This is a complex issue, but for the purposes of this short post, I’ll use the metrics of establishment environmentalist entities, such as the US government. I’ll use tonnage of emissions, with the understanding that some may disagree, and that there are many other possible angles to this issue. Tonnage of emissions is, at least in theory, quantifiable.
EnergyStar is a government program that gives certification to various products that they’re energy-efficient. You may have noticed the emblem on some of your appliances. From the government website:
ENERGY STAR is an important tool in fighting climate change, improving air quality, and protecting public health. By reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants, ENERGY STAR also provides states and local governments with more flexibility and reduced costs towards meeting their climate, air quality, and public health goals. In 2020 alone, ENERGY STAR and its partners helped Americans save more than 520 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity and avoid $42 billion in energy costs. These savings resulted in associated emission reductions of more than 400 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, roughly equivalent to more than five percent of U.S. total greenhouse gas emissions.
400 million metric tons per year is a lot of emissions. Very impressive!
The U.S. foreign-born population reached a record 44.8 million in 2018. Since 1965, when U.S. immigration laws replaced a national quota system, the number of immigrants living in the U.S. has more than quadrupled. Immigrants today account for 13.7% of the U.S. population, nearly triple the share (4.8%) in 1970.
According to MigrationPolicy.org, immigrants have been responsible for approximately 20 million extra births in the United States since 1990. Ignoring births to immigrants from before 1990, we can conservatively estimate that immigration is responsible for an additional 65 million Americans in recent decades.
The bulk of these immigrants came from Latin America, specifically Mexico. More recently, they come from Asia. From Pew Research (ibid.):
Worldpopulationreview has a handy interactive map that shows us, among other things, the per-capita emissions for most countries in the world. According to this map, Mexico has a per-capita emission of 3. China is 8, India is 2. Philippines and El Salvador are both 1. To reach a fairly precise value, we’d have to extrapolate the figures in the above table, and then combine the respective per-capita emissions. I’ll leave this for somebody who’s better at math than I am – but the resulting average won’t be far off from 3. Probably slightly less. We’ll call it 3.
For the United States, the per-capita emission is almost 13 – yielding a difference of about 11.
65 million times 11 is 715 million extra metric tons of emissions due to immigration in recent decades.
Though official sources don’t necessarily agree, I think that an increasing amount of immigration will come from black Africa, where carbon emissions hover around 0-1. In other words, every African immigrant will increase emissions by around 12 metric tons annually.
The amount of excess emissions, from immigration, is almost TWICE AS MUCH as what is prevented through EnergyStar.
If EnergyStar is “an important tool in fighting climate change,” as the US government claims, then how much more so would be stopping immigration.
Update: Somebody did a similar calculation from a British perspective:
This Black History Month, celebrate the rich history of Black-owned businesses. Discover nearby Black-owned restaurants that are popular in San Francisco, from casual sit-down dining to dessert delights.
Search Black-owned
Black-owned Ones to Watch in 2023Around the country, people are discovering more Black-owned businesses in their communities. Check out the Black-owned Ones to Watch in 2023 to stay current.See Ones to Watch
Order from Black-owned businesses anywhere in the U.S.In honor of Black History Month, we’re highlighting Black-owned businesses that will ship to customers no matter where they live. Check out this list of businesses to place your order.Check out the list
At this point, it’s not even a case of such and such company turns woke/anti-White. This is now so much the norm that it would be newsworthy if any company did NOT fall in line.
As we see this status-quo unfolding before our very eyes, to the point where it’s undeniable, let’s remember that these same companies claim that blacks are an “oppressed minority,” suffering from “systemic racism.”
Sorry Corporate America, you can’t have it both ways. Either every one of you supports black businesses or blacks are oppressed. Both can’t be true.
I came across this recently, and thought I’d share it with my readers. I don’t know what the story is behind this, but it does illustrate the third-world mentality: Religiosity without necessarily having consideration for others. Note the sticker on the driver side window.
Yes, it’s a clickbait title, but a somewhat accurate one.
Check out this tweet:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1620753669863141379
From the typical socialist’s point of view Capitalism = greed. Specifically corporate greed, which is usually a result of the corporate establishment. Conservatives take a broader view of Capitalism, which is simply human nature: You fix my shoes, and I’ll give you eggs. It’s simply quid pro quo, and all human societies engage in it, or there would be no human societies.
At this point, it’s more than corporate greed that encourages mass migration into the West. Ideology clearly plays a large role, but this shouldn’t stop us from blaming “Capitalism” for the destruction of our societies via invasion.
In the above tweet, Robert Jones is referring to Australia, whose indigenous population is generally considered to be non-White. But this same dynamic applies to Europe. Europe’s indigenous populations are being brutalized and displaced, and we might as well blame “Capitalism” for it, along with the usual suspects – at least when interacting with leftists. Of course, a major hurdle for them is recognizing that Europe’s Whites are indigenous populations.
Some of ya’ll might remember that a while back, America First Legal aired a television ad complaining of anti-White bigotry by the Biden administration.
It turns out that there is no such thing as anti-White bigotry, because a “fact-checker” says so…
… just kidding. But here’s what I found in a Quora space dedicated to opposing the space It’s Okay to be White (IOTBW). It’s called “Anti IOTBW:”
Indeed, the people at IOTBW do need to read it, preferably along with my observations, lest anybody be fooled.
First I’ll point out that the article does not claim to prove that there is no anti-White bigotry in the US. In fact, it doesn’t even assert that all the claims in the ad are false, just that SOME of them are false:
Radio and TV ads from a group headed by a former senior adviser to Donald Trump accuse President Joe Biden and the left of “racism against white people” and “anti-white bigotry.” But in context, some of the claims about the alleged “anti-white” policies and statements don’t hold up.
The article does point out that some of the lawsuits against the Biden administration were successful, but let’s focus on the ones that this “fact-checker” claims are false:
The TV version of the ad cites an article about that issue as the ad’s narrator claims, “Joe Biden put white people last in line for COVID relief funds.” But even in the original language of the policy, that’s not accurate, since women, veterans and economically disadvantaged people could be white people.
One wonders if these “fact-checkers” are genuinely stupid, or if they’re simply trying to mislead stupid people.
I know it’s hackneyed, but let’s reverse the races: Blacks go to the back of the line, except female, veteran and poor blacks. Meanwhile, ALL Whites go to the front of the line. Would this not be considered racial discrimination? Of course it would, because when one group gets preference by virtue of its race, while other groups need additional characteristics, it’s discriminatory.
… the radio ad says, “Kamala Harris said disaster aid should go to nonwhite citizens first.” In October, we fact-checked a claim by U.S. Sen. Rick Scott of Florida and other conservativecommentators and newsoutlets that the vice president said hurricane relief from the Federal Emergency Management Agency would be based on race.
“Harris said … that, you know, if you have a different skin color, you’re going to get relief,” Scott said in an Oct. 2 interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
The following day, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted at Harris: “Hurricanes do not discriminate. And neither should the federal government giving aid to people suffering from the devastation of Hurricane Ian. Is your husband’s life worth less bc he’s white?”
But we found that Harris’ words were being lifted out of context.
The article goes on to quote the White House press secretary, Jean-Pierre:
Jean-Pierre, Oct. 3: So that is not what the vice president said. The vice president was clearly talking about long-term investment, not FEMA aid, for hurricane response efforts. The vice president and the president have been clear that the federal government has been and will continue to be there for all Americans recovering from these devastating storms. … We are committed to quickly getting resources to all communities impacted, period, full stop. But we also know that some people, particularly in lower-income communities, have a hard time accessing that help. That’s why this administration has also made it a priority to remove barriers and ensure that everyone, regardless of their ZIP Code, can access federal resources. And that’s what she was talking about.
What des she mean by “long-term investment?” Was she talking about stocks and bonds? Infrastructure? The article doesn’t specify, but a similar Reuters “fact-check” article does:
The short clip cuts the full context of the comment, where Harris was asked about Hurricane Ian relief efforts as well as how the United States should respond to climate change impacts more broadly…
Harris continued, referencing climate-related natural disasters generally (6:04s): “The crisis is real, and the clock is ticking…the way that I think of it, is both in terms of the human toll, and I know we are all thinking about the families Florida, in Puerto Rico with Fiona, and what we need to do to help them in terms of an immediate response in aid, but also what we need to do to help restore communities, and build communities back up in a way that they can be resilient, not to mention adapt, to these extreme weather conditions which are part of the future…”
Addressing Chopra Jonas’ point about disparities, Harris noted, “… it is our lowest income communities and our communities of color that are most impacted by these extreme conditions and, and impacted by, by issues that are not of their own making … we have to address this in a way that is about giving resources based on equity. Understanding that we, we fight for equality, but we also need to fight for equity, understanding not everyone starts out at the same place. And if we want people to be in an equal place sometimes, we have to take into account those disparities and, and do that work…”
In other words, the truth is even WORSE than what the ad implies. Harris is saying that “equity” (IE. preference to non-Whites and women) should be a priority not only in Florida, but all over the world, not only now, but ALL THE TIME. That’s like a criminal defending himself in court by stating:
This one particular crime is not a big deal. I engage in crime all the time. In fact, it’s a lifestyle for me. It’s part of my culture.
Nobody is claiming to have evidence of specific anti-White discrimination in this case. The ad is only saying that Harris expressed an opinion that non-Whites should get preferential treatment – and this is true, but on a LARGER SCALE than one might think.
Next, the “fact-checkers” tackle Trump’s claim that Whites were to be last in line for Covid vaccines:
As for the ads’ claim that “liberal politicians block access to medicine based on skin color,” back in January, we fact-checked a similar claim by Trump. “The left is now rationing life-saving therapeutics based on race, discriminating against and denigrating, just denigrating, white people to determine who lives and who dies. If you’re white, you don’t get the vaccine or if you’re white, you don’t get therapeutics,” he claimed.
As we wrote then, no one was being denied access to vaccines. The White House made clear it had enough vaccine doses available to get every American fully vaccinated, including a booster shot.
The issue was about therapeutics, some of which were in limited supply, but there is no evidence that white people were being denied COVID-19 therapeutics, either. Still, Trump accused New York state of discriminating against white people, saying its prioritization policy for COVID-19 treatment during times of limited resources was “anti-American.”
Even if the issue was strictly about therapeutics, it would still constitute anti-White discrimination. However, there was a CDC decision to also give priority to non-Whites for the vaccines – and this decision was reversed after public outcry:
It’s clear that this “fact-checker” is not trying to get to the truth, but squirming, splitting hairs and obfuscating in order to advance his own ideology. The prioritization of non-Whites, for Covid treatment, is documented. An impartial fact-check would have pointed this out.
Furthermore, as a rule of thumb, whenever we see leftists using the phrase “there is no evidence that…” our reaction should be: Were there any studies that LOOKED for evidence? If the powers-that-be aren’t looking for something, then they probably won’t find it, and more often than not, they will not fund or support studies that might poke holes in their narratives.
Therefore, we should consider it likely that White people were denied Covid vaccines/treatment due to their race – until there are valid studies that LOOKED for such people, and failed to find them.
I’ll conclude by pointing out that most people will not read the entire “fact-check” article; they’ll read the headline, see that it’s fairly long, and then cite it as “evidence” that “The Trumpanzees have been lying again!” Those who DO read the entire article will see that a large chuck of it is simply describing the activities (many of them successful) of America First Legal. The article does not dispute most of the accusations, only the ones I have listed above.
Please let me know, in comments, if you find any errors. It’s a complicated subject. I know it’s hard to believe, but I’m not perfect… however, we can make this post perfect by pointing out errors, so that I can correct them.
Steven Tucker just wrote an excellent piece on The Great Replacement “Theory.” I strongly recommend reading it in its entirety.
In a nutshell, Tucker provides some background information about the recent shooting of three random Kurds in Paris by William Malet. It turns out (surprise!) that Malet didn’t just wake up one morning, get bored, and think to himself, “I’m bored; I think I’ll go out and kill me some ragheads!”
Tucker elaborates:
In 2016, three young men of “North African heritage” (media-speak for “Muslim criminals”) had broken into his home. He had confronted them with a kitchen knife—rather than simply bending over and eagerly asking if they’d like to rape him, too, as contemporary polite liberal etiquette now recommends—then was sentenced to twelve months in prison for his unacceptable show of resistance. Worse, two of the injured burglars later sued him for €30,000 in damages, thereby literally making victims out of criminals and criminals out of victims.
Regarding the Great Replacement “Theory,” Tucker explains:
Data shows the Great Replacement really is occurring—that’s why saying so obviously now needs to be threatened with legal censorship—but the main factors behind it are probably not some implausible, planet-spanning, deliberate Jewish-globalist plot, as a hard-core minority of actual conspiracists maintain, but impersonal socioeconomic forces such as panda-like low white birth rates and the resultant Western demand for cheap, replacement immigrant labor from abroad.
I think Tucker could have, and should have, gone a bit further. A casual reader might conclude that there’s a range of opinions, among conservatives and White-advocates, regarding the nature of The Great Replacement, but not so much among those who actually perpetrate it.
This is not the case, and it cannot be the case. There are a great many people, in various levels of hierarchy, who orchestrate The Great Replacement; they are not a monolithic group. Many of them do fall under the category that Tucker describes, looking after their own short-term monetary interests.
Do they ALL fall into this category? Of course not. Some of them are, without doubt, working deliberately toward the destruction of White communities in the West. There are severalgoodarticles on American Renaissance documenting this… and, of course, there’s Biden publicly stating that The Great Replacement is something to be proud of:
I’ve used the above clip several times in my debates with replacement-denialists. It ends the debate every time; those leftists are the same people who constantly ridicule Whites who feel pride in their race. “You should only feel pride for something you have actually DONE,” they shriek. How are they to respond when their president says he’s proud of The Great Replacement?
In conclusion, there is a spectrum both within those who oppose The Great Replacement, and those who support it. Replacement-denialists lie by omission when they recognize only a small group of replacement opponents, and replacement opponents err when they recognize only the replacement-perpetrators who are driven by money; some are driven by politics or ideology.
