Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Guardian author Rebecca Solnit wonders whether the white supremacist terrorists who massacred 50 unarmed Muslims in Christchurch chose last Friday to distract attention from the Climate Change Student Strike.
Why climate action is the antithesis of white supremacy
Tue 19 Mar 2019 22.58 AEDT
Behind the urgency of climate action is the understanding that everything is connected; behind white supremacy is an ideology of separation.
As the news of the Christchurch mosque massacre broke and I scoured the news, I came across a map showing that the Friday morning climate strike in Christchurch was close to the bloodbath. I felt terrible for the young people who showed up with hope and idealism, wondered whether the killer or killers chose this particular day to undermine the impact of this global climate action. It was a shocking pairing and also a perfectly coherent one, a clash of opposing ideologies. Behind the urgency of climate action is the understanding that everything is connected; behind white supremacy is an ideology of separation.
Of separation as the idea that human beings are divided into races, and those in one race have nothing in common with those in others. Of separation as the idea that though white people have overrun the globe, nonwhite people should stay out of Europe, North America, and now even New Zealand and Australia, two places where white settlers came relatively recently to already inhabited places – as a fantasy of resegregating the world. Of a lot of ideas and ideals of masculinity taken to a monstrous extreme – as ideas of disconnection, of taking matters into your own hands, of feeling no empathy and exhibiting no kindness, of asserting yourself as having the right to dominate others even unto death. And of course, of guns as the symbols and instruments of this self-definition.Climate change is based on science. But if you delve into it deeply enough it is a kind of mysticism without mystification, a recognition of the beautiful interconnection of all life and the systems – weather, water, soil, seasons, ocean pH – on which that life depends. It acknowledges that everything is connected, that to dig up the carbon that plants so helpfully sequestered in the ground over eons and burn it so that returns to the sky as carbon dioxide changes the climate, and that this changed climate isn’t just warmer, it’s more chaotic, in ways that break these elegant patterns and relationships. That chaos is a kind of violence – the violence of hurricanes, wildfires, new temperature extremes, broken weather patterns, droughts, extinctions, famines. Which is why climate action has been and must be nonviolent. It is a movement to protect life.
…I asked Hoda Baraka, who is both Muslim and 350.org’s global communications director, how it all looked to her in the wake of the climate strike and the massacre, and she said “In a world being driven by fear, we are constantly being pitted against the very things that make this world livable. Whether it’s people being pitted against each other, even though there is no life without human connection, love and empathy. Or fear pitting us against the very planet that sustains us, even though there is no life on a dead planet. This is why fighting against climate change is the equivalent of fighting against hatred. A world that thrives is one where both people and planet are seen for their inextricable value and connectedness.”
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/19/why-youll-never-meet-a-white-supremacist-who-cares-about-climate-change
Rebecca, using the blood of murdered innocents to promote your climate ideology is nothing short of obscene, a new low even for the climate movement.
It’s interesting that she claims white people have overrun the globe, when white people are actually a minority group making up only about 14% of global population. Asian people make up 60% of global population but don’t even rate a mention. Her comments can therefore only be interpreted as a racist anti-white rant.
It then gets worse when she claims white settlement occured in two already inhabited countries, Australia and New Zealand, implying that this was a hostile takeover, but what she forgets is that she supports an ideology that wants full open borders to flood in as many freeloaders that can be accomodated in a short space of time and with no regard for the wishes of the original inhabitants, whose land would be completely overrun, resulting in their total demise. If she really cared about the indigenous peole she would advocate for a complete halt to further immigation in these countries.
Her words indicate she obvioulsy harbours a huge hate aginst white skinned people, where the actions of a single person acting alone are unfairly tarnished to all people with the same skin colour, which is very sad in today’s modern society where we have put significant energies into removing nasty skin colour based discriminations.
Well said Serge.
Her view is created out of contempt – for anything but her idea of what the world should be like.
YOUR take on it, is by far and a way, rational, hers is, well…..there must be a word for it, but IF I were to type it here, I doubt it would pass moderation – and rightly so.
Give it a go . Unless of course you are simply casting aspersion .
Say it. We are not in Oceania now.
There is free speech here.
Serge
Great post, I’ll just make one observation.
Open borders run the risk of the same fate befalling the now indigenous people of NZ/Aus etc., as that of the original indigenous Maoris and Aborigines. A lesson we have been urged to learn and not repeat.
Maoris are migrants from polinesia. Aborigines are indigenous peoples, it’s what “Aborigine” means, native peoples.
One of my posts seems to have been purged. I think it is valid to this discussion.
Unless you believe that Australia’s aborigines were from a separate creation, then you must accept that they are descended from immigrants, just as the Maoris in New Zealand.
There is no generally accepted definition of “indigenous peoples”. In Australia it is generally taken to mean Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. However, I have heard that it can also include those whose ancestors bones are buried in Australia. This can, of course, include most of the population of Australia, whose parents are dead and buried in Australia. Including, for example, Andrew Bolt, whose parents – of Dutch origin, are buried here.
The Aborigines became British subjects by virtue of the annexation of Australia – “Cook wrote that he formally took possession of the east coast of New Holland on 21/22 August 1770 when on Possession Island off the west coast of Cape York Peninsula.[102] He noted in his journal that he could “land no more upon this Eastern coast of New Holland, and on the Western side I can make no new discovery the honour of which belongs to the Dutch Navigators and as such they may lay Claim to it as their property [italicised words crossed out in the original] but the Eastern Coast from the Latitude of 38 South down to this place I am confident was never seen or viseted by any European before us and therefore by the same Rule belongs to great Brittan [italicised words crossed out in the original]. Wikipaedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australia
At that time all aborigines became British subjects – but this was only given effect by the opening of the settlement in New South Wales (a country can annex a territory but this must be given effect by landing and maintaining a population thereon.) For this reason the French annexation of Western Australia lapsed. Wikipaedia again: “In 1772, a French expedition led by Louis Aleno de St Aloüarn, became the first Europeans to formally claim sovereignty over the west coast of Australia, but no attempt was made to follow this with colonisation.”
“Dudley Horscroft March 20, 2019 at 6:54 am
Unless you believe that Australia’s aborigines were from a separate creation…”
There is evidence they originated in Africa. Given the fact I can test my mDNA (That is what you inherit from your mother) and it shows it is, mostly, African. Some African Americans have found their DNA originates in Europe. Go figure!
What is means is this; When we were “growing” up we were shagging anything insight (To stay alive)!
At the time the “British” arrived in Australia and New Zealand, integration was last on their minds. Hence the “resistance” to various British days of celebration, like Australia Day. May indigenous people’s call it “invasion” day.
Fair enough. You can have your land back, we will take our technology back. OK?
On the contrary, Patrick MJD. “Among the instructions Phillip received from George III in April 1787 was ‘to endeavor by every possible means to open an intercourse with the natives, and to conciliate their affections, enjoining all our subjects to live in amity and kindness with them’. The relevant footnote states: “Phillip’s Instructions, given at court at St James Palace, 25 April 1787, in Historical Records of New South Wales, Vol 1, Part 2, p 89.” See “The Break Up of Australia”, Windschuttle, K. Quadrant Books, 2016, p 384.
Yes well George didn’t have to deal with locals so…” “Among the instructions Phillip received from George III in April 1787…”
Took the back burner…
“In a world being driven by fear…..”
Confirmation, were it ever needed, that 350.org exists on a different planet to the rest of us.
It is interesting that the Guardian journalist lists various things she regards as the basics of life – weather, water, soil, seasons, ocean pH – but neglects to mention carbon or, specifically carbon dioxide. No carbon dioxide, no life. Simple as that. What unbelievable ignorance from one who would wish to write on environmental matters.
New Zealand shooter has more in common with radical environmentalists than ‘right-wingers’
Most of Tarrant’s troubled screed is devoted to detailing the radical environmental views that led him to declare himself an “eco-fascist” and commit mass murder. To put it bluntly, he saw himself as attempting to save the planet by killing off some of the human beings who were despoiling it.
Snip
“Why focus on immigration and birth rates when climate change is such a huge issue?” he asked rhetorically. “Because they are the same issue. The Environment is being destroyed by overpopulation. We Europeans are one of the groups that is not overpopulating the world. The invaders are the ones overpopulating the world. Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation, and by doing so save the world.”
In other words, it’s all about the birth rates.
In obsessing over population growth, environmental collapse, and planetary apocalypse, he was following the ideological lead of people like Paul Ehrlich, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), and John Holdren, all of whom have publicly complained, in one way or another, that some people are having way too many children.
Ehrlich is famous for predicting—over and over again–that a “population bomb” will sooner or later devastate the planet. Newcomer AOC imagines that she knows the actual year—2023 AD–that the world will end.
Then there is John Holdren, who served in the White House as Obama’s science advisor. In his book, Ecoscience, Holdren endorses compulsory abortion, mass sterilization, and the sterilization and abortion of “undesirables.” He even proposed that a “Planetary Regime” be established, that would have the power to decide who would be allowed—and who would be forbidden—from having a baby.
China adopted every last one of Holdren’s radical suggestions, even down to the implementation of a quota system for births.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/new-zealandshooters-worldview-has-shocking-similarities
The article author seems to have a vile, little mind. Of course, it is all about the message. Anything within the message. Nothing outside the message, nothing against the message.
Well, President Trump said this the other day about White Nationalism: ” [White Nationalists] are a small group of people with some very serious [mental] problems.”
I assume this author is trying to equate Trump with white nationalism, but there is no evidence that Trump is a white nationalist or a racist.
It’s not racist to want to protect the border from illegal aliens because those illegal aliens are made up of every race on the planet, so there is no discrimination going on, Trump wants to stop ALL of them, no matter what their race, color or creed. Trump is treating all illegal aliens equally, including the white ones. He’s deporting them as fast as he can.
This author is just playing the race card. It’s Standard Operating Procedure on the Left to claim those who oppose the Left are doing so because they are racist.
Standard Leftist Smear.
I noticed an article by Bjorn Lomborg , in recent posts, which I’ll read next.
After reading this hateful little piece, I’m expecting to read some hard facts & figures, presented with cool reason & logic.
Ignorant filth like this article makes one realise what a pile of garbage one has to avoid or wade through when one adheres to the principle of free speech.
JD.
These people in the Guardian et al are forever seeing correlation where there is none, as if everything in the world fits in neat boxes for their simplistic minds.
Is somebody advocating that New Zealand Muslims should be armed?
What we have is the Democrat agenda: gun control, immigration, and climate change. link The ideological possession of the left is so dangerous because it disguises itself as virtue. link
IMO Facebook are complicit in this as they allowed him to live-stream his activities. Some of his stream was widely viewed before being banned.
Facebook seemed to be slower to react to this “live stream” event than when a woman posted a video of her nipples online!
i pointed that out on news.com and reckon like other comments it wont be posted
too true i guess
Unlike some other similar appalling incidents the killer has been apprehended live and is at present in custody.
Assuming he makes it to Court he will be able to explain , under questioning, his motives (although he may remain silent I suppose). Depending on the skill of the prosecuting team we may be able to extract the real motives and associations , and they may conflict with the knee jerk reaction of the Guardian and BBC journalists.
If , however pre trial questioning uncovers a confusion of eco nonsense , global warming, climate fear attached to over -population and uncontrolled immigration , the subsequent trial might be embarrassing in some quarters.
Will he be tried in -camera on the grounds of national security , or judged unfit to plead for reasons of insanity and just locked away for ever?
they pretty much said closed court already
especially as he wants self representation
can’t have the people hearing his reasons
especially the ones mentioned here re overpop green leanings;-)
arderns full greentard
The terrorist calls himself as an eco-fascist. He thinks the world is polluted, overpopulated, and communism is a good thing. Reading the Guardian, it seems to me, many of those views are held by the majority of its’ writers. Some people need to take a long hard look in the mirror, and accept responsibility for their part in promoting this evil at Christchurch.
It’s the Guardian, and as reliable as a teenager with a crystal meth habit.
tom0mason, how insulting of you. You own teenagers with crystal meth habits an apology for comparing them to the filth that is the guardian. 😉
OOops, my bad.
Or Griff
Well the killer’s ideology is their ideology. He called himself an “Ecofascist”…. Which most of the Environmental movement are. The killer was as misanthropic as most Greenpeace activists. His “Manifesto” was nothing I haven’t read on most Environmentalist sites, minus his ideas on race.
So I’m guessing they are a bit shocked and worried… When Greens go bad, this guy is the result.
When Greens go bad, this guy is the result.
Unfortunately Greens rarely go good.
Greens are, ironically, naive.
Filth. Makes us angry to read but more determined than ever.
The Essay That Launched the Term “Mansplaining”
Rebecca Solnit’s ‘Men Explain Things to Me’ explains this international scourge
https://newrepublic.com/article/118555/rebecca-solnits-men-explain-things-me-scourge-mansplaining
Rebecca is Femsplaining to us!! :: ))
Global Warming Is Now A ‘Women ’s Issue’ Due To ‘Ecofeminism
Environmentalists are increasingly claiming that global warming is a “women’s issue” and that the world needs “eco-feminism” as a path forward.
snip
Ecofeminists believe that women and nature are bonded by traditionally “feminine” values and their shared history of oppression by a patriarchal Western society. This patriarchal society is built on four intersectional pillars of sexism, racism, class exploitation, and environmental destruction.
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/global-warming-is-now-a-womens-issue-due-to-ecofeminism/
I wish Freud was still around, in Warmism he would have a whole new category to study.
Yeah but somehow he would manage to bring it all back to sex and wanting to sleep with your mother and/or father.
A diversitist (i.e. color judgment) national socialist with an environmental cause, who expected to exploit the greenness of some, many people and inspire them to join his causes.
That just really angers me. For one you can forget the white supremacist bit as the guy was just a bloody nutter.
First, it was one seriously deranged individual, not “terrorists” as the Guardian incorrectly stated.
Reading between the lines, the Guardian seems to be implying that denying climate change is responsible for insanity in humans. Well, really . . . is this assertion something that we couldn’t see coming?
The Guardian, specifically Hope Solo, is also worried about too many”white girls next door”. Whether it’s National Socialists or others with a principled-alignment, it is historically documented that diversity (i.e. color judgment) breeds adversity.
When and by whose choice does a human life acquire and retain the right to life? This is a question we’re advised not to ask and cannot be answered. So, selective and cannibalized-child are taboo topics in a liberal society. The first rule of planned parenthood protocol is that survivors do not have a voice to protest, arms to defend, and a right to life.
Well, we were just saying yesterday that there’s no absurdity below them.
I think this is great news. Debunks the rest of the media which claims Trump personally did it.
I guess the Guardian wasn’t creative enough to link both climate change and Trump in the same story.
There is a religious belief in the far left that if everybody believes as they do the world will be perfect. There will be no more war and everyone will get along. The climate will be perfect. Of course human history completely contradicts this. People have always squabbled.
The beliefs of the far left are identity politics, socialism, climate change plus a total intolerance to discussion of issues. For instance the question of low wage immigration impact on working class families in the US is meant with “You must hate immigrants”. Instead of an honest discussion of its pros and cons.
So it is easy for them to blame climate change skepticism for the shooting because their beliefs are interconnected. Its hard for us to understand this because these issues in a rational world are not interconnected.