What Does it Mean for Whites if Climate Change is Real?

Philip Santoro, American Renaissance, September 10, 2017

It doesn’t have to be national suicide.

Environmentalism and “green politics” are largely white concerns, even though the Left has largely monopolized these issues. However, the Left’s “green politics,” combined with support for mass immigration and opposition to nuclear power would mean a future of overcrowding, poverty, and the displacement of whites.

Climate change is another area the Left has been allowed to monopolize. Liberals warns of an apocalypse, in which the wicked (white) industrial nations of the north suffer drought, famine, storms, and floods because of their sins against Mother Earth. And what about the south? It, too, will face these man-made disasters, except with the expectation that its people will flee north to safer spaces—our spaces.

This dynamic—in the context of war as much as climate change—has already had a test-run in Western Europe, in the form of the so-called “migrant crisis.” Millions of African and Middle Eastern people, largely adult Muslim males, have been let into Europe. Because of family reunification, each of these “new Europeans” will in time bring in several more “new Europeans.”

While much of our contemporary Western science is increasingly suspect—with political concerns such as anti-racism inhibiting inquiry in the social sciences—it is reasonable to be skeptic of the Left’s primary scientific cause célèbre: climate change. Obviously there are powerful incentives for believing in man-made climate change, just as for believing in the biological equivalence of races and sexes. One can be fired from Google for questioning such things.

However, for argument’s sake, let’s assume the worst-case scenarios of climate change are true. What are we going to do about rising sea levels? How will this affect Americans who live in coastal areas? What will be done to protect Louisiana, Florida, and Texas? What about New York and New Jersey? If climate patterns really are changing, are we preparing for agricultural disruption in some areas and new opportunities in others? Do we have the legal framework to deal with “climate refugees”?

When the Left tackles climate change, it wants to “save the planet”—but apparently for someone else’s babies. The population explosion in the global south combined with climate change and liberal attitudes towards migration are the single greatest external threat to Western civilization—more serious than Islamic terrorism or Hispanic illegal immigration.

It would be short-sighted to dispute the view that we must become greener and less polluting. And yet, most liberals who think this way promote self-destructive ideas such as having fewer children because it’s “bad for the environment,” and welcoming refugees.

If we are not saving the environment for our people, who are we saving it for? The anti-natalism of left-environmentalists—directed mainly towards white countries—amounts to protecting another tribe’s future at the expense of ours. We’re supposed to save our environment only to turn it over to immigrants? It makes no sense to look after one’s patrimony only to give it away to outsiders—which means the entire leftist solution to climate change is bogus.

Climate change does not have to end in national suicide. The Right’s response must seek to combat its effects in the interest of our national well-being. Initiatives to slow or reverse climate change are far less crucial than strengthening our capacity to deal with natural disasters in low-lying areas and to capitalize on new opportunities in the warming north. Assistance to other countries is the lowest priority. Resettling millions of their displaced into our countries is not acceptable. Those leaving the global south would soon be replaced by new births anyway. Migration triggered by climate change would overwhelm us.

We should therefore have several goals: mitigate the effects of climate change and strengthen our defenses against them, profit from any benefits of climate change, and reform our thinking on immigration and refugees to prevent a climate-driven demographic catastrophe.

Topics: ,

Share This

Philip Santoro
Philip Santoro may have gotten here after the 1890 census, but his ancestors came to the United States instead of Brazil for a reason.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.