“Climate change”, replacement migration all part of the same globalist agenda

Despite UN’s dire warnings, world is revolting against ‘climate change’ policies

Which is all part of the globalists grand plan to de-industrialise Western countries, to impoverish them and flood them at the same time with Mohammedan & African savages.

UN admits ‘refugees’ are ‘replacement migration’ for Europe and other low-fertility countries

As 2019 arrives, we leave behind a year in which there were increasingly dire warnings about global warming calamity from the United Nations and other Leftist institutions coupled with even more momentous pushback against policies aimed at ‘curbing’ climate change.

Both politicians and voters rejected attempts to raise energy prices as part of the global climate crusade. As noted by The Daily Caller, the rejection began in earnest in Ontario, Canada, with the election of Premier Doug Ford in June.

Dems  Push Hard on Climate Change

Merkel’s 13-year premiership has been noted for her open-door policy toward Muslim “migrants” and “refugees,” which has led to much social chaos and unrest, as well as demographic changes so drastic that Germany will be a white-minority country in one generation.

Voters overwhelmingly chose Ford’s conservative coalition over rivals after he ran on a platform of torching the Canadian province’s carbon cap-and-trade program, which many saw as responsible for rising energy prices.

Ford’s first priority after taking office, he said, was to “cancel the Liberal cap-and-trade carbon tax.” Afterward, he joined in a legal challenge that was led by Saskatchewan against Canadian Prime Minister Justice Trudeau’s policy of the central government imposing a carbon tax on provinces that had not already implemented one.

Opponents of the carbon tax plan called Trudeau’s effort an attempt to “use the new tax to further redistribute income, which will increase the costs of this tax to the economy.”

Meanwhile, another carbon rebellion was building in another former British colony 10,000 miles away — in Australia. There, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull lost his power base just a few days after failing to pass legislation that sought to reduce carbon emissions.

Turnbull’s National Energy Guarantee sought to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but his effort was opposed by conservatives in Parliament led by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott. He sought to delay a vote on the initiative but it was too late; he was forced to resign in August and was replaced by Scott Morrison.

In the U.S., a Washington state initiative championed by Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee was backed by a $45 million campaign. But opponents outspent supporters and the initiative tanked.

“The Inslee-backed measure called for taxing carbon dioxide emissions at $15 a ton in 2020, which would increase at $2 a year above the rate of inflation until the state meets its emissions goals,” The Daily Caller reported.

However, voters rejected it in November, marking the second time in as many years that voters expressed more concern for their personal economics over nefarious and unproven claims of “climate change.”

Nationally, voters rejected a group of House Republicans who also backed a similar carbon tax initiative.

The most dramatic rejection of wealth redistribution under the guise of ‘fighting climate change’ is still playing out — in France.

Citizens are in near-rebellion over a massive increase in the gasoline tax imposed by President Emmanuel Macron under provisions of the — ironically — Paris Climate Accords from which POTUS Trump withdrew the United States.

Macron has since rescinded the tax but French unrest continues.

(While the Germans are kept in the dark. There is literally a news blackout in Germany when it comes to that.)

The French example ought to send a loud message to Democrats in the U.S. who are set to take over control of the House in a few days. Democratic leaders have said they want to make climate change a huge part of their agenda under the guise of an intiative misnamed the “Green New Deal.”

The difference here is that none of what Democrats want will get past the Republican-controlled Senate or the president. But that doesn’t mean they have learned the French lesson, either.


UN admits ‘refugees’ are ‘replacement migration’ for Europe and other low-fertility countries


For those of us who’ve long suspected there’s a hidden agenda behind the invasion of “refugees” and “migrants” in Europe, here’s the smoking gun.

In 2000, the United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs issued a report, Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?, which proposes “replacement migration” for countries with an aging and declining population.

Below is the UN’s press release on the report, dated March 17, 2000 — that’s how long ago the “refugee” and “migrant” plan was hatched.

Press Release


NEW YORK, 17 March (DESA) — The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) has released a new report titled “Replacement Migration: Is it a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?”. Replacement migration refers to the international migration that a country would need to prevent population decline and population ageing resulting from low fertility and mortality rates.

United Nations projections indicate that between 1995 and 2050, the population of Japan and virtually all countries of Europe will most likely decline. In a number of cases, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Italy, countries would lose between one quarter and one third of their population. Population ageing will be pervasive, bringing the median age of population to historically unprecedented high levels. For instance, in Italy, the median age will rise from 41 years in 2000 to 53 years in 2050. The potential support ratio — i.e., the number of persons of working age (15-64 years) per older person — will often be halved, from 4 or 5 to 2.

Focusing on these two striking and critical trends, the report examines in detail the case of eight low-fertility countries (France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, United Kingdom and United States) and two regions (Europe and the European Union). In each case, alternative scenarios for the period 1995-2050 are considered, highlighting the impact that various levels of immigration would have on population size and population ageing.

Major findings of this report include:

— In the next 50 years, the populations of most developed countries are projected to become smaller and older as a result of low fertility and increased longevity. In contrast, the population of the United States is projected to increase by almost a quarter. Among the countries studied in the report, Italy is projected to register the largest population decline in relative terms, losing 28 per cent of its population between 1995 and 2050, according to the United Nations medium variant projections. The population of the European Union, which in 1995 was larger than that of the United States by 105 million, in 2050, will become smaller by 18 million.

— Population decline is inevitable in the absence of replacement migration. Fertility may rebound in the coming decades, but few believe that it will recover sufficiently in most countries to reach replacement level in the foreseeable future.

Some immigration is needed to prevent population decline in all countries and regions examined in the report. However, the level of immigration in relation to past experience varies greatly. For the European Union, a continuation of the immigration levels observed in the 1990s would roughly suffice to prevent total population from declining, while for Europe as a whole, immigration would need to double. The Republic of Korea would need a relatively modest net inflow of migrants — a major change, however, for a country which has been a net sender until now. Italy and Japan would need to register notable increases in net immigration. In contrast, France, the United Kingdom and the United States would be able to maintain their total population with fewer immigrants than observed in recent years.

— The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent the decline of the total population are considerably larger than those envisioned by the United Nations projections. The only exception is the United States.

— The numbers of immigrants needed to prevent declines in the working-age population are larger than those needed to prevent declines in total population. In some cases, such as the Republic of Korea, France, the United Kingdom or the United States, they are several times larger. If such flows were to occur, post-1995 immigrants and their descendants would represent a strikingly large share of the total population in 2050 — between 30 and 39 per cent in the case of Japan, Germany and Italy.

— Relative to their population size, Italy and Germany would need the largest number of migrants to maintain the size of their working-age populations. Italy would require 6,500 migrants per million inhabitants annually and Germany, 6,000. The United States would require the smallest number — 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.

— The levels of migration needed to prevent population ageing are many times larger than the migration streams needed to prevent population decline. Maintaining potential support ratios would in all cases entail volumes of immigration entirely out of line with both past experience and reasonable expectations.

— In the absence of immigration, the potential support ratios could be maintained at current levels by increasing the upper limit of the working-age population to roughly 75 years of age.

— The new challenges of declining and ageing populations will require a comprehensive reassessment of many established policies and programmes, with a long-term perspective. Critical issues that need to be addressed include: (a) the appropriate ages for retirement; (b) the levels, types and nature of retirement and health care benefits for the elderly; (c) labour force participation; (d) the assessed amounts of contributions from workers and employers to support retirement and health care benefits for the elderly population; and (e) policies and programmes relating to international migration, in particular, replacement migration and the integration of large numbers of recent migrants and their descendants.

Note that, unlike Europe and other developed countries, the United States is a lone exception. Instead of population decline and ageing, our population is projected to increase by a quarter in the next 50 years.

That means America does not need to open our doors to immigrants, migrants and refugees. In fact, the UN report concludes that we only need to bring in 1,300 migrants per million inhabitants per year.

The U.S. population in 2018 is 327.16 million. That means that, at most, we need to bring in less than half a million (425,000) migrants a year — if even that.

One thought on ““Climate change”, replacement migration all part of the same globalist agenda”

  1. First we got dumbed down to a “service” economy as they “outsourced” and “downsized” all of our manufacturing jobs to their 3rd-world slave-pens, but that wasn’t enough to sate the globalist corporazi’s greed – now they’ve just invented a heartstring-tugging propaganda blitz excuse to bring their savage slaves here at taxpayer expense, to save them on shipping costs while dumbing down our service sector such that all the waiters and call-center employees won’t even be able to speak proper (or, in the case of Oz, improper) English any more!

    All criminals are selfish subjectivist hypocrites, and all hypocrites are criminals!


Comments are closed.