Al Jazeera suggests climate refugees will pressure western nations to stop burning fossil fuels.
In my article Climate Change Explained, I laid out some of the coinciding agendas concerning the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change, the ongoing real Earth changes and the European Migrant Crisis.
To recap: Climate Change has always happened, and every couple hundred years, drastic climate change events take place and reorganize societies, usually in the form of weather worsening and cooling. Anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are negligible. The next Grand Solar Minimum will show its effects within the next few decades.
In the paragraph Climate Refugees, I pointed out how left-wing establishment politicians and economists justify their push for mass migration into the West under the rationale of social justice. The false narrative being: Western countries produce CO2 (never mind China or India), CO2 causes climate change and thus western countries must accept unlimited numbers of refugees (preferably 7 billion people?).
Here is an excerpt:
Predictions of mass migration into western nations were made by former secretary John Carry and EU president Junker in 2015, that was AFTER the beginning of the European migration crisis 2015.
And such “leaders” of the western world should know, as EU commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulo made it clear in 2015 that „Europe will need 70 million migrants in the next 20 years to replace the aging population“. He didn’t mention climate disruption or war.
Carry said: „You think migration is a challenge to Europe today because of extremism, wait till you see what happens when there is an absence of water, an absence of food or one tribe fighting against another for mere survival.“
Hans Schnellhuber, Director of P.I.K suggests that western countries should be forced to absorb a mandated number of climate refugees in proportion to their past greenhouse gas emissions. „One man – one vote. One emission – one refugee.“(Climate Refugees, 2010)
Now, an Al Jazeera opinion piece is doubling down on this post-modernist ideology: The author, Jason Hickel, not only promotes the international establishment’s policies of opening of the European borders – which is leading to the gradual replacement of the European population – as a means of justice because western countries are allegedly producing the CO2 that allegedly destroys the climate.
“… opening the borders to climate refugees is a matter of basic justice. We need to devise policies to ensure that all have the right to access safe and habitable parts of the planet we share.“
Who would have thought that Al Jazeera would be promoting uncontrolled migration into Europe from primarily Islamic countries?
But in addition, Hickel brings a new angle to the agenda:
„But there is something more to be said here. An open border policy may also be the key to stopping climate change itself”.
The author is not shy to allude to the migrants as a form of punishment to Europe and North America, rather than a blessing or enrichment. Is Al Jazeera revealing anti-islamic undertones?:
„The solution is simple, at least conceptually: open the borders. By tearing down the walls that separate the causes and consequences of climate change we can force a more honest reckoning with reality. Once the victims of climate change have the right to seek refuge in Europe and North America, it will obliterate the moral hazard of global warming. As rich nations finally start to feel the heat, so to speak, you can bet they’ll act fast, doing everything in their power to ensure that people’s home regions remain livable. Even if it means pushing for a new, more ecological, economic model.“
„Feel the heat“? Sounds more like a threat. Is Hickel insinuating a racist notion that migrants cause troubles? I thought all of the recent migrants were wonderful cultural enrichers and the taxpayers of tomorrow?
„Ensure that people’s home regions remain livable“ (does that mean make sure they stay at home?
„This might seem unrealistic at a time of rising anti-immigrant sentiment. But either we do it now, finding orderly ways to integrate climate refugees and allowing ourselves to be spurred to action by the suffering we’re forced to confront, or down the road, we’re going to face a refugee crisis more severe, violent and destabilizing than anything we can imagine. We have a choice.“
„Severe, violent and destabilizing?“ A warning, a threats? Why would grateful refugees cause violence in their hospitable asylum countries? See Statistics on crime and migration crisis, Germany: number of rape by asylum seekers doubled in one year, overall murder doubled in two years.
One problem that should be regarded by everyone is that there are at the moment no functioning alternative energy systems available, as far as is publicly known (see also paragraph: alternative energies). If industrial nation stop using fossil fuels, there will be no infrastructure or food to accommodate neither migrants nor citizens. So, the migration crisis will solve itself as the survivors would want to return home.
By the way, no one in the left-wing establishment ever complains that China or India – who produce more CO2 than any western nation – accept almost no migrants (and pay almost no carbon taxes). And why does the left allow wealthy Australia to refuse to take any refugees at all? The same is true for Japan.
So, is the agenda of the liberal, post-modernist global elite as simple as to replace the European population as they have stated many times over. Which would not be a sustainable solution to maintain an industrial country.
Or are the planned and controlled population movements part of a long-term plan in preparation for the climate disruption that will come with the next Grand Solar Minimum?
It almost looks a bit as if Australia is being prepared to be a safe haven for the elites in case of prolonged climate disruption. Japan and New Zealand not so much, since they are situated on the Pacific Ring of Fire, more affected by the tectonic instabilities that come with a Grand Solar Minimum. And what if Trump’s wall (if it is ever built) was a preparation to keep out refugees from earth changes ? Just wondering…