The prominent environmental organization in my province of Canada had been advertising to residents of my province in a Facebook post that we need to fight what they termed as “environmental racism.” So then somebody named Michael commented underneath their post by stating that he was also very concerned with the environment. He even mentioned that he drove a fuel efficient car, he recycled, he composted, etc. But Michael also mentioned that he was white and felt that dragging race into the “global warming crisis” debate was merely a way of promoting anti-white racism.
Michael pointed out that black men in the Western world are statistically significantly more likely to rape than what white men are, per capita. Michael went on to state that, in spite of these statistics, if he was to drag in race into the rape crisis debate, then the people who run this environmental organization would pull away from the conversation in terror and disgust. Michael seemed to be trying to help them realize their double standard, given that they have no problem dragging race into the global warming crisis debate.
Finally Michael, who seemed to believe in a global warming crisis himself, pointed out that opponents of global warming alarmism will point to claims of “environmental racism” as evidence that the whole global warming movement is merely another branch of cultural Marxism. Michael felt that they should stay focused on the actual scientific aspects of the physics and chemistry of our atmosphere and environment instead of dragging race politics into the conversation. So then the environmental organization for my province responded to Michael. They said,
Hey Michael. Thanks for your comments and questions on this complicated topic. I think many of these issues actually intersect in different ways, and although it’s tricky to get a good understanding of how they all specifically impact each other, it’s important to have these discussions. You mentioned not wanting to ‘drag race into discussions about the rape crisis’ and it sounds like you don’t think that race belongs in environmental discussions either. I would beg to differ, mainly because I’ve seen how many social and environmental issues are very intertwined. It is often the case that environmental issues affect people differently and unequally, and often people of color have been affected more negatively. The impacts of the climate crisis, as is well documented, affect the people with the least power and resources the most deeply. In Canada, unclean drinking water in First Nations communities is one example, or the fact that the Innu and Inuit are experiencing the worst impacts of melting sea ice and rising temperatures. I wouldn’t label these as anti-white statements, but rather an acknowledgement that because of the way power is distributed unequally in our society, that people with the least power (often those who have been systematically marginalized for decades/centuries) end up enduring the worst impacts. In my mind, this could be considered systemic environmental racism. Thanks again for your thoughts. I think engaging in respectful discussion and learning to listen to others’ points of view will go a long way in dealing with many of the issues we face today.
So now I am going to shred their anti-white rebuttal to pieces for my people. Throughout Canada there are many small towns and Local Service Districts in remote areas which still don’t have modern running tap water or even water treated with chlorine. These are predominantly Caucasian-populated towns. There are many mostly white towns in Canada with no modern sewage and they rely on septic fields. Many towns and LSDs in Canada use wells because they have no running water in remote areas. Some towns received high speed internet long before other towns because the other towns were in more remote areas of Canada. The racial makeup of these towns has nothing to do with this lack of modern conveniences. If any group of ANY race of people decide to live in a very remote area, then they are more likely to encounter infrastructure issues than are people living in more urban areas (larger towns or cities). I can’t help but be reminded of Flynt, Michigan where its famous infrastructure problems had left them with unhealthy drinking water for several years. But Flynt is mixed race with at least 41% being white people, so Flynt’s water problem has nothing to do with racism or “white supremacy.”
I do not know all the details with the native reserves in Canada, but do the residents of reserves pay taxes into a municipal / provincial system like a town does to pay for their infrastructure? Or is the whole thing (housing / heat and light / phone lines/ snowmobiles, etc.) completely subsidized, like it is one giant neighborhood of welfare recipients living in government housing? Do residents work outside of the reserve to make their own money? The problem here is that something or some group of people is preventing anybody in any western country from being able to even speak freely and honestly about realistic, permanent solutions to these kinds of problems. Certain descriptive, identifying, and correct language is not even allowed to be used in the discussion which needs to confront one assumption built upon another assumption upon another.
For example, today Google is the final authority and supreme source of trusted data for most people, especially for left wing progressives. Even Google’s top definition of a nation is: “a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.” The root word of nation is the Latin word nationem meaning: “birth, origin; breed, stock, kind, species; race of people, tribe,” literally “that which has been born,” from natus, past participle of nasci “be born.” The first Wikipedia hit defines nation as, “A nation is a community of people formed on the basis of a common language, history, ethnicity, a common culture and, in many cases, a shared territory.” Both definitions list bloodline and ethnicity as part of what defines a nation. The Wikipedia definition places even more importance on ethnicity than what it does on having a shared territory – stating that only “in many cases” a nation has a shared territory. A perfect example of this kind of nation would be the Jewish nation, primarily populated by Jews who have considered themselves a nation for two thousand years while they had no territory of their own. That is, until they began to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians in order to make an actual real ethno state in the Middle East. This is an example of actual ethno nationalism.
People assume that Canada is a “nation”, but I have just shown you that we are, instead, merely a shared geographical area in which the inhabitants agree to use the same currency, agree on the border locations, agree on the time zones, and agree to follow the same speed limits and other laws. We are not a nation in the way a nation was defined since the dawn of mankind. But I know, I know …. humankind was wrong for 10 000 years and smart progressives in the last two generations have it all figured out and fixed now. Ha ha. This idea is very wrong and causes us to say and repeat the craziest things imaginable. For example, I was watching the provincial news a few months ago and the reporter said, “The Qalipu Mi’kmaq is one of the largest first ‘nations’ in the ‘nation'”. This sounds bizarre and confusing to say on its own but then, when coupled with the correct definition of “nation”, it would be the same as saying this: “Qalipu Mi’kmaq is one of the largest bodies of people united by blood, history, culture, and language that lives inside of this larger body of people united by blood, history, culture, and language.” Or stated even more simply: “Qalipu Mi’kmaq is one of the largest bloodlines living within the bloodline”.
Those statements do not even make sense! Trying to have a nation inside of a nation is what is causing all the trouble. I believe in the right of all nations of people to have self-determination no matter what race makes up that nation. A celebrated and respected Canadian magazine, Maclean’s, published articles which warned about white nationalism rising in Canada, but then turned around and wrote articles in the same year which celebrated black ethnonationalism and Korean ethnonationalism. Is that fair? Why are white people the only race on the planet who are not allowed to promote racial consciousness, racial awareness, the preservation of their own race, nor anything which would benefit solely their race?
White people are disappearing and are the true global “minority” because they have gone from 28% of the global population down to only 17% in the last 50 years. Why do progressive across the world happily shout that white people have no culture? The white race is the only race on earth which is not allowed to own, nor celebrate a culture. The natives and Inuit on reserves and/or who live far up north away from European culture (modern industrialized society) are practicing Inuit or native ethnonationalism. Good for them, that is their right to do so. But natives/Inuit cannot have it both ways. The modern industrialized world is a part of white culture which whites shared with the rest of the world. It has given us cars, planes, trains, electricity, light bulbs, computers, modern medicine, microscopes, television, oil wells, glass windows, steel reinforced concrete, etc. If racially native people want to leave the reserves and go to a more urban area to find work, then they should be (and are 99% of the time) treated with respect and paid the same wages for equal work as what a Canadian citizen of any other race would be paid. They could choose to make a living away from the reserve in this manner. The natives even get special rights while living anywhere else in Canada, outside of the reserves. Unlike Canadian citizens of other races they are able to hunt out of season and fish out of season, for example. This should be, ironically, properly labeled as “native privilege”.
The native population cannot have it both ways though. Let me explain further. If a bunch of white people, let’s say 200 of them, went off into the remote parts of the country and decided to start living where there was not even any paved roads to reach them, could they then expect to have the government pay for everything for them to sustain them while they separated from the rest of the society of the country? Would it not be comical to then see these same white people on the national news complaining that the remote reserve which they chose to live in — so that they will not pay taxes to the country, not contribute to the economy, and separate themselves from the workings of the industrialized culture around them — is not getting all the best benefits from this industrialized culture and system which they fully reject? Do native people always reject white European culture or do they reject it only when it is convenient for them to do so? Do they still want the benefits of modern white society, such as modern infrastructure, while still labeling themselves as a “nation” that is separate from the nation of Canada, which was founded by European culture and the white race?
|White Canadian expenditures on Native Canadians|
In 1999, the Canadian government gave a gigantic chunk of land to the Inuit to self-govern themselves in what is sort of like their own country/nation. It is called Nunavut. It gives the Inuit people perhaps 50 times more land per capita than what Canadian citizens of other races get to have. I was very supportive of this decision because the Inuit have been through much hardship while Canada was being formed, and the extra land helps to make up for that. But let’s not stop there. Let’s do the same for the other native people who live on reserves like the Neskantaga Indian Reserve. Instead of the federal government of a ‘nation’ (which the native race does not want to belong to) paying for them to live in a small reserve in the middle of nowhere while the federal government struggles to use tax payers’ money to bring modern infrastructure there, give the native people their own nation. Let’s carve out much larger chunks of land in less populated areas in all the provinces (except in P.E.I – too small) and let native people govern their own nation. I would be fine with them getting ten times more land per capita than what other Canadian citizens of other races get. What would be wrong with that? Then native people could choose to be a “Native-land-ian” or choose to emigrate back to Canada and then enjoy full Canadian citizenship with the same benefits that other immigrants from Africa or elsewhere get when they arrive in Canada and become Canadian citizens.
But it is madness that will plague our political system forever, if we continue trying to make multiculturalism work and to have nations inside of nations. I can remember way back in 1993 when Czechoslovakia separated into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It was a very peaceful separation. The Czechs simply looked at the Slovaks and said, “you are not us and we are not you”, and the Slovaks said the same thing from their point of view, namely that they were different from the Czechs. There was no violence at all, only a peaceful decision to express the right to self-determination and to create a new border between two different groups of people. There were no progressive SJWs screaming “racism” or “xenophobia” or “down with the patriarchy” in protest. After all, this was merely white people separating themselves from other white people, and so borders are not “racist” then apparently. But these Europeans who chose to put a border between themselves feel like they are better off existing as two separate nations, in spite of the fact that they were all of the same white race, were mostly of the Christian religion, shared European history, and were all active participants and supporters of western culture. They also had all been accustomed to be comfortable with Western norms and values and many spoke each other’s respective language as a backup second language. Yet today, when white westerners feel that they would be better off if they remained a majority within their own countries while nonwhites remained a majority in non-white countries, the progressives are screaming “racism” and “xenophobia”.
Today multiculturalism is forcing millions of people with different values, different religions, different traditions, different languages, and of a different race, to live alongside of white Europeans in European nations. The same progressive people who were perfectly fine with the separation of Czechs and Slovaks are now attacking those who dare to express concern when massive numbers of very different people are forced to live together. Multiculturalists expect everything to transition perfectly smoothly with no issues while a native European group is replaced by a foreign group, or else the group being replaced must be “racist”. This difference in the reactions to the two different examples of people trying to exercise their right to self-determination reveals how phony the whole thing is. It reveals that the establishment’s propaganda machine has manufactured feelings within modern progressives that normally would not be there. They have brainwashed a generation of people. Otherwise, people should have the same reaction to cries for a reduction in immigration today as they did to the creation of the new border between the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993. People still have the same brains, it is only the brainwashing from the elite that has been added. Basically, Czechoslovakia was a fake country that was forced to exist as a united state by the left wing, communist Soviet Union. It was created by foreign powers and not organically willed into existence by the people living there. Czechs and Slovaks have much more in common than what European Canadians and native Canadians have in common though. Let’s be honest about it and drop the Orwellian ‘newspeak’ hey? So, in a nutshell, there is clearly no one race in Canada who is purposely using or manipulating the environment in any way that causes uniquely natives to suffer. So the environmental organization’s first alleged example of “environmental racism” has been proven to be bullshit.
Next, let’s address their second alleged example of environmental racism – the fact that the Inuit would be experiencing the worst impacts of any melting of sea ice and of rising temperatures, if this was occurring. It is funny that progressives like the environmental organization’s members are now agreeing that the modern industrialized, greenhouse-gas-producing world was created by white people and is a part of white culture. They are agreeing in this instance only because it is convenient to do so when whites can be labeled as “racist” by doing so. All other times, progressives will argue intensely that whites have no culture at all. It reminds me of the progressives who recently complained that Oxford University’s music program was promoting white supremacy because it featured too much classical music in its music degree program. But if I had been arguing with them that classical music was part of white culture, when they were arguing that whites had no culture, then they would have insisted it was, instead, French or German or Russian music – not white. But do not blacks, asians, hispanics, natives and other nonwhites who live in the West also drive cars, use electricity, fly in jets, ride on buses or trains, use computers, etc.? They take part in, and benefit from living in, the industrialized world (which has a heavier carbon footprint) the same as white westerners do. The Western developed world is now about 30% non-white on average, thanks to mass immigration. Progressive anti-whites can’t have it both ways just so that they can blame white people for global warming.
|“On the celebration of Canada’s 152nd birthday, some residents showed their international pride. Eleven different food vendors and nearly two dozen entertainment acts celebrated their cultural diversity at the 6th annual multicultural showcase ‘We are One, no Borders‘”.|
The situation with the aforementioned melting sea ice simply involves a collision of or a conflict between a modern way of living and a more primitive or less developed way of living way up north. It is not uniquely white people causing the Inuit to suffer from these alleged problems. Other races which promote and benefit from living a modern lifestyle with all its convenient infrastructure are equally to blame for the Inuit people’s suffering. It is inconsistent and dishonest to blame solely white people for the problems that people OF ANY RACE would face when living in remote northern areas, areas which would not themselves contribute to global warming but would still feel the impact of it. So regarding their Inuit sea ice example, there clearly is no one race that is in charge of the economy and of industry who say to themselves, “We don’t care about making a profit so that we can buy fun stuff and a big fancy house, but we should still keep these factories pumping out carbon dioxide regardless so that we can force the Inuit to have to deal with melting sea ice.” THAT would be environmental racism. To suggest that this is going on is, frankly, silly, crazy, or racist against white people.
Finally, there is something that nonwhites from places far away from Canada often do that enrages me. Countless times I have seen the mainstream media or popular alternative media outlets feature a non-white from somewhere thousands of miles away from Canada standing next to a native Canadian. Usually there is a slogan or mantra being promoted with themes like, “asian Canadians and native Canadians unite against racism” or “people of color stand strong against white supremacy” or “african Canadians join with indigenous Canadians for a more fair and equal Canada”, etc. This is enraging because I am much more of a “Native Canadian” than any person who immigrated into Canada from some part of the world with no historical connection to Canada at all. My ancestors built Canada and have been here for over 200 years. Yet somebody can come in from Korea or Uganda and, two months after they arrive, join forces against me with other non-white Canadians simply because of the color of my skin. Immigrants from all around the world have no “native” claim to Canada at all. There is no history of white people as a group doing anything bad inside of Canada to people of those other races from around the world. So these media outlets are promoting a culture war or a race war which pits white Canadians, not only against native Canadians, but against people of every other race on earth who can manage to come to Canada to live here. Their logic seems to be that, because white people did some bad things in the past to specifically native people who were living in what is now Canadian territory, every other race on earth who can make it to Canada (even illegally) must now also join with native Canadians in the punishing and shaming of white Canadians for what white Canadians did to that fellow non-white race. In other words, they are promoting a race war.
|African immigrant comes to Canada to fight the “environmental racism” of whites|
The mainstream is promoting the idea that the victim status of native Canadians which was created by the wrongs committed against specifically native Canadians, is now also magically shared by Canadians of other non-white races simply because they are also non-white like native Canadians are! Imagine if a large number of white people emigrated to China. Imagine that they arrived in China and soon afterwards joined together to protest with groups of Tibetans whose native land was conquered by the Chinese government. Imagine if these white people then started trying to share ownership of the Tibetan people’s oppression with people of Tibetan ethnicity. Try to picture the slogans appearing on the Chinese national news and stating things like, “white Chinese citizens unite with Tibetan-Chinese citizens against Chinese supremacy” or “European Chinese and Tibetan Chinese together for a more inclusive China” or “Canadian Chinese join with Tibetan Chinese to fight Chinese racism.” Would that not be CRAZY?!?! Imagine the insanity of trying to transfer the oppression of Tibetans onto white people who live in China, simply because those white people happened to also not be Chinese in the same way the Tibetans are not Chinese! You would start to think that the Chinese media was trying to pit the Chinese people against all the other races of the world in that scenario right? It would seem like the Chinese media hated the Chinese people. This is the same thing as what the media is doing to white people here in Canada. Please, if you love your people, then get at least one of them to read this message as a way to arm them against attacks on white people and white nationalism.