This article was published by the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, February 13, 2017:
The Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) grew out of failure. Known alternatively as Chatham House, it was conceived during the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 (also called the Versailles Peace Conference). It was decided that, once the so-called “peace” terms were put in place to punish Germany and its allies after the War to end all wars, various insiders decided a one-world government was needed to keep such a catastrophe from occurring in the future. It birthed the League of Nations. Its American counterpart, the Council on Foreign Relations, was formed at the same time. When the treaty to create the League failed to pass the Senate, it faded but didn’t disappear.
Following the second War to end all wars, the League was resurrected in the form of the United Nations, funded largely by the American government, built on land donated by the Rockefellers, and inhabited by assorted Marxists, communists, and other totalitarians. It continues in its attempts to subjugate sovereign nations on its path to One World Government.
Last September the UN decided that the “refugee” crisis was an opportunity not to be missed and hosted a “Summit for Refugees and Migrants.” Chortled the UN, this “was a historic opportunity to come up with a blueprint for a better international response. The Summit was a watershed moment to strengthen governance of international migration and a unique opportunity for creating a more responsible, predictable system for responding to large movements of refugees and migrants.”
Predictably it birthed an agreement, the “New York Declaration.” It proposed all manner of international mandates, to be enforced by the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), including:
Support[ing] those countries rescuing, receiving, and hosting large numbers of refugees and migrants;
Ending the practice of detaining children for the purposes of determining their migration status;
Strongly condemn[ing] xenophobia against refugees and migrants, and support a global campaign to counter it;
Find[ing] new homes for all refugees identified by [the UN High Commissioner for Refugees] as needing resettlement, and expand the opportunities for refugees to relocate to other countries….;
And, finally and most importantly:
Strengthen[ing] the global governance of migration by bringing the International Organization for Migration into the UN system.
The Commissioner declared the Declaration “a minor miracle” and “a revival of multilateralism as an antidote to isolationism” and “a truly remarkable achievement in today’s complex and retrogressive climate.” He was referring, of course, to the retrograde individuals who wanted to retain national sovereignty, such as Donald Trump, Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage, and Matteo Slavini.
And then Chatham House/RIIA made a mistake: they decided to conduct a survey to see how the great unwashed would take to the idea. Where, specifically, “do the public in European countries stand on the specific issue of Muslim immigration?” For a month its staff interviewed more than 10,000 individuals across 10 European nations and discovered to their horror that they weren’t buying what the globalists were selling. Fifty-five percent of those polled wanted all migration from mainly Muslim countries stopped! Twenty percent favored the idea, with no country having a percentage of agreement higher than 32 percent.
Said Matthew Goodwin, lamenting over the results in a statement from Chatham House: “Our results are striking and sobering. They suggest that public opposition to any further migration from predominantly Muslim states is by no means confined to Trump’s electorate in the US but is fairly widespread [among European nations as well.]”
And, horror of horrors, the survey revealed that six out of ten are persuaded that the arrival of refugees from these countries “would increase the likelihood of terrorism.”
Chatham House could have saved themselves the trouble and the expense. Another insider mouthpiece, Reuters, had just completed its own survey on the same issue a week earlier, asking Americans what they thought of Mr. Trump’s executive order banning refugees from seven countries for 120 days and placing an indefinite hold on Syria’s. Half of them said they either “strongly” or “somewhat” agreed with Trump’s ban, with a third of them claiming that, even though his order hasn’t been implemented yet, they feel “more safe” because of it, and 38 percent saying they felt that Trump was setting “a good example” with his order in just how to deal with terrorism.
Following the unexpected results of the Chatham House poll, Dr. Jeff Crisp, an apologist for the globalists, said, “It therefore seems inconceivable that an expansion in global resettlement numbers – a key objective of the New York Declaration – will be attained.”
There’s another problem, too. The UN has been targeted for some serious funding cuts by Mr. Trump. Said Crisp: “The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which currently receives around 40 percent of its resources from Washington, DC, is likely to be on the sharp end of this process. In such circumstances it will be extremely difficult to [accomplish the objectives] as envisaged by the Declaration.”
There are several observations to be made here. First, it’s remarkable just how thin the support is for UN intervention in the refugee “problem.” Second, it shows just how much the UN is dependent upon the United States taxpayer for funding. Cut off the funding and the beast starves.
Finally, it’s comforting to see what impact Mr. Trump is already having with his executive order, and it hasn’t even been implemented.
ChathamHouse.org: What Do Europeans Think About Muslim Immigration?
ChathamHouse.org: Trump Era Casts New Shadow Over Refugees
The British Independent: Most Europeans want immigration ban from Muslim-majority countries, poll reveals