Regionalization and the Erasing of Borders

Behind the endless throngs of desperate Central American children arriving on the U.S. border and a steady wave of illegal immigrants from Mexico and beyond is a covert plan for global economic warfare — those building up the world of globalization are tearing down the sovereignty and financial strength of the United States and Europe to make way for the coming corporate new world order.

A generation of sending American jobs offshore under NAFTA, GATT and the WTO, dumping cheap corn on Mexico thereby destroying millions of farming jobs and unleashing disruptive retailers like Wal-Mart upon the fragile economies of Latin America have created turmoil, uncertainty and rivers of human migration… and along with it bitter tension and discord over the dynamics of immigration, illegal immigration and the struggle for a lasting standard of living under the New World Order. [source]

Clearly staged US/NATO/Israeli sponsored terrorism and genocide are at work in the middle east, driving desperate people to seek asylum elsewhere, as the US mandates inviting in as many as possible over its southern border. And all in concert.

While besieged countries of course seek refuge from their economically and militarily bombarded societies, the western nations perpetrating these attacks are on one hand publicly appalled at their “invasion” and desire to flee their devastated homelands, while on the other, encouraging this very phenomenon to occur.

Your typical Freemasonic playing of both sides of the chess game. That’s simply how they work, and always have. Unwitting people are then caught up in a cognitive dissonant state of choosing either false side, which shuts down mental rationality and intuitive understanding. In most – but not all.₂

United Nations globalist fat cat Peter Sutherland, non-executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs and former BP CEO, top Bilderberger and Trilateral Commission honcho, has come right out and stated their plan as plainly and arrogantly as possible. Speaking to the British House of Lords, according to a BBC report, said that the EU should “do its best to undermine” the “homogeneity” of its member states, because “the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.” He also, according to the Beeb, suggested “the UK government’s immigration policy had no basis in international law.” (Kind of a novel interpretation of the authority of international law over a state’s control of its borders, but that wasn’t the worst of it.) [source]

He told the House of Lords committee migration was a “crucial dynamic for economic growth” in some EU nations “however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states”.  Yes, it’ll be very difficult to explain to Sweden who’s seen its unemployment rate rise from one of Europe’s lowest to one of their highest – with migrants more than 5.5 times higher than that of native Swedes. 90 Per Cent Of Asylum Seekers In Austria End Up On Welfare and 60% of the 50 million Muslims in Europe are living off welfare Taxes – Sheik Khalid Yasin.

It’s not just that the internationalist vision is generally just a cover for statist politicians who crave the power importing co-ideologists would bring and for money-hungry multinational corporations desiring cheap labor and laissez-faire trade policy. No, the first clue lies in how even the most devoted globalist activists don’t apply to their own personal homes the policies they’d visit upon their national one.

They don’t regularly leave their back doors ajar and grant unvetted or poorly vetted individuals often unmonitored access to their residences, and they wouldn’t invite unassimilable, disruptive “guests” to stay permanently; in fact, the rich, powerful immigrationists don’t even move the migrants they defend with words into their own neighborhoods. As with most moral preeners, it’s easy for them to be idealistic because they don’t have to live with their ideals.

Yet while mere failure to live up to a belief can be a clue, it alone tells you nothing about the belief or the believers; you first have to know if the belief can be, and is worth being, lived up to. And as to the internationalist vision, two simple truths are relevant here:

1. Everyone is a human being, a child of God, and should be treated with love and respect
2. Most people in the world don’t behave as if this is the case.

The second truth explains the internationalist vision’s unworkability. It would be nice living in a sin-free world. People could come and go as they please, in your home, country, airports, and elsewhere, as no one would take what’s not his, invade privacy, harm others, or cause trouble of any kind. But that’s Heaven.

On Earth we have nations with borders and immigration laws for the same reason we have individual homes with walls and locked doors and restricted access. We generally give our immediate family — including children above a certain age — unrestricted access because we assume they have the family’s best interests at heart. (There are exceptions to this, of course, such as a problem child whose behavior requires you to lock the liquor cabinet or, in worst case scenarios, even deport him [kick him out].)

Outsiders aren’t afforded the same access not because they’re necessarily worse people, but because they don’t have the emotional attachment to the family. People are emotional beings whose behavior is governed by reason less than we might like to think.

Likewise, we have nations — which, strictly speaking, are extensions of the tribe, which itself is an extension of the family — because other people’s tribal emotions ensure that if you don’t look out for your land, no one else will. Related to this, a country can’t work unless its citizens generally love it enough to have its best interests at heart. And the more it absorbs perhaps unassimilable people who don’t, whose hearts lie elsewhere, the more imperiled it is.

I should emphasize that a sincere altruistic/internationalist motive is likely rare among politicians, who generally are power seekers. But it is too common among modern Westerners, who help empower the power seekers. It was just expressed, in fact, under my Saturday article by a commenter who wrote, “It is time to note that there is a single world here and all of our borders are strictly political and make little sense for humans on an individual level.”

Try telling that to the individual Americans raped, hurt, or killed by illegal aliens — or to individual Tibetans whose borders are now overrun by hordes of individual Han Chinese.₃