Immigration Red Flags, Article 13, & Petitions To Sign & Share.

Please don’t forget about Article 13! Watch the video at the end of this entry!!!

Lately I’ve been mentally drafting an entry about citizenship in an open world. There are so many contradicting laws that makes no sense especially in combination with facilitated mass movements of people. It is indeed a very interesting topic for many reasons:

  1. Just because a government is generous enough to give you legal permission to be in a territory doesn’t mean that the locals will.
  2. Assuming that immigration laws make sense is naive since a number of measures are carried out in an attempt to create an image of governmental efficiency.
  3. Assuming that a territory will be more welcoming towards geographical neighbours also fly in the face of incredibly generous offers directed towards non-bordering territories. A territory might be legally more hostile towards people next door.

Just when I had all of this in the back of my mind I came across The Windrush Scandal that perfectly illustrates my point:

  1. You are allowed entry into a territory that theoretically isn’t yours through claims of ancestry.
  2. You are told by governing forces that you are legally allowed to stay.
  3. All of a sudden you find that your status has been revoked several years even decades after you were welcomed into the territory and that you are all of a sudden being treated as an illegal immigrant.
  4. The digital revolution has wrecked havoc on the old system of file-keeping. So if you were born before 2000 you might struggle to get hold of school records and other “evidence,” because you were born before mainstream digitalisation. When I was little my name was just added in my parent’s passports, you had to have your own passport once you were a teen or something along those lines, so government bureaucracy and technological changes can easily land you in a grey area.

Did anyone say an open world? Think again. This is a topic worthy of a giga entry because the issue puts into question a myriad of things that we just assume in today’s digitally and commercially open world.

Once again:

  1. Just because a piece of paper grants you legal access doesn’t mean that you and your family will actually be safe – because there will always be many layers of “borders” – and if locals are pissed off and unhappy they might create their own border-control “service,” which you probably do not want to deal with, ever.
  2. An authority might change its mind about you or the ethnic demographic that you belong to regardless of whether or not you actually represent a threat as an individual or as part of a generalised group. You might just end up being targeted so that the government can look busy.

If the Windrush scandal illustrated anything it is how dangerous the illusion of an open world actually is. You might be safe in terms of residency for 40 years only to wake up one day to find out that you’ve been labeled an “illegal immigrant” and that you are on your way to a detention facility.

Here are some petitions to share about a more peaceful issue: the environment.

Fracking

Whaling

Plastic Pollution

Exotic Zoo Animals

Trophy Hunting

Detained Whales

Dog Fighting

 

 

 

Globalism vs. Localism & The Rise of Nationalism.

A clear advantage that you’ll have if you’ve been raised internationally is that it gives you the ability to compare different population groups and Nation State Systems.

If there is one thing that is clear to me whenever I look at old entries that I’ve written it is that the challenges faced all over the Western world are largely the same.

When a music publication criticises the current U.S. President in the U.S.A. the Italian counterpart uses the same tone and style towards the current Italian leadership.

When there is a movement to remove statues of historical characters in the U.S.A. you see the same unfolding in the U.K.

When a Norwegian ad is deemed racist in Norway since it features Norwegians and a Norwegian flag you see the same type of activism other places in Europe.

What is interesting though is that the backlash to globalism is localised Nationalism from groups who don’t necessarily seem to realise that we all find ourselves in the same boat…

Nationalism is bad when it is expansionist, when a sense of superiority dictates to such an extent that it justifies waging war and invading everybody else. Take this attitude and couple it with redistribution of wealth and you have a true horror-show next door since said group will have to expand in order to find more loot to “redistribute.“

Nationalism that is non-expansionist though ensures the survival of your Nation, especially if you are non-isolationist and keep your “friends“ close.

France for the French, Italy for the Italians, Norway for the Norwegians and England for the English has become the slogan that a lot of people hold on to these days ignorant of the fact that “the elite“ always intermarried and travelled around Europe as they wished…

Rules do not apply to the super rich. One of their privileges is freedom of movement. This is a privilege extended to those who work for them or those fortunate enough to work for corporations with an international reach.

The major bulk of whatever population group though remains stuck. No movement for them!

If the E.U. did something positive it was to enable liberty of movement to everyone, this was probably done to benefit businesses  but what it meant in practise was that more people had the liberty to pack their bags and simply exit.

This resulted in retired Norwegians moving to Spain where they could get more for their money, lots of Italians moving North to get access to jobs and people from Poland going Westwards all in the name of “pursuit of happiness.“

Of course this started to bother the managers of Nation State systems at a certain point, resulting in legal changes intended towards those who dared to leave.

Benefit recipients in Norway realised that they could have a pool, great food and cheap liquor if they went South!

Norwegians with substantial salaries in Norway realised that they could rent or buy villas if they took their Norwegian oil money with them anywhere else in Europe.

If you are well-off or rich up North there is no end to how you can live down South and as more and more people realised this I imagine that more and more bureaucrats were having nightmares and premature seizures.

All of this liberty resulted in non-elites owning properties all over Europe, moving around the continent on a whim while poor people could actually enjoy themselves and not just struggle.

So far so good? Well, apparently not. Because even though the scenario above might seem like a dream come true to anyone who actually believes in liberty the EU (and the UN) decided for some strange reason to invite everyone else into the European Utopia…

Freedom of movement also meant that if you could get across any border into Europe it would give you access to the entire continent. All of a sudden there were hordes of people doing anything and everything to get to Elysium; the source of all of their aid money, the Utopia in the distance.

Which of course can make one wonder if it was the majority who wanted colonialists out of their territories or whether or not this was the wish of specific elites eager to dominate their own territory?

How do you explain fighting for your independence when the result is mass flight Northwards only some years later?

It goes without saying that Europe cannot hold all of the world since Europe is a relatively small continent compared to other territories and when all of a sudden you end up having security threats all around your territory then how can anyone expect civilians to be quiet?

I think the reason for the current rise in Nationalism in Europe can be blamed on this.

For some weird reason though it is a Nationalism that is localised rather than a continental one, which means ignoring the fact that no European Nation stands alone in the challenges that they are facing and that the E.U. does not equal Europe.

This type of Nationalism rejects everything and anything reverting back to how things used to be when only the elite and the ridiculously wealthy could enjoy certain privileges.

It sounds like a political movement that is simply fed up. It also means that it doesn’t seem capable of actually dealing with the root of the problem which seems to be  international non-State organisations….

What you end up having are atomised Nations convinced that their situation is a uniquely unfortunate one, completely convinced that their situation is particularly bad and than the solution to their problems is: them alone, first, in front of everyone else, rather than a network of Nations facing challenges together.

Because this is the reaction observed all over the Western world I’m not quite sure how things will play out. The challenges are not unique, they are largely the same and if you were raised in an international fashion there is no way that you cannot see that.

What will the future bring? I have no idea but it will probably be bumpy for everyone.

 

 

An Open Letter to Liberals and Centrists — evolutionistx

I highly recommend reading this very interesting article about voting patterns and demographics! It is not too long and it is well-written. Check it out!

Welcome. Come in, take a seat. Would you like some tea? Don’t worry, we aren’t even evil–though you might not want to tell your friends you’ve been here. They might not understand. In light of the recent election craziness, it’s time for a serious discussion. First, some basic facts: Here’s some poll data on the […]

via An Open Letter to Liberals and Centrists — evolutionistx

The Heated Topic Of Immigration Wordlwide & What Sovereignty Actually Means.

There is a proposal on the table that apparently will be voted on and discussed later this month, concerning making it illegal to be a critic of mass-migration, and I guess its effects, which are notable (historically speaking). This is to be done in order to initialize and/or continue with mass migration into Europe without any criticism. I wonder if this makes it illegal to review and talk about History books and/or whether or not it will also make it illegal to write that Norway was converted by the sword, which was the case, only that it was the sword of Christianity. History gives us the key to who we are and what sort of challenges we might face as nations/individuals and how to tackle these …  Here is the video:

http://www.investmentwatchblog.com/criticism-of-immigration-will-be-banned-in-europe/

Ok … now over to what I was actually going to write about:

I was quite surprised when I read an article a while back about anti-immigration riots in South Africa. It was of interest since it depicted Africans demonstrating against other Africans entering into their territory. I linked to the article here on my site and here I’ve found a video about anti-immigration sentiments in Israel.

Once again it illustrates how we all tackle a lot of the same issues regardless of where we live. With our current technology it makes it increasingly easier to compare cultures and how different population groups react to the same challenges.

What is of particular interest in the video is how the two Israeli women start shouting at one another since they disagree about whether or not they should take in the migrants.

Attitudes and behaviours that Westerners seem to regard as outdated are well and alive in other parts of the world, which you quickly realise when reading about the persecution of Christians.

Enforcing certain values and a clear identity will not happened quietly as anything that falls on the outside of the spectrum has to be removed or silenced. This paints a brutal picture that feels foreign in today’s “liberated” Western world of “Thou What Thou Wilt.” It makes sense to say that “when you go to Rome you do as the Romans” and unless you do have an unhealthy fixation on, let’s say, Islam; it makes sense to say that if you live in a Muslim majority country, then once again “you do as the Romans.”

You are a guest; which is why you’ll have to pay your respects or re-locate.

When observing how “respecting other’s sovereignty” plays out in practise though it actually means that you quietly stand by as genuine minorities (such as LGBTQ characters in Russia) are treated poorly, while political dissenters are sent into camps  (China), while it also means silently supporting terrifying human-rights violations (Saudi Arabia) all in the name of respecting “sovereignty” and a claim to practise ones “identity.”

Even in Western societies that are officially trying to be “bring-your-own-beer-countries”; they do want to enforce something, which is a normless society. This means that if you actually do stand for what has traditionally been the identity of your territory, well then you must be a bad-guy. Having “no-identity” becomes the identity, in this strange, awkward case. There is no culture, there is no heritage, there is no history, there is no nothing. Only a territory that you define upon your arrival. 

Even though I’ve been writing about how important it is to respect a Nations sovereignty and identity, I have to admit that in this I’ve failed on a small-scale by sending words of comfort out to persecuted Christians who in some cases are breaking the rules of the territory that they find themselves in by possessing a Bible and/or being open about their beliefs.

I’m also failing at “bringing my own beer” into identity-less Western territories as I’ve always integrated. This though becomes an issue if you live in a territory where “a deconstruction” is taking place. It means that you are aligned with the old (what the territory used to be) rather than the new (what the territory is becoming).

This might then oddly enough transform you into a dissenter by you successfully integrating into an established identity that is being killed on purpose by whatever establishment…..

Another example of sovereignty violation is this: if environmental pollutants are to be fought against effectively it also means being “rude,” since boots on the ground will be necessary in Africa and Asia to crack down on the worst “climate-offenders;” so there goes your peace and respect for sovereignty!

I wonder sometimes if  outspoken celebrities and spokespeople truly understand the natural conclusion of what they are stating and supporting….If you are an actual eco-warrior, well then you can’t respect anyone’s Sovereignty!

Pollution is really and truly a global problem, and we in the West are not the worst offenders.

I’m mentioning this to showcase how difficult  it can be to have certain stated principles, only to realise that things might not be as easy as previously thought…

It might also be worth mentioning that global corporations can in some ways operate like “one world governments” for the simple reason that they are their own thing completely and are everywhere, regardless of Nation or Continent.

Their influence is greater than anything else I’m sure.

National Sovereignty is consistently disrespected by world leaders who initiate sanctions and/or declare war against the leadership of other Nations, who they deem unfit to rule. Hence, no respect for sovereignty, nor the enforcement of National Identity.

The reason for this is probably due to how painful it actually is to witness Nation-State enforcement of territorial identity and also (in most cases I’m guessing) how unprofitable it is if Nation States break away from unions where so-and-so is/are the decision maker/s and/or big player/s.

Back to the migration issue; people are protective of their environment because they don’t want to lose out on their resources, which is one of the reasons as to why people have trough the ages “fortified their positions.” Something that is illegal in today’s Western Europe, unless you are a member of the establishment…..

Previous enforcement of ones right to be in a territory is also why we have distinct population groups, because group such and such was not erased by being absorbed into someone else’s “thing.” Hence in order to have a Nation and secure the continuation of said Nation you actually have to exclude, which a lot of people instinctively do; but this is never going to look pretty, especially not on a large-scale, which is what I’m talking about in this entry.

This of course makes an “open world” scary since it is a dangerous illusion; nobody is really interested in being squeezed out, not even those who are initially “open and inclusive,” when all of a sudden they wake up to find out that they have become a minority and that their claim to whatever territory and influence is null and void.

Their definition of their territory that they once upon a time wanted to generously share with others, have slipped and doesn’t include them any more. They simply lost it.

(It might be an idea to note that citizenship also becomes bizarre in “an open world” since citizenship is merely a piece of paper in this case. You territory belongs to everyone, and anyone can be of your territory. The same can be said of legislation tackling digital abuse and scams online. What you get is digital-global-anarchy since a criminal operation from one Nation abusing the member of another cannot really be prosecuted. Which governing body is supposed to police human interactions over the global internet?)

There are those who clearly do not see the arrivals of large hordes of other population groups as problematic. This is precisely why the arguing becomes so ugly, because those who end up being exposed to these transformations have a tendency of being very loud and extremely upset when their home-areas change suddenly. Especially if trust breaks down and inter-racial and/or inter-ethnic violence (the targeting of those who are not part of your in-group) becomes a thing.

The same can be noted now with anti-immigration sentiments here on the continent, that would appear to be reserved for Africans and Arabs primarily, but are also extended to other European Nationalities as well, in addition to heated arguments between individuals who look just the same (due to being members of the same Nation), because of disagreements over whether or not EurAbia or EurAfrica ought to be forcefully created, regardless of the human cost in the process.

I think it can be argued with certainty that trying to unite Europeans was a challenge great enough, just like trying to unite Africa is a monumental challenge due to inter-Racial diversity.

Now it can be witnessed that it is all falling apart here in “Europe,” since it was simply “too much, too quickly, too soon.” Rather than admitting that this has all been a spectacular political failure (unless you want chaos) the political establishment in Brussels appear hellbent on forcing their vision on everyone else, regardless of whether or not people actually want this in great numbers…

Things are already getting ugly since the survival of one “ideological vision” in this case, means the destruction of the other.

The good news is: that this is how humans behave, regardless of where they might be….

Here is one case of internal dissent in Germany and a proposed solution by a French academic:

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201811101069694506-german-military-plot-spoiled/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/01/the-german-military-has-a-neo-nazi-problem-extremism-right-wing-terrorism/

http://freewestmedia.com/2017/11/18/french-academic-proposes-muslim-apartheid-state-in-france/