If you have ever considered that who you vote for makes a difference in which legislation will be enacted, think again. The swathes of ideas that sweep across the political landscape have roots that are neither national nor well thought out reactions to current events. Political Projects that appear to be created by a nation’s elected government are not made in response to specific national issues; they are decided in advance by Globalist elites who drip-feed legislation on “leaders.”
The idea that the same basic regulation or law happens to apply to every other “democratic” country on earth at roughly the same time is too much of a coincidence. The policies are Globalist, and they originate from the same source.
Consider the legalization and decriminalization of marijuana; over the last decade, beginning in Eastern European nations (which are often “trial zones”), the laws on marijuana for medical/personal use were lightened. The laxity in regulation then began being rolled out in other countries:
- S. Virgin Islands 2014
- Uruguay 2013
- Switzerland 2012
- Spain (Catalonia) 2017
- South Africa 2017
- Puerto Rico 2015
- Malta 2015
- Macedonia 2016
- Israel 2017
And many more. Was it “an idea whose time had come” or something else? It is unlikely that the above mentioned, and around another 20 nations, all decided that drug decriminalization was the best use of their time and resources spontaneously and en masse. It is a vivid example of how Globalist policies are dispersed.
Then we have the “Migrant Crisis” and the mass migration of peoples from one place on the planet to another for permanent resettlement. Was it decided by national leaders that the best way to help solve a civil-conflict in one part of the world is to relocate as many of its citizens to another part? Or perhaps the whole “humanitarian effort” is part of a larger, more Globally-focused endeavor.
The logic behind permanently relocating a large percentage of a continent’s population to another continent entirely almost beggars belief; and that so many “independent” nations would come up with the same solution (none of participating nations have put this to the electorate) stretched credulity.
Finally, we have Gay Marriage. When same-sex marriages became legal in the UK, it was brought into law without ever having a mandate; no party had campaigned for it and it was unmentioned in the winning party’s Manifesto. Australia is up next and follows on from Ireland, Canada, Spain, Sweden and South Africa.
These actions are not spontaneously erupting at random because of “Sea Change” in the world’s views; they are part of a policy process to ensure all nations are following the same laws and regulations. It is an exercise in standardizing which will allow corporations to operate across borders without the need for adjustment. The priority is that people will be able to move nation to nation without running afoul of legal issues, thus enabling freedom of movement and completely open borders.
As with the European Union project, having nations under one set of rules means that all aspects can be administered from a centralized government body; this is the goal. And all it will cost is your national sovereignty. The policies may be either good or bad for you as an individual; you may think that the three examples we’ve covered in this article are all positive things, but don’t think they are democratic. If you want to know what’s going to be on the next policy platform when the next election cycle rolls around, just look at which laws have been enacted in other nations. The truth is in front of our eyes if only we could pull back the curtain.
