(Mauro Faverzani) There are those who want to make us believe that everything fantasies coming from the right, perhaps extreme, from Salvini and the usual sovereignists… Just the opposite! A recently published UN report entitled “Replacement Migration talks about “mass replacement”. The report is written clearly: “The United Nations forecasts – it is written – indicate that, in the next fifty years, the populations of almost all European countries and Japan will have to face population aging and demographic decline”, phenomena that the report defines as“ impressive and critical ”.
“These new challenges – it adds – will require a comprehensive review of many of the existing policies and programs, including those related to international migration.”
Therefore, the report takes into consideration “immigration of substitution” or “Great substitution” or “ethnic substitution” – call it what you want – as a response to this emergency” for eight countries with low fertility (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States)” and more generally, for the European area. The idea is old: in practice, its objective is to solve the problems generated by the “low fertility and mortality rates”, not, as it would be logical, by providing the maximum support to new family policies that promote birth, but by using foreigners and “importing” immigrants in mass, without taking into account social costs and cultural chaos inherent in such a threat. In fact, this process is defined as “the only option in the short and medium term”, to give an apparent solution to a problem that the United Nations has contributed to supporting for decades – a support that continues even today – the campaigns in favor of abortion and euthanasia that lead us to a progressive and unstoppable demographic desertification in the world.
It is not necessary to go back too far in time to find confirmation. Early last June, Kate Gilmore, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, compared US laws – such as those in Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, Mississippi and Ohio – that have providentially limited access to abortion, with a form of “torture” and “gender-based violence”, since they supposedly “force” women, especially impoverished women, to opt for a clandestine surgery.
It should be noted that – no later than March of last year – the United Nations Human Rights Committee tried to eliminate the “right to life” by art. 5 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. But this is not all: in that same period, twice in a few months, the United Nations also tried to modify art. 6 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, stating that it would be included – incredible to say! – in the “intrinsic right to life” also abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia, offending common sense and denying any protection to the individual before birth, especially in the case of disability. They also include almost unlimited access by adolescents to the use of contraceptive methods.
Souad Sbai, a journalist born in Morocco but an Italian citizen for 38 years, during an interview with the monthly magazine Radici Cristiane, had already clearly warned about the threat posed by the indiscriminate and unconditional reception of large masses of immigrants: “It is a suicide strategy,” said Souad Sbai. The masses that arrive are too numerous. It is not possible to integrate them into our societies without pain. To this we must also add the total lack of preparation showed by European governments in relation to realistic reception policies.
Integration is possible with small numbers and based on the principle that those who go into the home of others, must also accept the rules. However, with the do-goodism, the mortification of European cultures is preached by virtue of an alleged “respect” for the newcomer: that is, we start on the wrong foot. Those who come have no stimuli to integrate. They will consider us weak, dumb and foolish. Our culture is becoming res nullius, at the mercy of everyone. Relativism, laissez faire, especially towards Islamic associations that receive funding from fundamentalist regimes, is allowing the masses of immigrants to launch a true ethnic and cultural colonization. In the medium term, the price that European peoples will pay will be monstrously high.”
It is obvious, therefore, how the UN is once again administering the wrong medication to a real disease. Something that is not surprising: who would trust the doctor that triggered the disease? What credibility can the UN have today in suggesting “replacement immigration” as a remedy for the demographic crisis caused by its own abortion and euthanasia policies?