Monday, December 10, 2018

A Compact of Tyranny

For those who wish to nod off reading it – warning: it is in verbose, generalized, non-specific UN-ese – here is the text of the Global Compact.
In the Grip of the Global Compact

The so-called Principals of the Compact can be read in part here:

The pact is not legally binding but can provide very useful guidance for countries facing migration, she told a news conference.

“Many challenges will stand in the way of its implementation, not least the toxic and ill-informed narrative that too often persists when it comes to migrants…”

While the GCM is ostensibly “non-binding,” active signatories will be able to take slackers and non-signatories to the political woodshed. Signatories include companies as well as states. There are 12,000+ signatories in over 160 countries, both developed and developing, representing nearly every sector and size.

World Watch reported on December 10th:
In early October, the United Nations “de-listed” 335 companies from the UN Global Compact, a voluntary business initiative that brings together companies in support of universal environmental and social principles. The signatories’ removal from the list of participants indicates their failure to submit the required “Communication on Progress” (COP), an annual summary of actions taken toward meeting the Compact’s goals that is shared publicly with stakeholders and used to “safeguard the integrity of the initiative.” Any company that does not submit a COP for two consecutive years is labeled as “inactive” on the UN Global Compact website.

Among the companies listed as inactive as of early November were Air India, China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation, Ernst & Young-Brazil, Moscow City Telephone Network, and NH Hotels of Spain. An inactive label does not necessarily mean that a company is not implementing the Compact’s 10 principles in the areas of human rights, labor, the environment, and anti-corruption. However, being an active participant indicates the company’s commitment to the initiative and offers derivative benefits such as the ability to use the Global Compact name and logo. Participating companies may also see improved access to markets and capital, proactive risk management, reputational gains, improved stakeholder relations, and better employee morale and retention.

By de-listing companies, the Global Compact is demonstrating its credibility and interest in upholding its standards of corporate responsibility, says Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, chair of the Foundation for the Global Compact. “While the Global Compact is a purely voluntary initiative, it is important to protect the investment that seriously committed companies and other stakeholders have made,” he notes. “It is crucial that companies take seriously their commitment and demonstrate performance.” To regain their “active” status, de-listed companies are simply required to submit the missing COP.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who conceived the Global Compact in 1999 as a way to make global markets more sustainable and inclusive, endorsed the de-listing process, asserting that “success is only possible when business can operate in ways that benefit economies, societies, and people everywhere.” Annan challenged the business and academic communities to “sustain the momentum of the corporate responsibility movement” through responsible practices and universal principles. Since its official launch in July 2000, the Global Compact has grown to some 3,000 participants, including more than 2,500 businesses in 90 countries worldwide.

The U.S. pulled out of the Paris Agreement, and has eschewed any and all climate change agreements or compacts, as “hot air.” and so will not participate in the Marrakesh party.   

Wikipedia notes:

The Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) is a intergovernmentally negotiated agreement, prepared under the auspices of the United Nations, that covers "all dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner".

At the Intergovermental Conference to Adopt the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, which was held from 10–11 December 2018, 164 nations met under the auspices of the United Nations General Assembly at Marrakesh, Morocco, in order to formally agree upon the Compact.  As the Compact is not an international treaty, and it will be non-binding under international law. However, as with similar United Nations agreements, it will formally be a politically binding commitment.

To sign the “GCM” is to agree to censor any and all criticism of the invading “cultures.”  Criticism would of course include especially anything that “defames” or tells the truth about Islam.  It is understood that the GCM is about “migrating” to advanced Western nations, and especially those that are welfare states. “Objective” 9 stresses that migrants be guaranteed welfare benefits:

…ensure migrants have access to public or affordable independent legal assistance and representation in legal proceedings that affect them, including during any related judicial or administrative hearing, in order to safeguard that all migrants, everywhere, are recognized as persons before the law and that the delivery of justice is impartial and non-discriminatory….
And that such benefits are “portable” or transferrable from country to country. “Objective” 22 states:

…integrate provisions on the portability of entitlements and earned benefits into national social security frameworks, designate focal points in countries of origin, transit and destination that facilitate portability requests from migrants, address the difficulties women and older persons can face in accessing social protection, and establish dedicated instruments, such as migrant welfare funds in countries of origin that support migrant workers and their families….

As for the criticism of GCM and migrants, that is to be discouraged. “Objective” 16 states:

…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 …

Migrants must be “protected” from any and all forms of racism, xenophobia, and other negative hostility, which means criticisms of the migrants’ cultures and practices. “Objective” 17 states:

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. We further commit to promote an open and evidence-based public discourse on migration and migrants in partnership with all parts of society, that generates a more realistic, humane and constructive perception in this regard. 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.

Furthermore, signatories must:

…enact, implement or maintain legislation that penalizes hate crimes and aggravated hate crimes targeting migrants, and train law enforcement and other public officials to identify, prevent and respond to such crimes and other acts of violence that target migrants, as well as to provide medical, legal and psychosocial assistance for victims….

For example, Justin Trudeau has promised to subsidize the Canadian press to not say anything bad about the Compact or about the migrants: the Toronto Sun last month reported:

It calls upon governments to “promote independent, objective and quality reporting… 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.”

So much for a free press.

The UN wants governments to actively intervene in the media and pick and choose which journalists are worthy of promoting, based on a radical ideology and far-left worldview.

In short, you will be reported to the Thought Police, if you’ve not already been identified as a dissenter or an “Islamophobe” and taken to Room 101.

The UN is the “one world government” the Left has dismissed as a “conspiracy theory.”

Friday, December 07, 2018

No Platform for Dissenters

No internet platform for anyone or any organization that dissents from the mainstream verdict on anything. The Global Compact and the tech giants will naturally agree on that point.

Tim Cook, CEO of Apple said,

“And as we showed this year, we won’t give a platform to violent conspiracy theorists on the App Store. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do. We only have one message for those who seek to push hate, division, and violence: You have no place on our platforms. You have no home here.” [Applause. Brackets mine]

On December 3rd, 2018, Apple CEO Tim Cook announced that tech needs to take a moral stand against hate speech, in a move that sounded very much like a nouveau form of fundamentalism. Speaking to individuals and groups believed to push hate, division and violence, Cook said, “You have no place on our platforms. You have no home here.” 

While such intentions are noble, their application is subjective and deeply flawed. It’s a known fact that political conservatives are frequently blocked and banned from social media, often [having done] … little to nothing to trigger the exile while terror organizations and Islamist extremists continue to enjoy access to the very same platforms.

As reported in part of Clarion Project’s Silicon Valley series, “Who Has the Widest Censorship Reach in Human History,” a combination of leaked memos, whistleblowers, demonstrated behavior and now open statements such as those made by Cook, shows that Silicon Valley has a draconian behavior modification agenda masked by Orwellian “double talk” language that can best be summarized with the mantra “censorship is peace” or better yet, “silence is peace.” 

The Apple CEO endorses censorship. Some of my readers castigate and insult me by claiming that Cook’s wussy rant against conservatives about the alleged “hate speech” that causes “division” and “violence,” is not censorship. So, for the good of all, dissent must be repressed; dissent meaning racism, white supremacy, discrimination, and conspiracy theories. It’s “hateful.” Censorship is “good,” or, rather, “goodthink” or “goodfeel.” Once hate has been suppressed, everyone will dance around a May Pole in a “low carbon” atmosphere.
Barack Obama said in 1995:

“In America, we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations,” Obama said.

So, if you’re for freedom of speech or for  freedom of property ownership, or if you’re suffering from some other form of ideological “derangement” as defined by the Left, you can get together with your Alinsky-ite pals to take collective action in a mob to fight against whatever “social justice” wrong you can concoct. You can “target” them for silencing.

Angela Merkle has not only fouled up Germany, but has stated that nations with borders must do away with them to allow the free invasion of their countries by “migrants.” Their sovereignty must be declared “obsolete.” And be seen as “patriotic.

Merkel argued that countries should be prepared to make concessions in an “orderly procedure”.

She said parliaments should make the decision to sign such contracts.
“Ceding power to a superstate is a better form of patriotism.”

Mrs Merkel said that countries who think “they can solve everything on their own” are simply nationalistic and not patriotic because they “only think about themselves.”

She said: “Either you are one of those who believe they can solve everything on their own and only have to think about themselves. That is nationalism in its purest form.”

“This is not patriotism. Because patriotism is if you include others in the German interest and accept win-win situations.”

The U.K. will sign the Global Compact in Marrakish later this month:

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.

Countless Muslims and other “migrants” settling in Germany comprise a “win-win” outcome?  Can we be certain that the soaring rape statistics, stabbings, and jihad by vehicle are making Germans put on smiles of approval and safety? Working Germans must support “migrants” welfare stipends and chuckle all the way to the bank?

Speaking of banks, Germany will abandon nuclear power completely by 2022. reports:

The decision to move away from nuclear energy is a done deal in Germany, where all nuclear power plants are intended to be offline by 2022. It's a political decision that will cost billions of euros, while the expansion of renewable energy is already pushing up electricity rates.

It also remains unclear exactly how much it will cost to dismantle the power plants after they've been mothballed. Experts are certain that the 34 billion euros set aside by plant operators for this purpose will not be enough to do the job.

And when power or gas prices go up, will Germans form their own “yellow jackets and” cause riots and violence, as the French have over the same reason?

Monday, December 03, 2018

Ventriloquism in the Global Compact

Here is more commentary as an adjunct to my last column, “The Blob and Fake News,”, about  the master plan of the UN for world governance, “The “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.”
Michael Redgrave in Dead of Night (1945)

Michele Blood at Lifezette, as so many others have, notes that Criticism of Migration Could Become a Criminal Offense, and under U.N.’s Global Pact there will be certain consequences:

But the agreement, if ratified, would actually threaten national sovereignty, criminalize anti-migration speech, thwart freedom of the press, and maybe even establish a problematic legal framework.

Among other things, governments are asked to “promote independent, objective and quality reporting … and [to stop] the allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants,” as the Express also noted.

The text of the Global Compact (GC) is here:

What the Lifezette quotation means is that if you are a journalist or just an individual expressing disapproval and disdain of your government’s immigration policies as defined by the UN, you can be punished, silenced, or otherwise whipped by the UN, or by your own government, if it signed the GC. Otherwise, if you abide by the GC’s rules, you will become, in effect, a ventriloquist’s dummy and be told what has been approved for you to know, as long as it’s something minor or trivial and of no consequence. If you observe that others have been silenced, you won’t care, because those others will have “asked for it,” and they ought to have known better than to break the rules.If Alex Jones or Lauren Southern or Robert Spencer or Stefan Molyneux have been duct taped, or financially broken by the tech giants, you shouldn’t care?

To quote from the GC:

The Global Compact requires the media outlets of member-states to adhere to the objectives and refrain from any critical discussions of these objectives that would be deemed as not “ethical” and against UN norms or standards consistent with the ideology of globalism.

That is, if you don’t become a mealy-mouthed shill or quivering parrot of the GC, you will be shut up and agree to be made “ethical.” You won’t mind having a closed mind, or a closed mouth. Not being able to speak your mind is something you won't miss, if you even had it. 

It will make no difference to you if you will sit alone and mutter to yourself, or sit on the UN’s lap and let the artist flap your gums with a string.

Freedom of Speech? Nah, you'll think. That's just swollen-headed, self-important talk by nobodies trying to sound profound and “deep.”  Me? Start a critical discussion, and offend some group or a religion? Don’t make me laugh. I'd never become xenophobic, or intolerant, or racist, or anything so nasty. My limit is my golf scores. I'll say anything that needs saying.