Yes dear reader, you read that correctly.
Besides an infinite potential of genders, accusations of “cultural appropriation”, “Latinx”, and the incessant slanders of “toxic masculinity”, you are now being pushed to embrace the ludicrous idea of “environmental racism”.
This suggestion is borne out of combining two of the radical lefts favorite hobby horses (intersectional discrimination and eco-fascism) into an ultimate ‘good-lord-this-cannot-be-true’ Frankenstein monstrosity of a concept.
They claim that this belief advocates for the protection of “marginalized people and the planet”. Specifically it “identifies the ways in which injustices happening to marginalized communities, and the Earth, are interconnected” and combines “injustices done to the planet [with] the most vulnerable communities”.
Holy word salad.
There’s a lot to unpack there so first let’s see who is pushing this gobbledygook.
The Green Regime
Indeed, all the top enviro-authoritarians agree about this ever so pressing issue. They include:
- Al Gore’s ‘Climate Reality’
- United Nations “experts”
- The World Economic Forum
- Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May
- The David Suzuki Organization
- The NRDC
- ENAR Europe
- And of course, the Biden White House (although they won’t say it out loud, shhhh)
In short, if you’re an aspiring communist who wants to be more woke than a hyper-caffeinated insomniac, turn your outrage up to 11 and combine totally disparate ideas for maximum slanderous effect.
But it doesn’t have to actually make sense for it to be rhetorically effective. The Left has learned that whenever you have a problem, you call it racist.
And whenever you want something to appear ideal, you say it’s ‘eco-friendly’.
So green anti-racism is logically where you should end up if youre pretending to care about these marginalized groups and their living spaces (although this does smack as a very heteronormative idea to my cisgender ear since there’s no mention of “Ecosexuality“).
Attempting To Understand
Even if we made a genuinely good-faith attempt at extrapolating some vague meaning from the concept of ‘environmental racism’, you have to ignore large swathes of reality to get there.
Let’s pretend that environmental problems disproportionately affect marginalized communities and this is a serious source of harm…Are these theorists saying it’s entirely purposeful? Are there white male uber-capitalists sipping brandy and pushing toxic waste playing chips across the Risk board to ‘racialized’ neighborhoods?
This is exactly the assertion and is a direct outgrowth of CRT. As Critical Race skeptic James Lindsay accurately points out: “CRT is the belief system that racism which benefits white people is the fundamental organizing principle of society”.
In his latest book, Race Marxism: The Truth about CRT & Praxis, Lindsay accurately asserts that the real intentions of ideas like ‘enviro-racism” is to perpetuate leftist “squabbling for standing” while “speaking over people deemed ‘privileged’, and constantly scrutinizing whether claims of oppression (and thus enlightenment) are valid”.
So it basically has nothing to do with ecology or oppression, but is a ploy to win the ‘Victimhood Olympics’ while being able to dismiss opponents out of hand with toxic slander.
Who’s To Blame?
First of all, who are the criminals that are inflicting these wrongs on the marginalized (be very specific about the people and crimes), and how are they getting away with these obvious environmental felonies? And secondly, why do the marginalized tolerate it?
Do they lack agency in this schematic to either press their case or leave?
Of course this naturally implies that the legal system, the EPA, capitalism, and obviously the moving companies, are racist as well. There’s no plausible escape or recourse for the BIPOCs. Just unsolvable racism all the way down.
I’ve also been told for the entirety of my life that global climate change affects us all equally. We’re allegedly “in this together” so saying some groups suffer more is somewhat perplexing.
Does this mean they’re more victimized because of their skin color, or, because of their geographic location?
Then shouldn’t it be geo-racism?
Or does that not make sense because no one in the West is being forced to reside anywhere?
And is environmental racism more important than climate change or less?
More than nuclear waste or less?
More severe than ocean pollution (say from hundreds of billions of disposable masks) or less?
The Real Agenda
Of course none of this makes sense and it’s not supposed to. At the heart of the “Green Movement” are a collection of deeply anti-human white liberals with a lot of misplaced guilt and self-loathing.
They don’t want you to have children, eat meat, or drive a pickup truck because of some fuzzy semi-plausible do-gooder concept of saving the planet in the future. But really what could be more anti-human than hating the existence of people?
They literally want the planet depopulated so trees and animals will thrive as they did in prehistory.
Think about it like this; if there is environmental racism, then how do they explain China? It is one of the most polluted places on the planet with several justified causes for ecological concern.
Who did it to them and why?
Was it the white Monopoly man or hundreds of thousands of Han business owners and CCP state owned enterprises enriching themselves?
Is This the Best Method?
Further still, let’s look at the US. A clear majority of the most polluted cities are not marginalized majority demographics.
And the places where “marginalized” communities do comprise the majority of its citizenry are, not surprisingly, leftist strongholds. So precisely the same people who would be pushing this are doing very little to alleviate it.
California is the most liberal, and most polluted, locale in the country. And I’m assuming Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstien, Adam Schiff, and Maxine Waters are privy to their enviro issues.
For sure Rep. Waters is because she did write the forward to “The Quest for Environmental Justice” (only $645 on Amazon, a steal for that kind of enlightenment)
Let’s Be Serious
Serious ecological issues most certainly crop up and are something we must contend with. I think we can all agree that preserving natural resources, reducing smog in city centers, and attempting to protect unique habitats is a valuable and shared benefit to the citizenry.
But the shameless and patronizing attempt to achieve goals through needless slander and race baiting is counterproductive and antagonistic.
Consider that this realistically might be a simple poverty/population density issue. Is it possible that marginalized peoples choose to live where there are very large populations and that this correlates with excessive pollution?
And as an exacerbating factor, as Thomas Sowell asserts, the poor’s economic reality is brought on by not refusing to produce anything in the marketplace. Which forces them to live in relatively bleak environments?
We cannot allow the socialist climate-alarmists to substitute class for race based grievances. We need to force them to choose reasonable topics and then we will convene.
Let’s start with unbiased fresh water conservation, nuclear energy, and cleaning the oceans as a starting point.
If they say racism, we walk out of the room.