet more protests after Saturday's 'yellow vest' demonstrations and rioting saw 1,000 people arrested and at least 71 injured in the capital.

Across the entire country, some 1,220 people were taken into custody, the Interior Ministry said Sunday - a roundup the scale of which the country hasn't seen in years.

On Sunday, the highly influential Parisien newspaper reported that 'after eight days of silence, the head of state' has told supporters 'he will speak on Monday night on television to respond to the angry French.'

He has already been pilloried for abandoning green taxes on diesel and petrol in response to the early rioting, but is set to cave in further.

'There are too many taxes, too many taxes, too much taxation in this country,' Macron told MPs in a private meeting on Friday, the Parisien reports.

Macron's 'mea culpa' included him admitting that he appeared too arrogant and out-of-touch, and he will address such concerns on a national TV channel.

He has already scrapped a planned fuel tax increase but the move has failed to end the 'yellow vest' protest movement, which demands lower taxes, higher minimum wages and better pension benefits.

Con't ** It is a long article plenty of photos so I recommend follow the link above ** I only picked out bits and pieces for here. **

France deployed some 89,000 police but still failed to deter the determined protesters. Some 125,000 yellow vests took to the streets Saturday around France with a bevy of sometimes contradictory or incoherent demands related to high living costs and a sense that Macron favours the elite and is trying to modernise the French economy too fast.

French police frisked protesters at train stations around the country, confiscating everything from heavy metal petanque balls to tennis rackets - anything that could remotely be used as a weapon.

Weapons used by the thugs included Molotov Cocktails, gas cannisters, flash ball guns, baseball bats, and petanque balls used as missiles.

Most tourist attractions were shut, including the Eiffel Tower and Arc de Triomphe, which was ransacked during riots a week ago.

Gendarmes were supported by 12 gendarmerie Berliet VXB-170 armoured cars, complete with 7.62mm machine guns and a 56mm Alsetex Cougar grenade launchers.

A total of 106 out of 109 squads of gendarmes mobilised across France, along with other paramilitaries groups such as the Republican Security Companies (CRS).

The current spate of Paris violence is considered the worst since the Spring of 1968, when President Charles de Gaulle's government feared a full-blown revolution.

The independent Macron, leader of the Republic On The Move party, won the French presidential election in a landslide in 2017, but he is now dubbed the 'President of the Rich' with polls showing his popularity rating down to just 18 per cent.

UN members adopt global migration pact.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/12/members-adopt-global-migration-pact-181210092353957.html

Leaders from 164 countries agree UN migration accord spurned by the United States and several other countries.

Marrakech, Morocco - Leaders from 164 countries have agreed to a global pact that sets in action a plan "to prevent suffering and chaos" for global migration despite opposition and several withdrawals, including from the United States.

The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) was agreed upon on Monday at an intergovernmental conference in Marrakech, Morocco.

A non-binding agreement, the GCM aims to better manage migration at local, national, regional and global levels, including reducing the risks and vulnerabilities the migrants or refugees face at different stages of their journey.

"Migration is a natural phenomenon," German Chancellor Angela Merkel said. "It happens all the time all over the world. If it happens legally, it’s a good thing."

The pact had been approved in July by all 193 member nations except the US, which backed out last year.

In addition, Australia, Austria, Latvia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Chile, Dominican Republic, Poland and Slovakia refused to attend the summit and sign the accord.

Meanwhile, Bulgaria, Estonia, Italy, Israel, Slovenia and Switzerland are still undecided on whether to agree to the new pact.

Other nations led by German Chancellor Angela Merkel are in Morocco to endorse the deal and the UN, and rights organisations, remain upbeat that it can help the world better cope with the issue.