For years, individualists of many stripes have warned that the agenda of many “Climate Change” propagandists has been to create a world-wide tax-regulation scheme backed by a world police force, likely an offshoot of the United Nations. And now, as the spurious claims, faulty predictions, secret communications about data manipulation, and enormous methodological errors of many prominent “Climate Change” figures are being exposed, at least one member of the cult is showing his true stripes – and desperation.
As Selwyn Duke reports for The New American, University of Copenhagen International Relations Professor Ole Wæver recently decided to charm broadcasters at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) with his oh-so peaceful belief that “inaction” on the “Climate Change” bogeyman could require worldwide military intervention. From Duke's piece:
When decision-makers — after delaying for so long — suddenly try to find a shortcut to realistic action, climate change is likely to ‘be securitised'.
Professor Wæver, who first coined the term ‘securitisation’, says more abrupt change could potentially threaten democracy. ‘The United Nations Security Council could, in principle, tomorrow decide that climate change is a threat to international peace and security,’ he says.
But, in addition to wondering why the good professor equates “democracy” with peace, when, as we have noted before and as the Founding Fathers and Aristotle observed, democracy is mob rule, how does getting the U.N. militarily involved in policing people’s energy use equate to peace itself?
Wæver doesn’t answer such a simple question. Instead, he doubles-down, stressing that lovely thought: militarized force.
Then what? Well, Wæver says that ‘classifying climate change as a security issue could justify more extreme policy responses,’ ABC also informs. ‘If there was something that was decided internationally by some more centralised procedure and every country was told “this is your emission target, it’s not negotiable, we can actually take military measures if you don’t fulfil [sic] it,”’ he stated, ‘then you would basically have to get that down the throat of your population, whether they like it or not.’
How nice. How peaceful.
Of course, this scaremongering tied to national or international security isn’t new. It’s precisely the kind of thing that Barack Obama officially pushed in September of 2016 with a “Presidential Memorandum” (so POWERFUL AND OFFICIAL!) declaring “Climate Change” a “national security threat.”
Shoot, even Barack Obama’s fans in the Democratic Party have picked up the signal to call “Climate Change” a “crisis” that threatens national security and that demands immediate action. Vermont socialist Bernie Sanders recently claimed “Climate Change” is a bigger threat than ISIS and al Qaeda, as he introduced the world to his demon-child, a $16.3 trillion “plan” to combat the “crisis.” And Liz Warren (the Native-American-Non-Native-American Democrat senator from Massachusetts, in case anyone's forgotten) has her own utopian plan on how “our” military can “help lead the fight in combating climate change.”
So the classic pattern described by David Icke as “crisis-reaction-solution,” or what is commonly known among liberty scholars as the dangerous Hegelian Dialectic of false choices directing a populace towards an intended policy outcome, is very popular among leftists, and the Climate Crisis is one of their great propagandistic tools to push for more control over people – even to the point of what Danish Professor Wæver noted to the talking heads in Australia.
And, of course, as Duke points out:
Just consider that since 2007, ‘the European Union has had four multinational military ‘battlegroups’ at its disposal,’ wrote Breitbart last year, though they’ve never been deployed. Moreover, French president Emmanuel Macron actually proposed in 2018 the creation of an EU army, an idea that was quickly endorsed by German chancellor Angela Merkel.
Every government position is backed by a threat of armed force that Americans seem to instinctively understand, but many of whom somehow don’t want to discuss. Only now when it comes to the “world climate police” do some of their alarm bells sound.
In fact, those bells should have been ringing for some time.