This article has been prompted today by reading at “American Renaissance,” the article by Philip Santoro, “What does it Mean for Whites if Climate Change is Real?” September 10, 2017 at:

The point of the article is to examine the hypothesis that if climate change is real, then what is the significance of this for the White tribe, given that environmentalism is primarily a White concern:

In fact, the issue is more complex than Santoro addresses within the confines of the fairly conservative “American Renaissance,” for there are lively debates about whether ethnic groups such as the Jews lack a deep environmental consciousness because of the fundamental dichotomy between nature and humanity. The argument for this was given by Steven S. Schwarzchild (1924-1989), “The Unnatural Jew,” “Environmental Ethics,” vol. 6, 1984, pp. 347-362, and this critique generated many purported refutations by leading Jewish environmental philosophers, as collected in M. D. Yaffe (ed.), “Judaism and Environmental Ethics: A Reader,” (Lexington books, Plymouth, 2001). The article by David Ehrenfeld and Philip J. Bentley (pp. 125-135), basically refutes Schwarzchild, pointing out that he ignores a large amount of Jewish environmental thought, focusing only on the pro-growth material. As always in these sorts of debates, the “all-or-nothing” position is usually wrong, and there are points both for Judaism being ecologically destructive, and points for its conservation ethic, because most religions are so diverse, and most likely inconsistent, or “paraconsistent,” that they readily allow a multitude of often contradictory interpretations. That is why the best minds can still be at odds with each other.

There has been much the same debate within Christianity, with the publication in 1967 of Lynn White’s paper, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” “Science,” vol. 155, 1967, pp. 1203-1207. Essentially the same claim was made as Schwarzschild proposed about Judaism, namely that Christianity carried forward Judaism’s separation between humans and nature, leading to a philosophy of domination, and ultimate exploitation by science and technology:

“in the history of our culture. It has become fashionable today to say that, for better or worse, we live in the "post-Christian age." Certainly, the forms of our thinking and language have largely ceased to be Christian, but to my eye the substance often remains amazingly akin to that of the past. Our daily habits of action, for example, are dominated by an implicit faith in perpetual progress which was unknown either to Greco- Roman antiquity or to the Orient. It is rooted in, and is indefensible apart from, Judeo- Christian theology. The fact that Communists share it merely helps to show what can be demonstrated on many other grounds: that Marxism, like Islam, is a Judeo-Christian heresy. We continue today to live, as we have lived for about 1700 years, very largely in a context of Christian axioms. 4 What did Christianity tell people about their relations with the environment? While many of the world's mythologies provide stories of creation, Greco-Roman mythology was singularly incoherent in this respect. Like Aristotle, the intellectuals of the ancient West denied that the visible world had a beginning. Indeed, the idea of a beginning was impossible in the framework of their cyclical notion of time. In sharp contrast, Christianity inherited from Judaism not only a concept of time as nonrepetitive and linear but also a striking story of creation. By gradual stages a loving and all- powerful God had created light and darkness, the heavenly bodies, the earth and all its plants, animals, birds, and fishes. Finally, God had created Adam and, as an afterthought, Eve to keep man from being lonely. Man named all the animals, thus establishing his dominance over them. God planned all of this explicitly for man's benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man's purposes. And, although man's body is made of clay, he is not simply part of nature: he is made in God's image. Especially in its Western form, Christianity is the most anthropocentric religion the world has seen. As early as the 2nd century both Tertullian and Saint Irenaeus of Lyons were insisting that when God shaped Adam he was foreshadowing the image of the incarnate Christ, the Second Adam. Man shares, in great measure, God's transcendence of nature. Christianity, in absolute contrast to ancient paganism and Asia's religions (except, perhaps, Zoroastrianism), not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is God's will that man exploit nature for his proper ends.”

The argument here, though, taken to its logical conclusion leads to the blame ultimately being placed on science and technology. Again, there are points both for and against scientific and technological advancement, and we do not yet know whether the Western path has more merits than disadvantages. If we bring down civilization and kill ourselves, then, of course, Lynn White and the tradition of Left and anarchist critics of modernity will be correct:

In short, it all comes down to the evidence.

Back now to the Santoro article on climate change. He is right to point out that today, political correctness and a Left/globalist bias is running through the sciences, including biology and psychology. The Left have adopted and politicized climate change, using it to argue for a one-world agenda. But, they have done this with everything in environmentalism because in the post-

World War II world, the Right have abandoned nature, and have moved to an over-spiritualized and over-civilized view of man.

Apart from possible Left bias in climate research, that should have been countered, Christians oppose climate change because it rams home to them that some local, less dramatic version of Noahian survivalism could be just around the corner, The Growths oppose climate change mitigation because it is bad for business. Peak oil has similar politics, with many Christian groups siding with Big Oil in denying that there is any impending fuel crisis. Oil comes from the deep earth, abiogenically: Common to all of this is a lack of review of scientific literature and data, to the accepted standards.

Again, it is all a question of evidence. One needs to read the scientific papers, evaluate them, and if necessary, attempt to replicate experiments, or ascertain new data. In the case of climate change data, this is difficult for lone researchers to do first hand, so often we are left only with the option of scientifically evaluating the published papers. Few of the internet critics of climate change actually spend hundreds of hours examining papers to get an informed opinion. It is mainly unthinking responses to climate events in their neighborhood.

All that the global warming hypothesis entails is a rise in the average global temperature since the pre-industrial era. This rise has either occurred or it has not. If it has occurred the cause of the rise is either natural, man-made, or a mixture of both. And, if the cause is real, there may, or may not be, climatic effects. There may or may not be say, more extreme weather events. All of these things are empirical factual questions which are of enormous scientific complexity. Yet I often see the low IQ arguing that say mass snow falls in some part of America refute the global warming hypothesis and/or, climate change. Likewise, a severe heat wave, alone, does not prove climate change. It could be part of a larger case of evidence against the hypotheses, or it could actually confirm them. It all depends upon further bodies of evidence.

All of this evidence is subject to high levels of uncertainty, and open to revision, ideally, but scientists are human rats like us, and hate to see their pet work get refuted, so refutations are much less common than philosophers such as Kerl Popper proposed.

Santoro is therefore quite correct in saying:

“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.”

Anyone with a survivalist mind set should be prepared to run with the global warming/climate change ideology, and turn the argument to their advantage. Yes, this sort of severe climate change:

indicates that globalism will lead to ecological disaster, and that Garrett Hardin’s life boat environmental ethics is correct:

However, for most of the Right, especially Christian groups involved with social credit, this sort of eco-nationalism/eco-tribalism, is not explored. They would prefer to be fucked up the ass with a pineapple by Big Oil and the corporate cuոts, rather than distinguish themselves from the Left and win back on the environmental issue.

For all we know, the worst-case environmental doomsday could be just around the corner: collapse by 2030. Here, this “Guy” does not have our politics, and is a love and peace type of fellow, but he quotes a lot of articles, ALL of which will need to be REFUTED:

Surviving the world of ecological collapse, Mad Max with no feminists or hot cars, will require adopting a completely ruthless Darwinian survivalist Garrett Hardin philosophy of live and let die, which the Christians just don’t have the guts to embrace. Nor, for that matter do many of the Alt Right, who still strive for respectability in a time of impending apocalypse.

These issues are complex even for PhD educated scientists, and the ordinary guy does not have much chance of working through things: that I grant. So, in the end it will be impossible to reverse climate change, and the worst will happen anyway, regardless of any carbon cutting done by Americans. Thus, while I personally accept that the worst of climate change is before us, I do not advocate restricting carbon emissions, shutting down industry or any of the policies of the globalists and the Left. It is far too late. Rather, consume, party and enjoy what life remains, for the human story is coming to an end. Hence, repel all climate refugees from our life boat and as Garrett Hardin said, or implied, let the poor die. First. We fuckers, go after those suckers.

Own the collected works of John Saxon, Professor X, Eirik Blood Axe, William Rapier and other counter culture critics, on Kindle, via the link below. Amazon:

.