Posted on 09/09/2015 6:41:47 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
Virtues of "global" citizenship
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon insisted, in a statement released on September 8th, that European nations open their doors to the many thousands of Middle Easterners and North Africans said to be “fleeing war and violence, who have a right to seek asylum without any form of discrimination.” The statement said that he had called the leaders of Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia to emphasize “the individual and collective responsibility of European states to respond responsibly and humanely” to the migration crisis.
Notably, there was nothing in the Secretary General’s statement calling for the wealthy Gulf State countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, to welcome the refugees fleeing Syria and Iraq, for example, to their countries.
Peter Sutherland, the UN Special Representative for International Migration, spoke to the press in Geneva on September 8th, reinforcing the Secretary General’s message. Elaborating on the theme of non-discrimination in handling requests for asylum, he specifically rejected religion as a criterion for determining refugee status.
Ban Ki Moon how many is South Korea taking in refuges? <p. That is your home country, Right Moon?
The UN is a joke. A paper tiger. A bunch of clowns. The only country that wets its pant when the UN speaks is the U.S.
> “who have a right to seek asylum without any form of discrimination.”
No they don’t. No country has an obligation to acceot refugees. They can either choose to or not because its people ultimately bear the responsibility of taking care of them. Sounds like he’s in on the caliphate scheme. He has to know those swarms are loaded with Muslim soldiers and infiltrators.
This is a Muslim invasion under the cover of “refugees”. Turn them back.
How many is South Korea taking in refuges?
The following response is taken verbatim from a post by “Manatthepub,” at the Gates of Vienna website: http://gatesofvienna.net/2015/09/the-new-migration-period/ I concur with it in its entirety, though I admit being somewhat ignorant of what Tony Blair did (though, being a British version of Slick Willie, I imagine that manatthepub is correct).
I don’t get it.
The vast majority of the migrant-invaders curently imposing themselves on Europe are Muslims, and I am pretty sure that if questioned the vast majority of that vast majority would consider themselves fully committed to Islam, unashamedly.
Yet curiously, instead of heading in the direction of that which is closest to their hearts, ‘Muslims fleeing persecution’ almost always run in the direction of the ‘kuffar’, the ‘infidel’ – never towards Mecca and saudi Arabia.
Funny that, isn’t it?
If you were ‘fleeing persecution’, other things being equal, you’d flee towards that with which you were most familiar. Wouldn’t you? Yet when Muslims ‘flee persecution’ they invariably run Westward – even the most fervent of them. Never towards Mecca and Saudi Arabia.
How does one explain that?
In the context of ‘fleeing persecution’ it doesn’t make sense. Were I ‘fleeing persection’, other things being equal, I’d make for those closest to me.
And it doesn’t make sense because that’s not what’s happening. These people are invading the West not ‘fleeing persecution’ – if they were fleeing they’d flee towards Islam not away from it. They’re heading in our direction because they’ve been encouraged to do so by the West’s political, social, and media elite who in their determination to hang on to power come what may intend to use them as a weapon for the subjugation and ultimate destruction of Western peoples. The traitor Tony Blair admitted as much when he was British Prime Minister – he did all he could to encourage mass third world [immigration - Ancesthntr] so as to ‘rub the right’s noses in diversity’.
pg.3
...there already is an alternative ideology to liberal democracy within the West that for decades has been steadily, and almost imperceptibly, evolving.
Thus, it is entirely possible that modernity; thirty or forty years hence; will witness not the final triumph of liberal democracy, but a new challenge to it in the form of a new transnational hybrid regime that is post-liberal democratic, and in the context of the American republic, post-Constitutional and post-American. I will call this alternative ideology “transnational progressivism.” This ideology constitutes a universal and modern worldview that challenges in theory and practice both the liberal democratic nation-state in general and the American regime in particular.
http://denbeste.nu/external/idealogical_war.pdf
h/t FReeper, Despot of the Delta
Here is the FR thread on this from 2002
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/805656/posts?page=1
MUCH appreciated. BUMP!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.