August 8, 2010

Carbon Emissions and Immigration Reduction

From my new VDARE.com column:
Of the millions who claim to be deadly serious about Saving the World from global warming by limiting carbon emissions, how many are truly sincere?

There’s one surefire test: Do they demand reductions in immigration to the U.S.?

Answer: almost none of them do.

A Google search for “carbon emissions” brings up 3,680,000 web pages. (August 8, 2010). Add “immigration reduction” to the search, however, and the hit count falls to 114. [Try it yourself now by clicking here.]

The causes of global warning are disputed, but let’s assume for the sake of analysis that human output of “greenhouse gases” does indeed cause global warming. It ought to be close to self-evident that immigration to America increases this country’s—and the world’s—output of those gases.

The logic is very simple: If immigrants from poor countries successfully assimilate to American norms of earning and consuming, they, and their descendants, will emit vastly more carbon than if they had stayed home.

According to the UN’s International Energy Agency, residents of America in 2007 put out an average of 19.1 tons of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, by fossil fuel combustion—e.g., by driving around, by being warm in winter and cool in summer, and by watching TV.

In contrast, the residents of, say, Mexico each emit 4.1 tons per year. In other words, the typical inhabitant of America churns out 4.6 times as much carbon dioxide as the typical inhabitant of Mexico.

So, if an average Mexican immigrates to the U.S. and fully assimilates to average American patterns of earning and spending, he will emit 4.6 times as much carbon dioxide as if he stayed home in his own country. (Even more important are the impact of his descendants, which we’ll get to below).

This table gives a sampling of the carbon emissions per capita of immigrant importing and exporting countries.
 

... So let’s examine some logical objections to my argument for the benefit of global warming worriers.

Consider a very simplified model in which an immigrant from Mexico will either succeed or fail at assimilating to American norms on two dimensions: Earning and Consuming.
 
Let’s start with the upper left hand corner of this quadrant: American Dream. In this scenario, the typical Mexican who immigrates to the U.S. achieves the American Dream. He succeeds at consuming like an American (e.g., big SUV, big air-conditioned house in the suburbs, big TV, and so forth) and also (this is important) earning like an American. Therefore, his contribution to global greenhouse gas emission will be vastly greater than if he stayed home in Mexico. Even more importantly, so will his descendants’ carbon emissions. ...

In the lower left corner is the unspoken liberal assumption about the impact of Mexican immigration: Ecotopia. This logical possibility is the favorite of the sort of white liberals who have farm simulators on their iPhones. Of course, it is the least logical or possible.

They assume Mexican immigrants rapidly achieve American levels of income to pay the taxes for all the social programs that progressives favor. Yet, for unexplained reasons, the Mexican immigrants and their progeny choose to live like Portland trustfunders whose hobby is a “sustainable” lifestyle based on driving their vegetable oil-powered Toyota Prius hybrid to Whole Foods for heirloom tomatoes.

The Ecotopia assumption is the only logical way to square enthusiasm about immigration with alarmism about greenhouse gases.

Of course, ...

Read the whole thing there (including data on the burning question of how many Priuses do Mexicans buy) and comment upon it here.

137 comments:

Anonymous said...

Off-topic, but Gary Cooper's leading lady in The Fountainhead, Patricia Neal, just passed away.

She married the children's author, Roald Dahl [Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, James and the Giant Peach], had five children by him [four of whom lived to adulthood], and was, among other things, the grandmother of the plus-sized supermodel, Sophie Dahl.

Anonymous said...

"The logic is very simple: If immigrants from poor countries successfully assimilate to American norms of earning and consuming, they, and their descendants, will emit vastly more carbon than if they stayed home."

Nice try but you're wrong. Those poor immigrants who are looking for a better future for their kids are not the problem. They are not the ones driving gas guzzling SUVs, wasting an unbelievable amount of water on their lawns, or jet-setting in their private planes. No it's the much lionized white middle class and the exclusively white super rich who do that sort of thing. Therefore, they are the ones who should pay up. Whether that means making some lifestyle changes or paying a special tax for the carbon they use up, it's up to them. That is if they care one bit about planet Earth. Trying to connect environmental concern to your xenophobic and racist hobby horse will not persuade anyone. But keep trying. Conservatives may be hopelessly racist and out of any constructive ideas but they are always good for a laugh when they try stunts like these.

Anonymous said...

This article correctly exposes one of a series of ludicrous contradictions in the New Left paradigm currently being shoved down our throats.

Another one is the conscious pumping of millions of very, VERY conservative immigrants into Europe, against a concentration gradient, while simultaneously promoting women's rights, abortion, homosexuality, and the destruction of the family.

And there are other, similar paradoxes.

The people who are manipulating these phenomena are not stupid.

This is deliberate, and very calculated.

A mug and a T shirt to anyone who can proffer the best resolution to this set of paradoxes.

I know what I think.

Anon.

eh said...

As I commented earlier...

The way things are now, if it's diversity (via immigration) vs the environment, my money's on diversity.

Anonymous said...

Nice try but you're wrong. Those poor immigrants who are looking for a better future for their kids are not the problem. They are not the ones driving gas guzzling SUVs, wasting an unbelievable amount of water on their lawns, or jet-setting in their private planes.

The point is that if they assimilate to American wealth levels, they will*. If not, they won't. So there is a two horned dilemma in that either you are must admit either a) that they won't assimilate to middle class norms and the environment is saved but you have a growing underclass or b) they will assimilate to middle class norms, in which case they will spend more on consumption that they otherwise would've and damage the environment more than would otherwise be the case.

Pro-environmental, pro-immigration types have to choose a horn, and if they don't like the outcome of either horn in terms of damage to the environment or equality, they will have to reduce other consumption from what would otherwise be the case to square their positions.

Either way, they are in a position where they have to pick at least one of a) an underclass in USA territory with third world living standards, b) greater CO2 emissions or c)immigration directly reducing the average American's standard of living. Or they can just wimp out, put their head in the sand and pick the Bush Bubble option.

*I have never seen any evidence that successful immigrants are less consumptive and my anecdotal evidence is that they are rather more so (there is a strong culture of trying to display success and of feeling entitled amongst successful immigrants that both encourage consumption).

Truth(er) said...

"Nice try but you're wrong. Those poor immigrants who are looking for a better future for their kids are not the problem."

And when the Mexicans get a better life and start consuming like middle class Americans, then what are you going to say?

"No it's the much lionized white middle class and the exclusively white super rich who do that sort of thing. Therefore, they are the ones who should pay up."

Ahh... but isn't this the liberal agenda all along?

sabril said...

Another thing to consider is that plans to cap CO2 emissions in the USA will surely drive a lot of CO2 intensive activities out of the US and into third world countries like China and Mexico. And then even more CO2 will be admitted shipping the goods back to the US.

So the net effect of CO2 caps in the USA might very well be to increase total global CO2 emissions.

_________

Oh, and another thing: Warmistas love to make use of models and simulations to predict the future.

One can easily model the effect of Mexican immigration by assuming that future Mexican immigrants will behave roughly like current immigrants in terms of assimilation, crime, welfare dependency, and so on. In fact, such a model would be a lot more reliable than a global climate model since there is a track record to go on. And yet the Liberals would surely reject the predictions of such a model.

_______________

Both of these points -- as well as yours -- show that global warming is a complete farce. It's just a Liberal Trojan Horse like the Children's Defense Fund, i.e. they are simply looking for excuses to push their Leftist agenda.

Nick said...

The problem with tying reducing immigration to reducing global warming is that this is a practical approach, and enviro-libs are impervious to solutions that could conceivably ever happen.

Ya see Steve, we're just gonna stop the whole world from having any industry. Simple as that, we're gonna outlaw prosperity. This will be done via treaties and the like and these treaties will be enforced on the entire world by, I dunno, sorcery or some such thing. After this task is completed it will no longer matter where anyone lives.

Also, I love this anonymous liberal who wrote the second comment. He's frankly stating that "reducing our carbon footprint" is about punishing evil white people and nothing else. And the tacit admission that Mexicans are destined to be unproductive losers who will never enter the middle class is just icing on the cake. (Though they will, surely, have much greater environmental impact in the US than in Mexico.)

headache said...

France's 5.8 to/capita is interesting. It's of course the result of consequent usage of nuclear power. I've often wondered why France, with such a liberal tradition, is so consequent in nuclear power. Why don't they have the sickening and destructive Green movement which for instance blocks progress in Germany?

Anonymous said...

If every person living as American, immigrant or not, consumes like an American, this argument against immigration can be used against the population increment.

Often conservatives are against contraceptives or abortion, and often they claim whites must increase their reproduction rate for counter balance the explosive demographic of the 3rd world.

It is not the lifestyle the real damage, but the high number of persons with that lifestyle.

The obvious solution is first impose the 3rd world stop reproducing, and after some heavy tax on children (the opposite of today, where people make children to go on welfare).

headache said...

Anon upstream sez:Conservatives may be hopelessly racist

Notice the canard of connecting conservatism with "racism", the very thing Steve was writing about the last few days. It's so ingrained in liberal sputterspeak, they don't even notice. It's supposed to signal that conservatives are evil people, so liberals don't have to engage in a rational argument with them (which liberals know they would lose on the facts).

Anonymous said...

When you point out people's cognitive dissonance, the reaction is violent and ignorant. See, e.g., the second anonymous comment here.

He thinks his straw man version of conservatives is real! Is that adorable or sad?

Aggro-Saxon said...

headache said...

I've often wondered why France, with such a liberal tradition, is so consequent in nuclear power. Why don't they have the sickening and destructive Green movement which for instance blocks progress in Germany?

The short answer is apparently because the people who really run green/environmental movements thought they were more likely to get away with it in defeated and occupied Germany.

According to William Engdahl in A Century of war Germany was one of the most targeted countries by the new green movement (funded by Anglo-American oil interests) because "While France's nuclear program was equally if not more ambitious, Germany was deemed an area where Anglo-American intelligence assets had greater likelihood of success, given their history in the postwar occupation of the Federal Republic...A key operative in this new project was...Petra Kelly. Petra Kelly had developed close ties in her U.S. years with one of the principal new Anglo-American antinuclear organisations...the National Resources Defence Council"

A key figure in this was Robert O. Anderson, who according to wiki was "was an American business leader, legendary wildcatter and philanthropist...His father was a prominent banker...the largest individual landowner in the United States...He helped found the Worldwatch Institute in Washington to monitor global environmental trends, the International Institute for Environment and Development in London to study environmental and food issues and the John Muir Institute of the Environment in Davis, California.

So there is your banking - big oil - large landowning - environmental movement funding (all connected together) elite

This might be a little too tin foil hat for your taste. Its a while since I read Century of War but I thought it was quite a fascinating read.

Anonymous said...

Yes, we know it is hypocritical for liberals to not link Global Warming with immigration/population growth. However, the fact that almost no conservatives who favor immigration reduction link it with environmental concerns is testimony to how foolish and short-sighted most conservatives are. Especially when it comes to being so dismissive of the evidence of Global Warming and carbon emissions, claiming it's some kind of "liberal conspiracy". Even if Global Warming was a complete myth, there are several other major environmental issues affecting us all, similarly down-played or ignored by "conservatives".

While leftists certainly have ulterior, anti-American motives attached to their concern(or feigned concern?) over carbon emissions, the science behind humans causing Global Warming is sound. Because most conservatives refuse to believe any of it, they consistently drop the ball when they could become the vanguard of a new environmental movement that calls for immigration reduction.

I can sort of understand though, that with liberals consistently refusing to make the connection between immigration and the environment, it's hard to take them seriously, among other reasons.

With liberal domination of the environmentalist movement, it's easy for left-wing absurdities like how we have to *INCREASE* immigration(and our carbon emissions) from the 3rd World due to Global Warming and environmental catastrophe to be said by liberal "environmentalists" and go repeatedly unchallenged.

The U.S could easily have over a billion people in 40 years at the rate we are going, with the liberals ready to open the flood-gates at any given moment, because conservatives refused to believe the science behind Global Warming(and liberals similarly refuse to believe racial differences exist). This refusal has led them to not being sufficiently horrified by environmental catastrophes, many related to or caused by Global Warming, some occurring independently of Global Warming. The liberal blind-spot when it comes to HBD is often terrifying, but similarly terrifying to the conservative blind-spot for Global Warming and environmental issues. The saving grace for liberals though is that at least they are often dishonest or hypocritical when it comes to race; I'm not sure the same thing can be said for conservatives on environmental issues.

Hopefully more conservatives will wake up, become sufficiently horrified, and embrace a true environmentalist-immigration reductionist movement. Even if some conservatives will lie or pretend they are concerned about the environment and link it to immigration reduction, that is at least a start and they will do more for the environment than the open-borders liberal "environmentalists".

Anonymous said...

Yeah, let's make those immigrants stay in their own country where we can impose restrictions on their carbon use while arguing that there is no need to bother with it here because global warming is a hoax.

Jazz

Anonymous said...

The hundreds of thousands of migrants from tropical regions of Africa and Asia who are invited to snowy lands like Vermont, Minnesota, Scandinavia and Canada must have the most dramatic spike in carbon emissions per head.

Anonymous said...

Steve, why bother with stopping immigration to the US?

Just stop other nations from developing!

Stop China from industrializing!!!

Anonymous said...

To me it's obvious that the best way to limit emissions is to impose restrictions on Red-State americans and their rural way of life. With their multiple trucks and SUV's and emissions-laden automobile-centric way of life!

Black Death said...

For a sellout on the immigration-carbon emissions issue, it's hard to top the Sierra Club:


Such concerns were discussed within the Sierra Club in the 1980s. But then, in the 1990s, inexplicably, the Sierra Club began to condemn as racist efforts to get the club to take a stand to reduce immigration to far-lower historical norms. The club hierarchy made similar accusations against candidates running for the board of directors on immigration-reduction or population-stabilization platforms. After a 2003 election, some candidates charged that the club’s stand was due to pressure from a secret donor.

Then, an Oct. 27, 2004, Los Angeles Times revealed that David Gelbaum, a math genius who applied mathematics to Wall Street investments, had contributed $101 million to the Sierra Club. Gelbaum insisted he did not influence the election but admitted that he had earlier told the club that “if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me.”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16520

Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form said...

"No it's the much lionized white middle class and the exclusively white super rich who do that sort of thing. Therefore, they are the ones who should pay up"

Chiropractor to ER, stat! Liberal threw his back out during an xtreme status posturing competition!


(What's this "they"? You're posting on the internet; you are ipso facto middle class or upper. Pee-ew. I can smell your carbon farts all the way over here.)

Curvaceous Carbon-based said...

"The liberal blind-spot when it comes to HBD is often terrifying, but similarly terrifying to the conservative blind-spot for Global Warming and environmental issues. The saving grace for liberals though is that at least they are often dishonest or hypocritical when it comes to race; I'm not sure the same thing can be said for conservatives on environmental issues."

No, conservatives don't even HAVE to give up their warming skepticism.

Population growth to a billion, with its attendant loss of natural spaces, animal habitat, polluted water and traffic, is enough by ITSELF to make conservatives anti-immigration.

Conservatives are, with full intellectual consistency, conservationists.

Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form said...

"Yeah, let's make those immigrants stay in their own country where we can impose restrictions on their carbon use while arguing that there is no need to bother with it here because global warming is a hoax.

Jazz"

Capital idea! And the "impose restrictions" really isn't us doing anything, anyway.

Because without first worlders building their infrastructure FOR them, 3rd worlders, on their own, CAN'T emit much carbon.

The "impose restrictions" really is, just leave them alone.

Anonymous said...

Rather than invest in material items, many immigrants invest in "reproductive success" relative to the natives. They are more concerned about having children than they are their social status. Or perhaps they derive their social status through their children unlike the hippies and children of hippies that live a faux environmental lifestyle and don't have children because they compete with them for material resources.

headache said...

Aggro-Saxon,
thanks for that info. I knew about Petra Kelly. I did not know about her connections. It all kinda figures. Another interesting development is that the main Green Joschka Fischer is in Soros' pocket. Greens are anti-nation in a big way. The environment thing is just a diversion to cover their globalist aspirations.

So in that sense its part of the globalisation/immigration push, just another angle of attack.

headache said...

Because most conservatives refuse to believe any of it, they consistently drop the ball when they could become the vanguard of a new environmental movement that calls for immigration reduction.

I kinda have a feeling that if conservatives were to become fully green, the general population would instantaneously lose interest in environmental issues. Of course being told to do so by the press.
Environmentalism has much to do with status-mongering. Young chicks wanting to show off to their mates and potential boyfriends are not going to get excited about green issues when the GOP carries them. Coz the GOP aint sexy. ANd being sexy is all that matters to them.

Green issues are an acessoire to them, like their Gucci handbags and fancy watches and short dresses. Once the GOP runs with it, these chicks are going to discard that stuff in about 0.5 seconds. Conservatives just suck for these babes. Whiskey should have some data on this.

The kind of movement you are calling for exists in the traditional conservative monvement in Germany, which is however very marginal. They consider taking care of the environment as a continuation of policies stemming from a Christian worldview. But nobody is noticing.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Immigration has become another 'third rail' in policy debate. That people take up space and generate waste is beyond dispute, but it's now a hatefact.

As two others have already pointed out, the Left has some major Inconvenient Truths they will not address. Mention them and the druids come running out, shaking their magical 'racist!' talismans to dispel all doubt:

1. Either the immigrants subsist at Third World living standards, or they end up at US levels of environmental impact. (Not that I'm convinced SUV's impose greater externalities than Third World-levels of violence and disease contagion.)

2. Liberal society moderates conservative, illiberal cultures like Islam out of existence (imposing SWPL-uniculture), or liberal society is forced to withdraw from Islamic and other such redoubts on US soil. My money's on the Muslims.

Two items on a long list.

Anonymous said...

let's make those immigrants stay in their own country where we can impose restrictions on their carbon use while arguing that there is no need to bother with it here because global warming is a hoax.



Who is it that is saying those two things again?

Luke Lea said...

Global warming is supposed to be a global problem caused by world-wide economic development. Therefore you are in effect arguing that Mexico ought to remain poor.

SF said...

In "Why your World is about to get a Whole Lot Smaller," Jeff Rubin's idea is to combine a domestic carbon tax with an inferred carbon tax on imported goods. This would help bring manufacturing back from China since our industry is a whole lot more carbon efficient.

Marc B said...

They don't care because they are using these very same immigrants to bring the US into QoL parity with "developing nations". Cap in trade, VAT taxes, H1B, free trade, and the wholesale Western de-industrialization are all schemes to facilitate this. Phyllis Schlafly outlined this way back in the early 1990's.

Fred said...

Steve,

Karl Rove is guest-hosting Rush Limbaugh's show right now. You should put out a request to have all of your readers jam the phone lines to ask about the invade the world, invite the world, in hock to the world business. Rush himself is against open borders, but Rove is another matter.

The more iSteve readers who call in, the better chance one will get on the air.

l said...

Self-identified 'progressives' have no difficulty telling developing countries that they have to restrain their economic growth in order to help arrest climate change. (And no, my progressive friends, economic growth is not possible with 'green energy'. It simply isn't.) China and India led a revolt at Copenhagen over this issue.

Move people from developing to developed countries and we're told they deserve a 'living wage' -- i.e.: They deserve to be given the ability to consume resources at a level on par with "the much lionized white middle class and the exclusively white super rich."

Anonymous said...

Yeah, let's make those immigrants stay in their own country where we can impose restrictions on their carbon use

Working well on China after all.

(Unless you're being sarcastic here. We probably have less ability to control carbon use overseas than in our own countries.

Although this truth suggests a Liberal counterargument to Steve's argument [which is extremely tenuous, tendentious and thus almost certain to be emitted by some Liberal person] which is that, since we can control carbon emissions in our own economy but not others, the only way to reduce carbon emissions is to invite everyone here!).

Big Bill said...

Lefties also welcome them because they work cheap ("the work Americans won't do"), yet as soon as they escape their savage countrymen and move here to do that work the lefties start screaming about how exploited they are and how they need free Obamacare, and free housing, and free schooling and the like.

If lefties honestly believe they need all those things to survive, and they are obviously too stupid (multigenerational) to make that happen, then the lefties clearly intended from the outset to jack up taxes on the rest of us to pay for them.

Like Anonymous lefty explains above: it is all the Evil Middleclass White Folks fault. She and her friends want to ethnically cleanse us. I understand it. Ethnic cleansing has an aeons-long history. It is best to do it the easy way, like Hitler started out doing: Affirmative Action for the favored ones. If that doesn't work you keep cranking up the heat: putting pressure on the "bad" people to stop breeding and encouraging the breeding of the "good" people. Eventually, mass murder ("what did all de debbil white folks do to p!ss off Omar Thornton").

Anonymous lefty has clearly stepped into the camp of the ethnic cleansers, she just isn't that forthcoming about the next steps she and her friends plan to take against the Evil Middle Class White Folks.

In large part, I think they are counting on Obama to attack middle class white folks and keep the lid on until they have imported enough NAMs to vote them into office permanently.

Come the Revolution, Comrades … .

Anonymous said...

Steve, why bother with stopping immigration to the US?

Just stop other nations from developing!

Stop China from industrializing!!!





Seems like it would be a lot easier to manage our own immigration policy than it would be to "stop China from industrializing". Do you have some simple scheme for dictating China's own internal policy to it?

Severn said...

Trying to connect environmental concern to your xenophobic and racist hobby horse will not persuade anyone.



The point, which your own comments have made crystal clear, is that you don't actually see environmental regulations as having anything to do with the environment. Instead they are simply a means for you to indulge in your own xenophobic and racist hobby horse against the Evil White People.

Anonymous said...

This is actually an issue that's debated behind the scenes in groups like the Sierra Club. One side decries the environmental pressure on America's parks due to illegal immigration, and the other tows the left-wing party line: diversity, vibrancy, inclusivity, social justice, etc.

It's instructive to note which side always wins in these debates: Left-wing orthodoxy.

Ian said...

One semi-environmental body in Britain does identify high immigration as ecologically destructive: the Optimum Population Trust.

http://www.optimumpopulation.org

The Trust has the support of a few high-profile environmentalists and naturalists such as Jonathon Porritt and David Attenborough, and this probably helps ward off reflexive accusations of racism.

Britain's small Green Party has let slip the opportunity to promote a tough-but-fair immigration policy based on individual merit alone in favour of trying to confirm what nice people they are.

jody said...

good article.

Anonymous said...

The point is that if they assimilate to American wealth levels, they will*. If not, they won't. So there is a two horned dilemma in that either you are must admit either a) that they won't assimilate to middle class norms and the environment is saved but you have a growing underclass or b) they will assimilate to middle class norms, in which case they will spend more on consumption that they otherwise would've and damage the environment more than would otherwise be the case.

If "they" are *allowed* to assimilate to American wealth levels then they may consume as much but you must control for culture as well. Not all immigrants have the same economic advantages to start up a small business or go to college and not all immigrants consume as much as Americans even if they are wealthy. But you seem to be missing the point, dear. You are worried about the 1% of the new Americans who *may* consume and pollute while you are ignoring the other 99% who are already doing just that. To conservatives, environmentalism only becomes an issue if they can use it as a weapon against minorities, if they are told that the problem lies with white people (and it does) then they deny that there is a problem at all. Environmentalists or progressives do not need to make a "choice" between immigration and environmentalism like conservatives claim, we can and we will have both.

He thinks his straw man version of conservatives is real! Is that adorable or sad?

In this very same thread we have people proposing that developing nations should stop developing and that we should curtail the reproductive rights of non-whites. It's actually worse than racism, it's promoting genocide. My comment was completely justified.

Anonymous said...

Steve, in all fairness, I'd like to see you address the illegal immigration of Americans into Mexico during the early 19th century. See here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_%28Mexico%29#Modern_usage

"Illegal immigration into the southwest states is sometimes viewed as a form of reconquista, in light of the fact that Texas statehood was preceded by an influx of U.S. settlers into that Mexican province until United States citizens outnumbered Mexicans 10-1 and were able to take over governance of the area. The theory is that the reverse will happen as Mexicans eventually become so numerous in that region that they can wield substantial influence, including political power."

It seems to me that the Mexicans are essentially doing the same thing to the Americans today that the Americans did to the Mexicans not too long ago. Can you really expect people to be sympathetic to the white nationalist cause when many white nationalists open state that they could care less about the hypocrisy of the American takeover of other people's lands? Most white nationalists openly declare that they aren't advocating universal principles of the right to self-preservation as applied to every single group. They openly profess that what they're advocating is essentially a highly tribal form of white self interest. Since you frequently excoriate the Jews and other ethnic groups in America for embracing parochial tribalism, isn't a bit ironic that you're essentially doing the same thing? Shouldn't you be advocating a more universal set of principles here(that every group of people is entitled to their own borders and culture and not just that whites are entitled to their own borders and culture, and hey, who gives a shit about anyone else)? Wouldn't that garner you more sympathy and ultimately lend a greater degree of intellectual credibility to your cause?

Let's engage in a little thought experiment here and perhaps practice a little bit of empathy as well. If I were a Mexican American and I realized that less than 200 years ago, illegal American immigrants more or less wrested the lands of Texas away from my nation, wouldn't I feel highly ambivalent over this entire illegal immigration issue today?

Steve, I feel like in the process of pandering to your clearly white nationalist constituency, you've sometimes failed to resolve the quintessential contradictions underlying the white nationalist philosophy espoused today. It would be nice if you could develop a more principled set of philosophical ideas.

altot said...

Vdare ran an article once about how the green lobby was bought up by rich Jewish liberals. Sierra Club, for instance, had been anti-immigration but some super rich Jewish guy said he would not donate 50 millions dollars unless it changed its stance on immigration, and so Sierra Club overnight became a pro-immigration(even illegal immigration)group.

Money will buy anything. This is why environmentalism will fail as it's sold to the highest bidder. Jews want more non-white immigration to weaken white power.
And contrary to the image of greens being return-to-nature types, the bigshots are mostly technology investors who scare us about the environment so that Wall Street and big government will shower them with billions in contracts for 'new technology'. Greens are for greenbacks.

I think of the Green movement much like the Rev Mhoon and his minions. Notice that many Mhoonies, though stupid, are sincere in their devotion, live in poverty, sell flowers, and do everything for their 'messiah' who lives like a king and is worth many millions.
Likewise, the green movement does have a lot of sincere and dedicated people who care about the environment and log many miles to get petitions signed and all that. They remain relatively poor and do most of the grunt work. But the guys who head the movement, like Al Gore and gang, are in it for power, big money, and control. They have the money and clout, and they are taking all of us for a ride.

And to the extent that Democrats tend to be more Green, and since most immigrants vote Democratic, liberals figure it's worth it to have more immigrants in order to win more elections in order to push more green policies. What about more immigrants messing up the environment? Well, power matters more to the Greeners than sense does.

cynthia386 said...

This is not surprising. The environmental movement has been taken over by people who oppose modern industrialization civilization. They do not care about CO2.

David said...

>Nice try but you're wrong. Those poor immigrants who are looking for a better future for their kids are not the problem. They are not the ones driving gas guzzling SUVs, wasting an unbelievable amount of water on their lawns<

Nope, they're just wearing out hospitals, schools, social services, and municipal services (water, gas, electric, and sewer).

They are - after all - many millions of additional people.

Where do you think pollution comes from?

That's right, Bunky. From people.

People.

More people = more pollution.

So if pollution-reduction is your goal (is it?), why keep the floodgates wide open to more people, people, people - people literally in the tens of millions, people of notably high fecundity - people are and have been rushing in "looking for a better future for their kids" (i.e., looking not only for a future full of more lawns and more SUVS, but also for a temporarily benign place to give birth to most of these kids in the first place, whereas the prudent among them would not give birth to so many if they remained in their own countries)?

The expansion of parasites means the expansion of environmental destruction. The expansion of nonparasites means an increase in environmental stress.

What is so difficult about this concept to understand?

Oops, I'm "racist." Yawn. Take your "racism" BS and stick it up. Hard. Got that, Bunky?

Anonymous said...

I don't think logic is operative with people that have "mind blocks". They simply can't think about certain topics.

It's so disgusting to live in a society like this. But looking at other alternatives, such as one's European ancestral countries (UK, et al), one finds them to as bad or worse. What's left except to become a misanthrope ? That's where I'm at now. If anyone has any better suggestion, I'd like to hear it.

Severn said...

Environmentalists or progressives do not need to make a "choice" between immigration and environmentalism like conservatives claim, we can and we will have both.




Will you be putting on your big girl pants and telling us how you propose to do all that sometime soon?

You are worried about the 1% of the new Americans who *may* consume and pollute while you are ignoring the other 99% who are already doing just that.


What 1%? By 2050 the US population is projected to be 450 million, a 50% increase on todays number. And that 50% increase is due entirely to immigration, both legal and illegal. You really don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about here.

But you know you're against Evil White People and that's enough to keep you content.

icr said...

This might be a little too tin foil hat for your taste. Its a while since I read Century of War but I thought it was quite a fascinating read.

Keep in mind that Bill Engdahl (like David "Spengler" Goldman) is another ex-LaRouchie. It's on the internet, but I can personally testify to the fact.

Severn said...

In this very same thread we have people proposing that developing nations should stop developing and that we should curtail the reproductive rights of non-whites.



Uh huh. You do realize that those people are your fellow lefties, right?

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Environmentalists or progressives do not need to make a "choice" between immigration and environmentalism like conservatives claim, we can and we will have both.

How? Make them live in tents and never let them buy anything?

Horse Soldiers said...

As long as US is gonna be overpopulated, white folks should have more kids and ensure that it will be overpopulated by their own kind. It may be bad for the environment but at least it will remain our country.
China is over-populated, but I'll bet the Chinese are glad that it is over-populated with their own kind.

Anonymous said...

Uh huh. You do realize that those people are your fellow lefties, right?

They're not all frothing lefties trying (unconvincingly) to do the reductio ad absurdum thing though. To be fair the guys who are anti-development are and the guys who wish to curtail the reproductive rights of non-Whites show no inclination to encourage unrestricted reproduction by Whites (even though, frankly, it's not going to happen - it happened in China because they were a homogenous nation with mutual trust - I can't imagine that it would happen in the opposite situation, let alone not be abused).

I can't believe that propose a fairly obvious compatabilism between immigration restriction and reduction of consumption and carbon emissions automatically convinces some people that you are willing to go to deliberately genocidal ends to achieve a reduction in consumption. Or even intentionally anti-development policies (though I'm one of the people who is skeptical that we have any responsibility to develop other nations at all), though development meh policies are an outcome (but a certain degree of development meh is frankly an outcome of carbon concern anyway, whether within your nation or the world).

Severn said...

They're not all frothing lefties trying (unconvincingly) to do the reductio ad absurdum thing though.


All the ones commenting here are.

I can't believe that propose a fairly obvious compatabilism between immigration restriction and reduction of consumption and carbon emissions automatically convinces some people that you are willing to go to deliberately genocidal ends to achieve a reduction in consumption.


I'm glad you don't believe it, because the people suggesting it here don't believe it either.

Matt said...

Environmentalists or progressives do not need to make a "choice" between immigration and environmentalism like conservatives claim, we can and we will have both.

Certainly, but having both will reduce your standard of living further relative to just having environmentalism or just immigration. And everyone else's standard of living you drag with you. The way out of this reduction is being cleverer and smarter and more efficient with what you have less to consume. Can you do that? I think you can to an extent, but enough (for whatever value of "enough").

The important thing is for progressive and environmentalists to realize that these things that they want do not have any necessary compatabilism and that even in this case that they are expressly going in opposite directions. If they can resolve this, then that's a better world for me and for them than a world where progressives and environmentalists have power that doesn't. If they can't resolve this, good for me again as I can use the incompatability to push for what I want (less migration here). But there are no advantages for you for not engaging with this.

I'm sure you'll dismiss this all as "concern trolling" though (and anonymous on the internet isn't exactly confidence inspiring).

Curvaceous, etc. said...

"The more iSteve readers who call in, the better chance one will get on the air."

No, pookie. Radio talk shows are screened. The screener won't let your call through if you tell him you want to talk about hatefacts.

Only if you lie to the screener about what you're going to say will you get on the air. And you better talk fast because the 5-second- delay "kill switch" won't leave you much time to say anything.

Anonymous said...

Luke Lea: Global warming is supposed to be a global problem caused by world-wide economic development. Therefore you are in effect arguing that Mexico ought to remain poor.

Against this, it might be that Mexico, as a poor country with little infrastructure can make an easier transition to become rich and green than a developed country like the US which is dependant on non-green infrastructure (because it's there's a higher return on the opportunity to build a new infrastructure in a developing country than replacing an old one in a developed country).

Assuming this, it would be better from a climate change perspective for Mexicans to remain where they are and nurture the nascent green economy in their own state, rather than travelling to the US and assimilating and consuming in a non-green economy.

I think this is a long shot (in fact, the reverse is more likely if anything), but it might be true.

Curvaceous, etc. said...

"You are worried about the 1% of the new Americans who *may* consume and pollute while you are ignoring the other 99% who are already doing just that."

Eh, what?
1%? No.
INS estimates 1,000,000 illegal aliens successfully cross over the border into U.S. every year.
So, since the 1986 amnesty, that's 24 million people.
Counting their anchor babies, that's well over 30 million people stuffed into the U.S. in 2 1/2 decades. In other words, not 1% -- *10 percent* of the total U.S. current population of 300 million.

Svigor said...

Tows tows tows tows... I've seen "tows the line" from a lot of bloggers and posters in the last week.

Am I the one who's wrong here? I thought it was "toe the line."

Svigor said...

To conservatives, environmentalism only becomes an issue if they can use it as a weapon against minorities, if they are told that the problem lies with white people (and it does) then they deny that there is a problem at all.

But it's so much more selfless and pure to only hold whites to high standards, not non-whites. Right? It doesn't smack of white supremacy at all (whites as moral actors, non-whites as two dimensional props). It doesn't smack of racism at all, this moral caste system; and of course, whites aren't being screwed.

I wonder how much of the seething hate directed at the Duggars would've been aired were they brown.

Svigor said...

I don't think logic is operative with people that have "mind blocks". They simply can't think about certain topics.

They've been read from the Holy Narrative of Progressivism their whole lives and we're picking it apart. They don't care about the plot holes, they're fans. You attack their religion and you're attacking them, personally.

SF said...

You're right, immigrants don't drive gas guzzling SUV's. They drive gas guzzling '89 oldsmobiles and Chevy pickups.
A recent study summarized here:http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Soot+second+leading+cause+climate+change+study/3349011/story.html
indicates that the extra soot emitted by older vehicles is a very serious climate problem.

Anonymous said...

Discrimination in the 21st Century.

Anonymous said...

But it's so much more selfless and pure to only hold whites to high standards, not non-whites. Right? It doesn't smack of white supremacy at all (whites as moral actors, non-whites as two dimensional props). It doesn't smack of racism at all, this moral caste system; and of course, whites aren't being screwed.

Sugar, I'm holding everyone to high standards. But if you think brown people are ruining the environment then you have some screws loose. Your projection is giving me the giggles though. Progressives are the real racists! *LOL*

I wonder how much of the seething hate directed at the Duggars would've been aired were they brown.

The Duggars are irrelevant to this discussion. Why are you bringing them up?

Vampyr said...

Environmentalism is really an offshoot of neo-Marxism or anti-capitalism/imperialism, so maybe our main focus shouldn't be on environmental issues per se. Rather, in most cases, environmental issues are merely excuses or justifications for grabbing more power and influence.

One of the major arguments of the 'global warming' lobby is that the rich West emits most of greenhouse gases but third world peoples in hotter regions suffer most of its consequences--Hindus, Africans, Latin Americans, etc. Since the rich West created the conditions that have led to drought, famine, and degradation stemming from climate changes, it is only fair for the West to take in more desperate refugees from third world countries. Of course, we know that the main reason why the Third World has failed is to due Low IQ and incompetence, but global warming happened to arrive at a convenient time--when 'progressive' excuses for third world failures were wearing thin--so that the left can again fix the blame on the West for everything. Both green industrialists in the West and Third World leaders of hopeless countries have jumped on the global warming bandwagon to reap big rewards. (Up and rising developing nations like China, Brazil, and India tend to be more skeptical since they are economically surging under the current global system. But many African nations know they can't build economies on their own, so their only hope of getting piece of the global economic pie is to bitch and whine and receive more aid and compensation. Since the cry of 'imperialism' has worn thin, now they've turned to screaming 'global warming' by greedy West.)

Anyway, just as Americans felt obligated to take in a large number of number of Vietnamese and Laotian refugees because America supposedly made a mess of things in Southeast Asia, there is a moral argument made by some that we need to take in all those people fleeing from the Third World which is growing hotter and drier all because of global warming caused by the greedy West.

At any rate, never look for moral consistency on the Left. After all, the left calls for racial equality but then gives us affirmative action. And how does it make sense that white Hispanics get affirmative action advantages for college admission and promotion but Asian-Indians and Arabs don't? None of it makes any sense. Those with power and clout will selectively exploit and manipulate any topic or issue to their advantage.

Vampyr said...

At any rate, one of the main professed agendas of the left is 'social justice', even on a global scale. Since the main liberal view is that the West is rich because it stole from the non-West, anything that burdens or punishes the West and rewards the non-West is seen as a moral good.

So, even if many on the left are indeed sincerely concerned about the environment, such concerns are still few notches below on the leftist hiearchy of social priorities. What is the MAIN PRIORITY of the left? Anti-racism. Even when innocent whites get gunned down, the debate is about 'Did white racists deserve it?'

So, even if leftists do indeed believe more immigration from the third world is bad for the environment, they still consider 'racism' to be a far greater evil to object and stamp out. A white leftist is nothing without guilt--guilt as to what he has done to non-whites and to nature, but it just happens to be the case that white guilt concerning non-whites is greater than white guilt concerning polar bears and spotted owls. And of course, polar bears and owls may be objects of our pity but don't know how to organize, complain, and lobby whereas non-whites have mastered the art of agitation. A polar bear, no matter how pitiful a shape it's in, is not gonna cry 'specism' whereas blacks and browns know very well how to cry 'racism', especially since whites and Jews taught them how.

A leftist may want to fight both 'racism' and global warming, but if he must choose one over the other, he will choose anti-racism anyday. And it just happens that controlling immigration is seen by the left as 'racist'.

Or maybe environmentalists think they can kill two birds with one stone by pushing green policy. If the West adopts green policy, its economy will drastically slow down due to much higher energy costs. With fewer jobs and sluggish growth, there will be less impetus for third worlders to come to the West for jobs and opportunities.

stari_momak said...

By a strange coincidence, this came across my electronic transom 2 days ago. The environmental political theory folks are evidently trying to square this circle.


=====================

Hi all,

Given this year’s WPSA [Western Political Science Association] theme (“transnational borders, equity and social justice”), I thought it might be interesting to put together a panel on “Green Nationalism” for papers that explore the ways in which environmental thought intersects with various manifestations of nationalism and/or is involved in other forms of boundary creation (race, class, gender, etc.). If anyone is interested (or if anyone is already planning something along these lines that my paper might fit on!), please shoot me an email at [PhD candidate at U of Colorado's email]

The paper that I’m proposing will analyze responses to the contemporary American environmental restrictionist (anti-immigrant environmentalist) movement in order to explore the ways in which
immigrants’ rights and environmental justice groups work to recast dominant articulations between nature and nation, in their efforts to forge transnational environmental ‘publics’ where immigrants might meaningfully speak for nature.

Thanks for your time!
[redacted]
========================

Anonymous said...

Progressives are the real racists! *LOL*


Nyuck nyuck nyuck! How pathetic! Why, everybody I know in the Upper West Side agrees with us that the real racists are those horrible white people in places like Alabama. You know the sort - they work outdoors and all wear baseball caps.

What sort of name is that anyway, "Ala Bama"?

Anonymous said...

Sugar, I'm holding everyone to high standards.


Sweet Pea, start with yourself.

Anonymous said...

great, now tom Friedman will spin an article showing how having immigrants (and they're all smart engineers) will actually reduce carbon emissions because of technological innovations, and gladwell will show how diversity decreases carbon footprints..

Its not like the facts are going to get in the way of our elite's agenda... but do our elite even know what that agenda is any more?

Thunderbolt and Lightfoot said...

If we accept the premises of GLOBAL WARMING, then we on the Right have to accept the consequences requiring us to morally and economically compensate for the damage we've done to the Third World since our emissions led to the heating of the climate and severe weather patterns that may have affected 100s of millions, even billions, whose livelihoods depend on subsistence farming.

We in the West can afford to have some droughts in parts of US and Europe since our agricultural sector, with the aid of technology, still produce lots of surplus food. But there are still many people around the world who depend on their little plots of land to barely survive day to day. If the climate changes, their livelihoods can really be gone with the wind, fire, rain, or whatever. If we accept the premise of global warming, it follows that WE reall did mess things up for a lot of people around the world.

So, if Western environmentalists need to embrace nationalism and keep immigrants out to save the planet, Western rightists must embrace international aid--more a leftist than a rightist notion--to take care of people hurt badly by our emissions.
That is if we also accept the notion of global warming caused essentially by Western(and Eastern) man. The left must become more right, and the right must become more left. Is either side ready to follow suit?

Engineer-Poet said...

If we accept that climate change is driven by human activity (AGW or ACC), the first conclusion is that we must not make the problem worse.  This means not admitting immigrants from nations with lower GHG emissions than we have.

It's like Macondo 252:  the first order of business is to kill the well.  If we have anything left after that, we can worry about the morality of who gets what... and we can include the benefits of medicine, electronics and just plain knowledge that the third-worlders got without having to produce them.

Truth said...

"Where do you think pollution comes from?

That's right, Bunky. From people.

People.

More people = more pollution."

Well that's brilliant, Sport. Or I should say it would be if everybody on the planet polluted at the same level. But unfortunately, for instance, Ghana has 23 million people and Australia has 21, but Which creates more pollution?

Truth said...

"The Duggars are irrelevant to this discussion. Why are you bringing them up?"

I don't see why a family of 23 is irrelevant to a discussion on carbon emissions.

Truth(er) said...

Heck, you can combine environmentalism, immigration AND offshore outsourcing.

If we end immigration, then we end the incremental people factor that leads to environmental degradation.

If we end offshore outsourcing, then we end the loophole in the world's carbon footprint. Requiring that which is to be sold in the US to be made in the US means we gain control over how the world's industries pollute and by how much.

Ergo, ending immigration and offshore outsourcing is good for the environment.

Of course, knowing that leftism is a genocidal conspiracy against middle-class American white people (the new Kulaks), it's obvious that no such serious thinking will come from the left.

doda pilii said...

I thought I was the only one to notice the "tow-toe" thing.
It is "toe the line", from the sailing-ships days of the British Navy where the crew would put their toes on a line on the deck so they would be more or less, well, lined up.

Anonymous said...

I don't see why a family of 23 is irrelevant to a discussion on carbon emissions.

Indeed you are right but I think Herr Svigor's intention was to bait me into admitting that I loathe white folk or something. Isn't it funny how conservatives wet their pants over a Mexican family of 4 causing pollution in America yet they see no problem with a family of 23 (!) doing far worse damage? What's that one line they like to say on this blog? Who? Whom?

Apparently, environmentalists should be worried about the hypothetical "scary" brown person who may begin to pollute as much as Americans in the near future. Never mind the Americans polluting now. No, that's not important. Conservatives *care* about the environment, liberals are racist, and Wal-Mart sells quality goods. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Tanstaafl said...

Isn't it funny how conservatives wet their pants over a Mexican family of 4 causing pollution in America yet they see no problem with a family of 23 (!) doing far worse damage?

. . .

Apparently, environmentalists should be worried about the hypothetical "scary" brown person who may begin to pollute as much as Americans in the near future.

The argument is that "environmentalists" should be worried about pollution no matter who it comes from. The reality is, like you, most don't. Thanks for illustrating the anti-White "anti-racism" behind this pose.

stari_momak said...

America yet they see no problem with a family of 23 (!) doing far worse damage?

For every Mrs. Duggar there are hundreds of Sandra Bullocks -- childless white women.

Really, Mr/Ms Autonomous is being intentionally obtuse. Mexicans who stay in Mexico seem to have fewer children, and moreover they produce less carbon dioxide emissions -- that is undeniable. If they come to the US they and their descendants will produce more. This is totally uncontroversial. If you are really against AGW, then, if follows as night follows day you'll be against mass immigration. Therefore, if you are not against mass immigration, you are not really serious about AGW. Bringing in the Dugars or SUV driving American middle classes is simply a tu quoque fallacy.

FF said...

If all immigrants were as self reliant, smart, and hard working as the Duggar family, then by all means bring them on.

The children of such a family, regardless of their race, are more likely to in future provide the human capital that will help provide solutions to environmental problems.

The debate as I see it, is primarily about the quality of immigrants, and their ability to contribute to society, not be a burden to it.

Anonymous said...

To conservatives, environmentalism only becomes an issue if they can use it as a weapon against minorities

I can't say as I can see Sailer using environmentalism against minorities here, or that many other conservatives do. I do think most people tend to have an intensified interest in environmentalism when it interacts with their politics.

Likewise, to many progressives or liberals, environmentalism is only an issue insofar as it enables them to fight against their enemies (conservatives and so on as well). When it's a weapon to fight for aid, economic redistribution, anti-corporatism, putting university trained technocrats in charge of stuff and helping "climate refugees", it certainly seems to have a lot more interest on the Left than when it is about engineering solutions that don't involve any of these things.

They're not interested in talking about it when it's an inevitable outcome of improving people's standards of life or misguided attempts at altruistic behaviour or of a larger state that does more than limited "rule of law" functions or of a desire for equality or in any aspects of it that would exonerate the West for its consequences(such as a lack of purposeful intention - eerily reminiscant of the way Leftists often equivocate between unintentional famines and intentional genocide when the group they are criticising is someone they don't like).

There's also some degree of genuine concern in both instances as well.

It's entirely possible there's slightly more politically unmotivated genuine concern on the Left than the Right. It's probably true that Right people probably care less on average about the random unselected person somewhere in the world than their ingroup (though Leftists, particularly educated professionals, have a stronger "Near mode" ingroup bias than they'll admit).

Svigor said...

1 of 2

Sugar, I'm holding everyone to high standards. But if you think brown people are ruining the environment then you have some screws loose. Your projection is giving me the giggles though. Progressives are the real racists! *LOL*

I didn't just call you racist, I proved it - as if it wasn't already apparent; you say environmentally sound policy is whites' responsibility, which is racist. What, China and India don't count? The 2 billion refrigerators, air conditioners, and cars on their way don't count? How about all the livestock they're going to be growing as they move up the SES ladder and tire of veggies?

You dismiss non-whites as culturally too crippled to compete with whites in terms of carbon footprint, but you're a progressive so we know you're insincere; in two minutes you're going to be talking out of the other side of your mouth about how these people would be just as rich as whites if whites weren't holding them down.

Progressives accusing anyone of projection, particularly racist projection, is in itself projection. Nobody projects like a progressive (natural byproduct of supremacist thinking).

But, typically for a progressive, you think all you have to do is "LOL!" and wave your progressive ID card and we'll forget all about the facts. Because supremacists think all they ever have to do is show their ID cards and everything will be cleared up right away.

The Duggars are irrelevant to this discussion. Why are you bringing them up?

To highlight the progressive double-standard; whites with all those kids get progressives frothing at the mouth, but I doubt very much they'd respond that way to a black couple with that many.

How can progressives tell American whites with a straight face that they have to have fewer kids, smaller, more expensive cars, higher taxes, more regulation, lower standards of living, etc., then tell us we have to let in millions of brown people every year, then tell us the aforementioned rules don't apply to these brown people and we're not allowed to apply to immigration policy the "green" standards progressives are applying to whites, then tell us we're the racists?

"Sugar, I'm holding everyone to high standards."

Sweet Pea, start with yourself.


Precisely! Progressives don't have to answer to such peons. They don't have to answer for their anti-democratic attitude toward immigration policy (if they cared what the voters thought, they'd oppose immigration). They don't have to answer for how mass low-skilled immigration hits blacks and the poor the hardest. They don't have to answer uncomfortable questions about why they pretend to care about carbon, but keep insisting on importing more and more people destined to ratchet up carbon emissions (the one we have here thinks she just has to point and sputter "racism" and the uncomfortable questions will go away, despite the population figures quoted above).

"More people = more pollution"

Well that's brilliant, Sport. Or I should say it would be if everybody on the planet polluted at the same level.


It doesn't have to be brilliant, just true. Which it is. And bringing them into rich western countries is a double-whammy, as it offers drastic increases in their carbon footprint.

Here's a thought: let's study all the human populations of the world for how their carbon footprints increase with wealth. My guess is many non-white groups are substantially worse than whites in this regard. I doubt middle class or wealthy blacks in Africa (or America for that matter) recycle and drive Priuses and bla bla bla the way whites do. This can form the backbone of the green movement's recommendations on who we should be giving aid. Countries that score well would be eligible for more aid and cooperation, countries that score poorly would not.

Svigor said...

2 of 2

Sugar, I'm holding everyone to high standards. But if you think brown people are ruining the environment then you have some screws loose. Your projection is giving me the giggles though. Progressives are the real racists! *LOL*

I just pointed out your racism - as if it wasn't already apparent; you say environmentally sound policy is whites' responsibility, which is racist. What, China and India don't count? 2 billion refrigerators, air conditioners, and cars don't count? How about all the livestock they're going to be growing as they move up the SES ladder and tire of veggies?

You dismiss non-whites as culturally too crippled to compete with whites in terms of carbon footprint, but you're a progressive so we know you're insincere; in two minutes you're going to be talking out of the other side of your mouth about how these people would be just as rich as whites if whites weren't holding them down.

Progressives accusing anyone of projection, particularly racist projection, is in itself projection. Nobody projects like a progressive (natural byproduct of supremacist thinking).

But, typically for a progressive, you think all you have to do is "LOL!" and wave your progressive ID card and we'll forget all about the facts.

The Duggars are irrelevant to this discussion. Why are you bringing them up?

To highlight the progressive double-standard; whites with all those kids get progressives frothing at the mouth, but I doubt very much they'd respond that way to a black couple with that many.

"Sugar, I'm holding everyone to high standards."

Sweet Pea, start with yourself.


Precisely! Progressives don't have to answer to such peons. They don't have to answer for their anti-democratic attitude toward immigration policy (if they cared what the voters thought, they'd oppose immigration). They don't have to answer for how mass low-skilled immigration hits blacks and the poor the hardest. They don't have to answer uncomfortable questions about why they pretend to care about carbon, but keep insisting on importing more and more people destined to ratchet up carbon emissions (the one we have here thinks she just has to point and sputter "racism" and the uncomfortable questions will go away, despite the population figures quoted above).

"More people = more pollution"

Well that's brilliant, Sport. Or I should say it would be if everybody on the planet polluted at the same level.


It doesn't have to be brilliant, just true. Which it is. And bringing them into rich western countries is a double-whammy, as it offers drastic increases in their carbon footprint.

Here's a thought: let's study all the human populations of the world for how their carbon footprints increase with wealth. My guess is many non-white groups are substantially worse than whites in this regard. I doubt middle class or wealthy blacks in Africa (or America for that matter) recycle and drive Priuses and bla bla bla the way whites do. This can form the backbone of the green movement's recommendations on who we should be giving aid. Countries that score well would be eligible for more aid and cooperation, countries that score poorly would not.

Anonymous said...

In the US:

Emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have increased 16% since 1990, even though per capita emissions have declined.

Energy use in the United States is up 25% since 1979, even though per capita levels have declined.

Water use is depleting aquifers, especially in the southwest, despite the fact that per person water use is down significantly from 1975.

Now if per capita use went down, the only way that use went up is because of increase in population, the majority of which is the result of recent immigration - legal and illegal - and their offspring.

You can't be 'green' and favor high levels of immigration.

And Jose may be sleeping on the floor in an apartment he shares with 7 other guys, but it has hot & cold running water, central heat & a/c, etc. Did his house in southern Mexico? He can be poor as Job's turkey and still use a lot more energy in the US.

Anonymous said...

This anonymous leftist misses the point - perhaps on purpose. Nobody here claims that existing white Americans with their SUV's, Wal-Mart's, multi-megawatt coal plants, and etc. are not issues. I think Steve Sailer himself has made fun of "SWPL" types for a long time, too.

The issue is growth and scalability in context with pollution and consumption. Letting in hundreds of millions of immigrants, regardless of race, who a large percentage of will (despite your claims to the contrary) transition from impoverished lifestyles to middle-class American lifestyles will make things worse than they already are. That shouldn't be difficult for you to understand and grasp, but apparently it is on the basis of your neo-Marxist dialectic that sees this solely as an issue of racial injustice.

Unless you have some magical argument

Curvaceous, etc. said...

"Isn't it funny how conservatives wet their pants over a Mexican family of 4 causing pollution in America yet they see no problem with a family of 23 (!) doing far worse damage? What's that one line they like to say on this blog? Who? Whom?"

Wow. Tunnel vision at will is an amazing ability.

Toots, how many Duggar families are there in U.S.? One?

How many Latinas popping out 3+ kids are there in U.S.? 12 million?
So 36 million brown kids all wanting their own Air Jordans, MP3s and Honda Civics tricked out with spinners

vs.

18 White kids, all home-schooled, sewing their own clothes, buying shoes from Goodwill, growing vegetable gardens and riding together in a big bus to go to a summer camp.

PRCalDude said...

"Well that's brilliant, Sport. Or I should say it would be if everybody on the planet polluted at the same level. But unfortunately, for instance, Ghana has 23 million people and Australia has 21, but Which creates more pollution?"

No more donations from me until this guy is banned.

Notice guys like Lucius Vorenus no longer comment here but this troll's comments always seem to go through.

It's like this, Twoof: GDP growth and energy consumption are highly correlated. The more electricity you have, the more things you can make. You've never made anything other than half-baked sociology theses, so you don't know.

India and China, which have huge populations, are building coal-powered power plants as fast as they can to keep their GDPs growing. They have a lot of people, therefore they need a lot of power. They're quickly catching up and the Chinese have already overtaken us in carbon emission, so the article doesn't even make your point.

Australia is what we like to call "an outlier." Farming and fishing are a big part of their GDP and both require heavy inputs of energy. Again, you wouldn't know.

Anonymous said...

Here you go, Trendy Lefty Anonymous, forwarding on from Truth(er)'s point that offshore outsourcing is massively polluting:

http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

Containerships pollute more globally than all the world's cars put together. The same containerships that bring in your wardrobe of cheap, trendy H&M skinny jeans from China. How come you're not upset about that, Trendy Anonymous Lefty?

And you know what, Trendy Anonymous Lefty? That massively polluting containership went across the Pacific Ocean TWICE so that you can have your cheap, trendy skinny jeans. First to carry US cotton exports to China, and again, to bring those cheap, trendy skinny jeans made from that cotton back to the US.

Now, if your cheap, trendy skinny jeans had been made in the US with US-grown cotton, you would have eliminated both of those massively polluting containership trips across the Pacific Ocean.

I would be willing to bet that your wardrobe of cheap,trendy skinny jeans caused more global pollution than six month's worth of some evil white middle-class soccer mom's SUV-driving. But you're not worried about that because a) your globalist masters don't want you to worry about it, so they don't pay their corporate media lackies to highlight that fact and b)the manufacturers of your cheap, trendy, skinny jeans aren't white, so it's all okay.

Isn't that so, Trendy Anonymous Lefty?

Melykin said...

Anonymous said:
That massively polluting containership went across the Pacific Ocean TWICE so that you can have your cheap, trendy skinny jeans. First to carry US cotton exports to China...
-------------------------
China buys US cotton? If China had to import cotton, I would think it could get it cheaper from Uzbekistan or a similar place that that used child labour.

But I agree about the container ship issue. The organization I work for is located close to a pulp and paper mill. (It actually borders the campus, I believe, but you can't see it from the campus because the land falls away steeply below the campus). I was therefore astonished to learn that the paper in our photocopy room said "made in Australia" ! Apparently the paper produced next door is shipped to Japan to make glossy magazines!

When I heard this I quit feel guilty for driving my little car a few miles to work every day instead of taking the bus (as we are constantly harassed to do by various emails that come over the staff list).

Anonymous said...

I didn't just call you racist, I proved it - as if it wasn't already apparent; you say environmentally sound policy is whites' responsibility, which is racist. What, China and India don't count?

China and India are just catching up. America and Europe has been polluting for decades. I *am* holding China and India responsible but not to the same degree as American and Europe. Why must you see everything through the prism of race, dear?

You dismiss non-whites as culturally too crippled to compete with whites in terms of carbon footprint, but you're a progressive so we know you're insincere; in two minutes you're going to be talking out of the other side of your mouth about how these people would be just as rich as whites if whites weren't holding them down.

I have not said this but I did say that not all immigrants have the same *ECONOMIC* opportunities and that different cultures conserve/consume differently. You are projecting your own racism into my comments, again.

To highlight the progressive double-standard; whites with all those kids get progressives frothing at the mouth, but I doubt very much they'd respond that way to a black couple with that many.

If they are "frothing at the mouth", then it is only out of concern for that poor wife having to birth that many kids. I know I wouldn't want that kind of future for my daughter but I guess you would since you imagine yourself to be involved in a "race war" or something. Alas, race has nothing to do with my objections to the Duggars, hun.

And you know what, Trendy Anonymous Lefty? That massively polluting containership went across the Pacific Ocean TWICE so that you can have your cheap, trendy skinny jeans. First to carry US cotton exports to China, and again, to bring those cheap, trendy skinny jeans made from that cotton back to the US.

Not that it is any of your business but I do not buy my clothes from countries that have a lackadaisical attitude towards slave labor. And...I enjoy making my own clothes. I suppose that since you are so concerned over my carbon footprint and my wardrobe (creepy!) that you go to great lengths to make sure that your baseball caps and track pants are not made overseas.

Curvaceous, etc. said...

"When I heard this I quit feel guilty for driving my little car a few miles to work every day instead of taking the bus (as we are constantly harassed to do by various emails that come over the staff list)."

Bravo! The *only* reason to not drive your car and take the bus is if it financially benefits or is more convenient for *you.*

(Car ownership, counting payments, gas, oil, tires, routine maintenance, repairs, parking and insurance is frightfully expensive. The bus, however, is often populated by thugs. If they decide to bash you, the medical bills can quickly far exceed the cost of car ownership for a lifetime.)

Anonymous said...

China buys US cotton?
---
China buys 1/3 of all US cotton exports. (Cotton picking is highly mechanized in the US so no need for child labor.) They spend a few billion dollars on it, then sells us cheap cotton clothes back for about 8-10 times that amount of money.

The same story is true of resins, which goes into making plastic toys and other cheap plastic consumer products. We are one of the world's largest exporters of resins -- they export it back to us in the form of manufactured toys and other plastic consumer goods, at many times the price they pay for the resins.

Both the cotton and the resins make completely unnecessary and very poluting double trips across the Pacific Ocean. You also have to factor in the pollution and fuel usage from the train trip from the cotton fields to the West Coast, and the train trip from the West Coast back to the shopping mall in Texas (or wherever the cheap cotton clothes from China are headed.) Frequently there are truck trips tacked on to either end of the train trips, too. More pollution and fuel usage.

Now compare that to a toy factory that's located right next door to the resin plant in the US. Maybe you have one truck trip to ship the resins to the toy factory, then maybe another truck trip + train trip to the shopping mall in Texas or wherever it's meant to be sold. And that's it.

Compare that to the multiple train, truck, and containership transport moves that are required to support global sourcing.

Lefties don't have any problem with any of this. I never hear them say a word. That's because lefties love "the global economy." It's the all-purpose excuse they use to defend mass Third World immigration, official bilingualism in the US, and giving affirmative action slots at Harvard to non-white foreigners at the expense of native-born whites whose families have been in the US for 200-300 years.

Truth said...

"No more donations from me until this guy is banned."

You'll have to get together with your accountant Steve and come up with a plan to replace the 5$.

Anonymous said...

Toots, how many Duggar families are there in U.S.? One?

How many Latinas popping out 3+ kids are there in U.S.? 12 million?
So 36 million brown kids all wanting their own Air Jordans, MP3s and Honda Civics tricked out with spinners

vs.

18 White kids, all home-schooled, sewing their own clothes, buying shoes from Goodwill, growing vegetable gardens and riding together in a big bus to go to a summer camp.


Thank you for making this point. I am tired of hearing the anti-racists crusaders always use relatively singular, high-profile cases of white behavior to justify common behavior among NAMs.

Anonymous said...

Trendy Anonymous Lefty writes: "Not that it is any of your business but I do not buy my clothes from countries that have a lackadaisical attitude towards slave labor. And...I enjoy making my own clothes. I suppose that since you are so concerned over my carbon footprint and my wardrobe (creepy!) that you go to great lengths to make sure that your baseball caps and track pants are not made overseas."

Even if you make your own clothes, the fabric was probably made in Asia, so same story with the double trip across the Pacific Ocean. Sorry, pumpkin! And I don't see what's "creepy" about focusing on your wardrobe. Even if it doesn't apply to you, lots of trendy lefties love to buy inexpensive, globally sourced, ultra-polluting manufactured products while crying into their Starbucks lattes about "global warming."

Global sourcing is ultra-polluting, far more than white, middle-class, SUV-driving soccer moms. So how come you're not concerned about it? How come you're focusing on white, SUV-driving soccer moms instead of trans-Pacific containerships and trans-North American double-stack container trains?

PS -- It's hard to find clothes made in the US these days thanks to the almost complete destruction of US manufacturing capability over the past 15-20 years, but yes, I do buy US-made goods whenever possible. For environmental as well as nationalist reasons. Sometimes it hurts because the prices are higher and the stores that sell them are harder to find, but I still make the effort. Whenever I do break down and buy something made in China at the local mall, I usually see tons of trendy lefties there piling their shopping carts with huge piles of imported, environmentally wasteful clothing from Abercrombie or Hollister or H&M.

--Sincerely yours,

Non-trendy, Non-lefty Anonymous

Engineer-Poet said...

There is a simple reason that the Duggars are featured and not some other racial/ethnic group:  if the MSM made a show about a black or Mexican family in the US with 15+ kids, it would be called hate speech.  Yet we know that such families exist, and they live largely on public assistance rather than their own craft.

We can do quite a bit about carbon emissions.  One of the things we are already doing is making solar panels and CF/LED lights cheaper than buying kerosene.  These inventions are putting whiter, brighter, cleaner and cheaper lights into the remotest third-world villages without emitting a bit of carbon (or feeding a cent to OPEC).  In the USA, we ought to go on a car-electrification binge while revamping the coal-fired plants we don't just shut down.  Captured CO2 from those plants can be pumped into old oil fields from Pennsylvania to Texas, extracting oil that would otherwise be trapped in the rocks in droplets too tightly bound to move to the wells.  That will reduce our carbon emissions and (surprise!) slam OPEC in two ways.

The final thing we should do is confiscate the American-purchased vehicles of illegal aliens as they leave.  Such vehicles were bought with money earned illegally, so they are fruits of crime and lawfully forfeit.  Going home by bus, the repatriated aliens will not be driving nearly as much and will be forced to live lighter on the earth.

Severn said...

I think Herr Svigor's intention was to bait me into admitting that I loathe white folk or something.



I don't think you need to be baited into admitting that. You've been bragging about it all through this thread.

Severn said...

"More people = more pollution."

Well that's brilliant, Sport. Or I should say it would be if everybody on the planet polluted at the same level.


You're a clown, Troot. "More people = more pollution" is true regardless of how much pollution any given person or group of persons contribute to the whole. Your people in Ghana don't emit "negative pollution".

stari_momak said...

Slightly off topic, but how about local noise pollution? Working at home im a semi-affluent area is like being in the middle of a effing motocross race, what with all the Mexican 'gardeners' and their mowers, leaf blowers, hedge trimmers etc. Back in the day, you'd have to deal with some mowing on a Saturday morning, with several guys in the neighborhood mowing at once. Now-a-days it's constant, one guy has his Mexican come at 8 am Monday, the next at 10 am Monday, the third at 1 PM Wednesday, and so on. The result, a nearly constant whine of two stroke motors.

Plus I think the cheap labor encourages landscapers to plant monstrous sub-tropical settings, leading to overuse of water. More expensive labor -- or DIY -- would mean slower planting of slower growing plants more suitable for a semi-arid climate.

Truth said...

"You're a clown, Troot. "More people = more..."

Oh, I don't know, I think a person who drives a Humvee and treats his 3 acre lawn with pesticides creates more pollution than three Masai Tribesmen, but hey, I could be wrong.

Curvaceous, etc. said...

"I don't know, I think a person who drives a Humvee and treats his 3 acre lawn with pesticides creates more pollution than three Masai Tribesmen, but hey, I could be wrong."

Well, since Masai lack modern body-waste handling methods, who knows?

But at any rate, you'd agree 3 Masai pollute more than 2 Masai, wouldn't you?
And you'd agree if those 3 Masai moved to Rancho Santa Fe and started driving Humvees and watering 3 acres, they'd pollute more than at home, right?
So 3rd worlders need to stay in the 3rd world lest the world burn up.

Curvaceous, etc. said...

Trendy Anon in Denial says:
"Not that it is any of your business"

But it IS our business, dear. You made it our business. If you going to poke yer nose into what the White middle class does, up to and including taxing us to pay for our sins as you define them, then we get to find out what YOU are up to, and if it's sinful according to our definitions, shame you right back.
I realize that, being leftist, probably nobody ever told that holding double standards is bad manners, but that's okay. We'll school you.

Anonymous said...

twoof = tw@t

Anonymous said...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/browse_thread/thread/c46ad43d53615bdb?hl=en%03af1dfb4557c780e#


> > In contrast, how many Mexicans do you see driving Prius hybrids?

> Probably quite a few...if someone bothered to keep count. I'm sure
> Sailer hasn't.

> As

> > far as I can tell, Toyota hasn’t yet bothered selling its Prius in
> > Mexico (population 112,000,000).

> Are you sure about that, Sailer? I just saw a Prius with Sonoran
> plates today.

Actually Vinylsnatch, even a broken clock such as yourself is right
twice a day. It turns out Toyota de Mexico does list the Prius on its
web site.

http://www.toyota.com.mx/

How popular is the Prius there and what percentage of Mexicans who
actually buy one are MINOs-Mestizos In Name Only, pure Spanish or
other Euro Mexicans with no or only very little indio blood, which are
all the high class ones so to speak? Since you are interested, you do
the research and let Steve know he is wrong. See what he says.

> And how many Hispanics respond to polls?

That sounds like prejudice to me.

Anonymous said...

Gentlemen, it seems all of your are shifting the blame to minorities, again. Do white people, the same people who have been polluting for decades have any responsibilities anymore? Here is an exercise you all can partake in. Make a list at home of ways you can cut back on your consumption if you truly care about the Earth. For example, recycle more, bike to work, grow your own veggies, etc. Be proactive! Whining about minorities is not going to save the Earth since they are not creating the bulk of the pollution. Oh and dears, saving the Earth means saving it for everyone, not just the white race but every race. It truly is a multicultural project that everyone can get involved in so try not to be see hateful towards those who were not born white. We are saving the Earth for our children *and* theirs.

Steve Sailer said...

I saw a couple of webpages from earlier this year that recounted rumors that Toyota would start selling Priuses in Mexico in August 2010, but couldn't find any follow-up on it, so I don't think it has happened yet.

Considering the huge number of Priuses sold in Southern California, this is striking.

Anonymous said...

"Gentlemen, it seems all of your are shifting the blame to minorities, again. Do white people, the same people who have been polluting for decades have any responsibilities anymore? Here is an exercise you all can partake in. Make a list at home of ways you can cut back on your consumption if you truly care about the Earth. For example, recycle more, bike to work, grow your own veggies, etc. Be proactive! Whining about minorities is not going to save the Earth since they are not creating the bulk of the pollution. Oh and dears, saving the Earth means saving it for everyone, not just the white race but every race. It truly is a multicultural project that everyone can get involved in so try not to be see hateful towards those who were not born white. We are saving the Earth for our children *and* theirs."
--
As I explained, Anonymous Trendy Lefty, doing all of that stuff is useless when you have global outsourcing causing huge amounts of unncessary pollution that dwarfs any pollution caused by middle-class Americans driving to work. (The link I posted, which you probably didn't read, pointed out that the top 15 mega-sized containerships in the world put out more "emissions" per year than all the cars of the world put together.)

If YOU want to really do something to save the planet, get off of your fixation on "evil whitey" and start campaigning for the US to bring as much of its manufacturing industry home as we can. The more we can manufacture at home, the fewer trips those mega-sized containerships make across the Pacific (and Atlantic) Oceans. And yes, what you call "minorities" DO contribute to worldwide pollution, not the least by participating in global outsourcing, and also, by not regulating their populations (more people equal more pollution, even with a Third World lifestyle).

What do you call all those Chinese textile manufacturers who have decimated our textile manufacturing sector? Are they white?

PS -- "minorities" are the majority in the world, not "white people." WE are the minority. But I know your deluded brain cannot simply get around the idea that "whitey" is responsible for all of the world's problems. So you won't be campaigning to bring US industry home, which is in fact an issue that would actually make a difference in "global warming" and is an issue that nationalists like myself could could agree on with trendy "progressives" like you.

You won't bother with that idea, though, because HuffPo and Daily Kos are telling you that you can save the planet by growing your own vegetables, and that's all you care about. Demanding that US industry come home and provide decent-paying jobs for icky, icky lower-middle-class white people (who no doubt wear baseball caps and track pants, the rubes!) is just so, so un-trendy. You could never hold your head up at the local organic co-op if you did something like that!

Sincerely yours,

--non-Trendy, non-Lefty Anonymous

Tanstaafl said...

Guilt-tripping must be delivered via one-way broadcast or in a heavily moderated forum to be effective.

When it is exposed and ridiculed for what it is, in an open forum, as it has been here, guilt-tripping has the opposite of its intended effect. Far from feeling guilty, normal people are revulsed by attempts at fraud and manipulation.

Engineer-Poet said...

If one anon is Trendy and Lefty, the other one appears to be Dogmatic and Credulous for reasons detailed below.

"(The link I posted, which you probably didn't read, pointed out that the top 15 mega-sized containerships in the world put out more "emissions" per year than all the cars of the world put together.)"

I'm inclined to cross-check claims like this, because they are often not true.  That's indeed the case.

If there were 15 container ships the size of the Emma Maersk, each with an RTA96-C engine, they would consume about 225 short tons of fuel per hour at full throttle.  US consumers use roughly 9 million barrels of gasoline per day (375,000 bbl/hr).  At 42 gal/bbl and 6.167 lb/gal, that's roughly 49,000 tons per hour.  In short, container ships don't even come close to US car emissions, let alone world vehicle emissions.

This reality check is good at any bank or credit union.

Svigor said...

Anon is pretty clueless; she STILL hasn't gotten the point:

Progressives place the environment far lower on the totem pole than open borders and whitey-hating. That's why their forms of environmentalism are all subordinated to open borders and whitey-hating, and never allowed to be an impediment to same.

The point is, if Conservatives really did go after environmentalism in a big way, Progressives would scream bloody murder and "racism!" until Conservatives stopped being so environmentalist.

Progressives are progressive the way cancer is progressive.

Svigor said...

It's also interesting how easily she could have avoided the whole race thing by just targeting the non-poor for her green crack-down. But she insisted, and insists, on sticking to her racist guns.

Anonymous said...

As I explained, Anonymous Trendy Lefty, doing all of that stuff is useless when you have global outsourcing causing huge amounts of unncessary (sic) pollution that dwarfs any pollution caused by middle-class Americans driving to work. (The link I posted, which you probably didn't read, pointed out that the top 15 mega-sized containerships in the world put out more "emissions" per year than all the cars of the world put together.)

If YOU want to really do something to save the planet, get off of your fixation on "evil whitey" and start campaigning for the US to bring as much of its manufacturing industry home as we can.


Hun, I did read the link but your fixation of containerships is not my problem, it's the problem of big business. Whether or not I buy skinny jeans at H&M (I don't, ewww), the ships will keep on coming because that's how Wallstreet, libertarians, both parties and your average American like it -- see Wal-Mart's popularity. Cutting back on the containerships is harder than enforcing EPA regulations on big business because conservatives would be shrieking that doing so would cripple the economy. And to say that all the little things don't matter is just wrong. They do, dear, they do. They contribute to pollution and needless waste whether it be monstrous stores like Costco or restaurant buffets. The little people need to send a message to big business that we won't tolerate their cr@p anymore and that entails changing our lifestyles so that we won't require most of their services anymore.

If you truly believe that the brunt of the problem rests with the containerships then you should have no problem with further immigration since like you said: "global outsourcing causing huge amounts of unncessary (sic) pollution that dwarfs any pollution caused by middle-class Americans driving to work." So, even if immigrants assimilate 100% and act exactly like middle class Americans and ape their consumption output, then it doesn't matter in the end, does it? Hence, this whole "immigrants are ruining the environment" meme is really all a bunch of B.S. and you know it. Of course I'm not blaming this all on containerships, there are many sources of the problem and recent immigrants are only a fraction of the problem, it's not something to get worked up over. Furthermore, the more green Americans become, the more green immigrants will become so even if they do begin to consume as much as middle class Americans, all hope is not lost.

Anonymous said...

As I explained, Anonymous Trendy Lefty, doing all of that stuff is useless when you have global outsourcing causing huge amounts of unncessary (sic) pollution that dwarfs any pollution caused by middle-class Americans driving to work. (The link I posted, which you probably didn't read, pointed out that the top 15 mega-sized containerships in the world put out more "emissions" per year than all the cars of the world put together.)

If YOU want to really do something to save the planet, get off of your fixation on "evil whitey" and start campaigning for the US to bring as much of its manufacturing industry home as we can.


Hun, I did read the link but your fixation of containerships is not my problem, it's the problem of big business. Whether or not I buy skinny jeans at H&M (I don't, ewww), the ships will keep on coming because that's how Wallstreet, libertarians, both parties and your average American like it -- see Wal-Mart's popularity. Cutting back on the containerships is harder than enforcing EPA regulations on big business because conservatives would be shrieking that doing so would cripple the economy. And to say that all the little things don't matter is just wrong. They do, dear, they do. They contribute to pollution and needless waste whether it be monstrous stores like Costco or restaurant buffets. The little people need to send a message to big business that we won't tolerate their cr@p anymore and that entails changing our lifestyles so that we won't require most of their services anymore.

If you truly believe that the brunt of the problem rests with the containerships then you should have no problem with further immigration since like you said: "global outsourcing causing huge amounts of unncessary (sic) pollution that dwarfs any pollution caused by middle-class Americans driving to work." So, even if immigrants assimilate 100% and act exactly like middle class Americans and ape their consumption output, then it doesn't matter in the end, does it? Hence, this whole "immigrants are ruining the environment" meme is really all a bunch of B.S. and you know it. Of course I'm not blaming this all on containerships, there are many sources of the problem and recent immigrants are only a fraction of the problem, it's not something to get worked up over. Furthermore, the more green Americans become, the more green immigrants will become so even if they do begin to consume as much as middle class Americans, all hope is not lost.

Anonymous said...

When it is exposed and ridiculed for what it is, in an open forum, as it has been here, guilt-tripping has the opposite of its intended effect. Far from feeling guilty, normal people are revulsed by attempts at fraud and manipulation.

I'm not guilt tripping, I'm trying to get people to take responsibility for their actions, sugar. You may be a climate change denier, so that is why you dismiss your responsibility to cut back on your consumption as "guilt-tripping". Fine. If you want to live in fantasy land and ruin your children's future, then so be it. That's *reality*, not me trying to scare you. If we continue to tread the same path we've been treading for decades then our future will seem bleak because of all the environmental disasters. Lastly, the only fraud in this thread is the suggestion that immigrants are hazardous to the environment. Nobody has presented any facts that immigrants are consuming more than middle class Americans or that continuing to admit them will lead to an environmental disaster. If anyone is laughing, it's environmentalists and progressives laughing at your feeble attempts to guilt-trip *us*. Goodness, what is it with conservatives and projection?

Anonymous said...

"Nobody has presented any facts that immigrants are consuming more than middle class Americans or that continuing to admit them will lead to an environmental disaster."

Nobody said they're consuming more than Americans.  They are consuming more than they would have if they stayed home; that is their purpose in coming here.

In the process of this consumption, they drive up the cost of American real estate, push urban sprawl and destruction of farmland and other green space, drive shortages of water in immigrant meccas like California and Atlanta, and otherwise degrade the environment directly and indirectly.

Anonymous said...

"Cutting back on the containerships is harder than enforcing EPA regulations on big business because conservatives would be shrieking that doing so would cripple the economy.
---
Hi again, Sweetie (if you can call me "dear", I can call you sweetie.)There are actually plenty of "conservatives" who'd like to reindustrialize the US and stop the containerships from coming. See, Buchanan, Pat, for just one example. Or Sailer, Steve, for another one. We could use some help from "progressives" like yourself, but you're too busy patting yourself on the back for growing your own vegetables.

"see Wal-Mart's popularity."
--
Wal-Mart is popular because working class American wages have stagnated due to 1.) mass immigration of low-skilled, cheap labor providers, and 2.) global outsourcing (which Wal-Mart supports to the point of treason, IMHO). By encouraging mass immigration, you're actually, encouraging the development of more of the Wal-Marts you claim to decry, because that's the only place that most wage-depressed American workers can afford to shop at.
--
"If you truly believe that the brunt of the problem rests with the containerships then you should have no problem with further immigration since like you said: "global outsourcing causing huge amounts of unncessary (sic) pollution that dwarfs any pollution caused by middle-class Americans driving to work."
--
I didn't say that "containershps" were the ONLY problem, I said they were a big problem, and pointed out that they are a bigger problem than cars, yet no one seems to care about them, let alone the people in your camp. I never said anything about mass Third World immigration, which I oppose for a variety of reasons, not just environmental ones. However, I should point out that I am a native Californian of the same age group as Mr. Sailer, and I can definitely remember what our state's environment looked like in 1970 when we had half the population, 20 million versus 40 million. I remember that monarch butterflies and native big horn sheep were rather common sights in my part of the world at one time, for example, and now they are hardly to be seen. I remember when black bears, coyotes and mountain lions did not show up regularly in housing developments, because the habitats for the bears, coyotes and mountain lions still existed, and now they don't. Your contention that immigration doesn't impact the environement is, quite frankly, bullshit. Who am I supposed to believe, you (how old are you anyways -- 14?), or my own lyin' eyes?
--
"Lastly, the only fraud in this thread is the suggestion that immigrants are hazardous to the environment. Nobody has presented any facts that immigrants are consuming more than middle class Americans or that continuing to admit them will lead to an environmental disaster."

Are you really this ignorant? The point is NOT whether immigrants consume more than middle class Americans, the point is that they consume at all. Do you really think that 400 million people consume less than 300 million people? That 500 million consume less than 400 million? Did you even bother to pay attention during math class?

You're digging yourself deeper into a hole with each post you make, Anonymous Trendy Lefty. Your arguments are extremely childish, irrational, and ignorant.

--Sincerely,

Non-Trendy et. al.

Anonymous said...

Progressives place the environment far lower on the totem pole than open borders and whitey-hating.

You are delusional and sick in the head. Saying white people should take responsibility for their actions is racist now? Wow. Just wow.

The point is, if Conservatives really did go after environmentalism in a big way, Progressives would scream bloody murder and "racism!" until Conservatives stopped being so environmentalist.

And they would be justified judging by the comments in this thread. So far we've had people suggest that those in developing countries should have their reproductive rights abolished BY WHITE PEOPLE and that the industry in those countries should be driven into the ground. That's genocide dear, no matter which way you slice it.

Are you really this ignorant? The point is NOT whether immigrants consume more than middle class Americans, the point is that they consume at all. Do you really think that 400 million people consume less than 300 million people? That 500 million consume less than 400 million? Did you even bother to pay attention during math class?

Well duh, of course they will consume. But according to this thread you folks are treating immigration like it's going to be as bad or worse than the oil spill in the Gulf. That simply isn't the case, dear. But if overpopulation is a great concern to you, then why not advocate for smaller family formation for *everybody*, not just brown people? This is what I don't get about conservatives. You ONLY care about the environment as long as you can push your racist agendas like denying anyone who isn't white entry into America. Until you gentlemen get rid of that race thing then nobody will take your environmental proposals seriously.

Curvaceous, etc. said...

"The point is NOT whether immigrants consume more than middle class Americans, the point is that they consume at all."

The point is, they consume more in America than they do at home in the 3rd world AND, because they made it here where they can "have a better life for their families" they give birth to and raise to adulthood more offspring than at home, so it's a double whammy.
And the numbers of 3rd world immigrants are staggering.

For instance:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/080810dnmetbabies.2be9a7e.html
quote:
..."Texas, where not only 1.5 million illegal immigrants are estimated to reside but at least 60,000 babies are added to their households annually.

Parkland Memorial Hospital delivers more of those babies than any other hospital in the state. Last year at Parkland, 11,071 babies were born to women who were noncitizens, about 74 percent of total deliveries. Most of these women are believed to be in the country illegally.

Curvaceous, etc. said...

"But if overpopulation is a great concern to you, then why not advocate for smaller family formation for *everybody*, not just brown people?"

Go to hell.
I was told growing up, overpopulation will lead to disaster, that women MUST have no more than 2 kids. I bought the story and had my 2 kids then hubby had the vasectomy.
So WHAT HAPPENED? Neocons and liberals said, "OH, we need more workers because American women aren't having enough babies to fund Social Security! We MUST import 3rd worlders."

Now my country is lost to my children, short of truly staggering amounts of bloodshed. Because while Juan and Lupe may be humble workers, their anchor babies are assimilating to gangbanging and intend to take America for themselves.

Thanks.

30 MILLION illegal aliens and their anchor babies (conservative estimate) and INCREASING BY a MILLION + A YEAR! DO YOU GET IT NOW?

"you folks are treating immigration like it's going to be as bad or worse than the oil spill in the Gulf."

It IS. The oil spill is no longer even visible. But the Spanish-speaking mestizoes at the local Walmart sure are.

Curvaceous, etc. said...

"Saying white people should take responsibility for their actions is racist now? Wow. Just wow."

It IS because White people are the ONLY ones you hold responsible for their own actions.

The actions of non-Whites, you excuse and minimize.

It's anti-White racism.

Curvaceous, etc. said...

Hey, Dingbat,

You say:

"So far we've had people suggest that those in developing countries should have their reproductive rights abolished BY WHITE PEOPLE
That's genocide dear"

Then you say:

"if overpopulation is a great concern to you, then why not advocate for smaller family formation for *everybody*, not just brown people?"

So, according to you, if conservatives push for brown people NOT to have kids, that's genocide.
But if we just want to keep them out of America, THAT'S RACIST!!!!

(And how come it's genocide to advocate for brown people's industries to be driven into the ground, but it's NOT anti-White racism to be okay with offshoring TO the brown people of White Americans' industry? Hmmmm?)

Crikey, you're this confused and you come here to lecture US?

Anonymous said...

"Well duh, of course they will consume. But according to this thread you folks are treating immigration like it's going to be as bad or worse than the oil spill in the Gulf. That simply isn't the case, dear."
---
Really? Where's your facts and figures on that, DEAR? Just pulling them out of your ass, as usual? Sorry, post some credible figures, or STFU. I don't respond to emotional melodramatic outbursts disguised as "facts."
--

"But if overpopulation is a great concern to you, then why not advocate for smaller family formation for *everybody*, not just brown people? This is what I don't get about conservatives. You ONLY care about the environment as long as you can push your racist agendas like denying anyone who isn't white entry into America."
---
Well, you only seem to care about the environment as long as you can push your racist agenda about "hating whitey," so who are you to point fingers? That's obviously why you think that replacing suburban lawns with vegetable gardens is more important than reducing horrendously polluting global outsourcing.
---
"Until you gentlemen get rid of that race thing then nobody will take your environmental proposals seriously."
--
I am a lady, not a gentleman. I personally do not take YOUR environmental proposals seriously, because I know that they are only motivated by your hatred of people who look like me (and who look like yourself), not by any reasoned consideration of the facts and figures at hand. Sorry, toots.
--
"So far we've had people suggest that those in developing countries should have their reproductive rights abolished BY WHITE PEOPLE and that the industry in those countries should be driven into the ground. That's genocide dear, no matter which way you slice it."
--
I haven't seen anyone say that people in devloping countries should have their reproductive rights abolished BY SCARY HORRIBLE WHITE PEOPLE. However, I think it would be a good idea if everyone had only the children they can afford to support, including SCARY HORRIBLE WHITE PEOPLE, "DEAR". Do you think that people should have more children than they can reasonably support with their own labor, just because they are not white? It would seem to me that their children would have a better way of life if they copied SCARY WHITE PEOPLE's below-population-level reproductive habits. Don't you agree?

Sincerely yours,

Non-Trendy, etc.

Anonymous said...

"
Crikey, you're this confused and you come here to lecture US?"
---
Trendy Lefty thinks she can wave her usual magic talisman -- Racism! Nazis! Genocide! -- and she will "win" the argument. It works on Daily Kos and HuffPo, so why wouldn't it work here? She frantically waves her magic talisman, hoping to make the SCARY HORRIBLE RACIST WHITE PEOPLE go away, and it's not working. So she waves it even more frantically, sounding more and more ridiculous each time she posts. She doesn't realize that she's losing credibility with every frantic wave of her magic talisman.

--Non-trendy, etc.

Curvaceous, etc. said...

"She doesn't realize that she's losing credibility with every frantic wave of her magic talisman."

Aye.

It IS fun to watch, though, isn't it?
Sorta like the Wicked Witch melting when Isteve readers toss the cold water of reality.

Svigor said...

"The point is, if Conservatives really did go after environmentalism in a big way, Progressives would scream bloody murder and "racism!" until Conservatives stopped being so environmentalist."

And they would be justified judging by the comments in this thread.


Heh. So you agree; you, and progressives in general, subordinate environmentalism to open-borders, "diversity," and "tolerance," and would attack anyone who subordinates open-borders, "diversity," and "tolerance" to environmentalism.

So far we've had people suggest that those in developing countries should have their reproductive rights abolished BY WHITE PEOPLE and that the industry in those countries should be driven into the ground. That's genocide dear, no matter which way you slice it.

In other words, you're going to lump closing the borders, suggested by myself and others, in with some Planned-Parenthood-meets-Marine Expeditionary-Force Devil's Advocacy, put a bow on it, call it "conservative," (I'm not even a conservative, something I think I stated in a post - I guess Komment Kontrol has refused it) and conveniently refuse to discuss the former because you've put it into a box with the latter?

Why don't you just sign in as "Uber-Conservative" and say how the essence of conservatism is "nuke all the darkies"; you could win your argument much more quickly and efficiently that way.

Or I could just sign in as "Uber Progressive" and declare nuking whitey as the raison d'etre of progressivism, sign back in as Svigor, and declare victory for myself.

You couldn't have screamed "who? Whom?" any louder if you tried, heh. Ideas? What are those?

Do you ever do any thinking/discussing about politics that isn't wholly emotional, catty, dishonest, etc.?

Svigor said...

Well duh, of course they will consume. But according to this thread you folks are treating immigration like it's going to be as bad or worse than the oil spill in the Gulf. That simply isn't the case, dear. But if overpopulation is a great concern to you, then why not advocate for smaller family formation for *everybody*, not just brown people? This is what I don't get about conservatives. You ONLY care about the environment as long as you can push your racist agendas like denying anyone who isn't white entry into America. Until you gentlemen get rid of that race thing then nobody will take your environmental proposals seriously.

Translation: Open borders are far more important to progressives than the environment; open borders are an unassailable, inviolable progressive value.

Anonymous said...

I was told growing up, overpopulation will lead to disaster, that women MUST have no more than 2 kids. I bought the story and had my 2 kids then hubby had the vasectomy.

Don't blame me for your life choices, dear. Nobody forced you to limit yourself to 2 kids and vasectomies are reversible now.

Now my country is lost to my children, short of truly staggering amounts of bloodshed. Because while Juan and Lupe may be humble workers, their anchor babies are assimilating to gangbanging and intend to take America for themselves.

Wow. So you do see yourself in a race war. That's just stunning. You are one scary woman, I hope your kids will not share your values once they finish college.

It IS because White people are the ONLY ones you hold responsible for their own actions.

As I said, I'm holding everyone responsible. I'm not a big fan of India and China's attitude towards climate change but America and Europe is responsible for most of the problem. That is undeniable.

So, according to you, if conservatives push for brown people NOT to have kids, that's genocide.
But if we just want to keep them out of America, THAT'S RACIST!!!!


Targeting minorities or non-whites for small family formation exclusively *is* genocide. That is what one poster in this thread advocated and nobody raised an eyebrow except little ol' me. And keeping brown people outside of America isn't racist? So excluding someone based on their race or color isn't racist now? Conserv-o-logic at its finest.

That's obviously why you think that replacing suburban lawns with vegetable gardens is more important than reducing horrendously polluting global outsourcing.

I never said that. I recognize the pollution and cultural harm globalization causes but the environment can't be saved by just passing a few laws and signing a few treaties. It will take a lifestyle change for all of us. Encouraging people to consume less is a good thing.

Heh. So you agree; you, and progressives in general, subordinate environmentalism to open-borders, "diversity," and "tolerance," and would attack anyone who subordinates open-borders, "diversity," and "tolerance" to environmentalism.

You are dense. Firstly, nobody in this thread has given any indication that they are even interested in environmental conservation if it doesn't dovetail with their pet causes like immigration restriction or protectionism. This leads me to believe that hardly anyone in this thread is interested in environmental conservation for its own sake, you included.

Secondly, if immigration was proven to be the driving force behind environmental ruin (it hasn't), then yes, progressives would side with the environmentalists and halt immigration. But here's the difference dear, we would stop ALL immigration, not just from developing countries. Pedro wouldn't be able to get in from El Salvador but neither would Otto from Germany.

Nobody here has said anything about zero immigration. It's just been endless blabber about Third World immigration. And before you bitch at me and say that the consumption rate of someone moving from a First World country to America wouldn't change, well you don't know that. It could change if they got a better paying job or moved into the suburbs and had to drive to a lot more places. Their consumption rate could even go down for all we know.

I find it ironic how I'm the one who is called a racist for wanting to hold everyone responsible whereas you folks consider yourselves non-racists even though you try to place all of the blame on brown people.

Do you ever do any thinking/discussing about politics that isn't wholly emotional, catty, dishonest, etc.?

Do you ever do any thinking/discussing about politics that isn't wholly racist, misogynistic, dishonest, etc.?

Anonymous said...

Heh. So you agree; you, and progressives in general, subordinate environmentalism to open-borders, "diversity," and "tolerance," and would attack anyone who subordinates open-borders, "diversity," and "tolerance" to environmentalism.

You are dense. Firstly, nobody in this thread has given any indication that they are even interested in environmental conservation if it doesn't dovetail with their pet causes like immigration restriction or protectionism. This leads me to believe that hardly anyone in this thread is interested in environmental conservation for its own sake, you included.

Secondly, if immigration was proven to be the driving force behind environmental ruin (it hasn't), then yes, progressives would side with the environmentalists and halt immigration. But here's the difference dear, we would stop ALL immigration, not just from developing countries. Pedro wouldn't be able to get in from El Salvador but neither would Otto from Germany.

Nobody here has said anything about zero immigration. It's just been endless blabber about Third World immigration. And before you bitch at me and say that the consumption rate of someone moving from a First World country to America wouldn't change, well you don't know that. It could change if they got a better paying job or moved into the suburbs and had to drive to a lot more places. Their consumption rate could even go down for all we know.

I find it ironic how I'm the one who is called a racist for wanting to hold everyone responsible whereas you folks consider yourselves non-racists even though you try to place all of the blame on brown people.

Do you ever do any thinking/discussing about politics that isn't wholly emotional, catty, dishonest, etc.?

Do you ever do any thinking/discussing about politics that isn't wholly racist, misogynistic, dishonest, etc.?

Anonymous said...

"Pedro wouldn't be able to get in from El Salvador but neither would Otto from Germany."
---
I can't speak for others, but I would gladly take that deal, DEAR.
---
"I find it ironic how I'm the one who is called a racist for wanting to hold everyone responsible whereas you folks consider yourselves non-racists even though you try to place all of the blame on brown people."
---
Too late for back-tracking. You alredy made your anti-white hatred crystal clean in several posts.
---
"I find it ironic how I'm the one who is called a racist for wanting to hold everyone responsible whereas you folks consider yourselves non-racists even though you try to place all of the blame on brown people."
----
Uh, do you have any self-awareness whatsoever? You were the one who started in first with the condescending and belittling "dears" and "Sugars", and you were the one who started in first with mischaracterizing other peoples' posts as "genocide" etc.

Supporting better contraception availability in Third World countries that can't afford to support the number of children they are producing, and advocating for American jobs to say in America isn't in any way "genocide." That's where the dishonesty came in.

The posters here tried initially to address you in a civil manner and you showed yourself quite quickly to be incapable of matching them. Now that you find your magic talisman of shrieking "racism" and "genocide" at people has no power here, you try to affect a more civil posture (but still couldn't stop yourself from slipping that rude and condescending "dear" into your post, could you, DEAR?)

--Non-trendy, etc.

Curvaceous, etc. said...

"Pedro wouldn't be able to get in from El Salvador but neither would Otto from Germany."

Shrug.

Suits me.

Curvaceous, etc. said...

I posted this:

"I was told growing up, overpopulation will lead to disaster, that women MUST have no more than 2 kids. I bought the story and had my 2 kids then hubby had the vasectomy."

PROOF that I cared about the environment long before the current illegal alien flood from South America ever became a significant problem.

Then, AFTER my post was put up, you said:

"Firstly, nobody in this thread has given any indication that they are even interested in environmental conservation if it doesn't dovetail with their pet causes like immigration restriction or protectionism. This leads me to believe that hardly anyone in this thread is interested in environmental conservation for its own sake, you included."

Your mendacity is truly breathtaking.

Engineer-Poet said...

Not just the mendacity, the refusal to follow links and look at people's corpus of work.

There's a strong tendency for people to adhere to a stereotypical view of "the other" even when evidence contradicts it.  This is true even of those on the left who style themselves "open-minded".  We've just seen that, in spades.

And Curvaceous, if you can still make use of a donor, just ask.

Cicero said...

Sign me up for a total ban on all immigration.

We don't need more people coming to this country, regardless of their origins. They are used to hold down wages, drive up land development costs, and build political blocs that dilute the voting power of the individual citizen. My ancestors came over to this country at the turn of the last century, but I recognize that even then the U.S. was pressed to the breaking point by tens of millions of Europeans pouring into the country; mostly to satisfy the demands of industrialists who were addicted to cheap unskilled labor. The immigration restrictions put in place in 1924 were a boon to all working people in America, including the sons and grandsons of the initial immigrants (my family among them).

The anonymous liberal poster who keeps on trying to say immigration restrictionists are closted neo-Nazis is the classic example of what Lenin called a 'useful idiot'. She(?) is blind to the fact that her leaders (the political class, academia, Big Business) have no other use for her but to keep members of her own class and ethnos in line until such time it is convenient to quietly despose of her through further economic and social displacement. Heck, she might already be affected, but her rigid devotion to the cause of "social justice" blinds her to what is happening.

Got that "Dear?" You are nothing more than a tool of the very people who really would destroy the environment and enslave the entire Third World if it allowed them to stuff a few more billion greenbacks into their bank accounts. And the best part is you do all of this work for them free of charge, just how they like it.

Svigor said...

1

You are dense. Firstly, nobody in this thread has given any indication that they are even interested in environmental conservation if it doesn't dovetail with their pet causes like immigration restriction or protectionism. This leads me to believe that hardly anyone in this thread is interested in environmental conservation for its own sake, you included.

"Your motives are impure! Impure!"

We're talking about your motives, sweetie. The whole point of this thread is progressive environmentalism and how the PC regime comes first. We're not the ones who claim to be environmentalists, you lot are. Pointing at the other side and screaming "you're not environmentalists either!" is pretty weak tea, don't you think?

Secondly, if immigration was proven to be the driving force behind environmental ruin (it hasn't), then yes, progressives would side with the environmentalists and halt immigration.

So now it's the semantics of "driving forces" and such? It's already been shown that immigration is a huge environmental problem for America; a driving force, so to speak. "Side with the environmentalists"? What are you, drunk? The environmentalists are largely progressives, and they're not asking anyone to close the borders, so what does "side with the environmentalists" mean? Progressives - environmentalists included - have already shown which side they're on. PC comes first; the environment, a distant second at best. Environmentalists-In-Name-Only: EINOs.

I can just imagine a doctor with your attitude. He's treating infection A, infection B, and infection C, but he refuses to treat infection D. You keep getting sicker, and you point this out to him and you get 10,000 words about bla bla bla, but at the end of the day the son of a bitch just will not treat infection D. Does he care if you get well at all?

But here's the difference dear, we would stop ALL immigration, not just from developing countries. Pedro wouldn't be able to get in from El Salvador but neither would Otto from Germany.

Immigration is largely a "brown" or "3rd world" problem, just as carbon footprints are largely a "white" or "1st world" problem. Sweetie profiles one group, then shrieks when we "profile" the other. Then she shrieks when we point out what she's doing.

Crackpot, or typical progressive?

Then we go on (four of us in a row, with no dissenters so far) to announce that we're fine with cutting off all immigration, that (at least in my case) in fact that's what most of us were already thinking, that we were simply characterizing mass immigration as we see it - a brown phenomenon - rather than pushing for selective restriction of only browns.

Meanwhile, Sweetie is still sticking to her racist profiling guns when she could easily have switched over to profiling the rich, wealthy, whatever. So who's the racist again?

Sweetie, are you on meds? I ask that seriously. You're just such a wreck, I'm led to wonder.

Svigor said...

2

And before you bitch at me and say that the consumption rate of someone moving from a First World country to America wouldn't change, well you don't know that. It could change if they got a better paying job or moved into the suburbs and had to drive to a lot more places. Their consumption rate could even go down for all we know.

Well, I wasn't going to even mention it, actually. You're just so busy beating up your selective immigration strawman that you're off in your own little universe now. But thanks for handing over a perfectly good argument, in case I do decide to start advocating selective restrictions.

I find it ironic how I'm the one who is called a racist for wanting to hold everyone responsible

Oh, you manifestly are a racist. Every bit as much as someone who supports racially profiling black people. One...hundred...percent...as...racist, because they're the same thing. P-e-r-i-o-d. You could easily have just said "rich folks" or something in lieu of "white people" throughout this thread (and remained a crypto-racist), but you stuck to your guns, by God.

whereas you folks consider yourselves non-racists even though you try to place all of the blame on brown people.

This is pure projection. I bet 90% of the regulars here see it as projection, too. It's pretty funny, actually. :) I'd explain it to you but I'd rather let you twist in the wind. Maybe T will explain it to you.

Do you ever do any thinking/discussing about politics that isn't wholly racist, misogynistic, dishonest, etc.?

The best thing you could ever do to discourage misogyny is to stop discussing politics altogether. That's honestly-intended advice. As for my supposed dishonesty, I'm pretty scrupulous about that kind of thing. I have a long track record you can investigate, if you like. As for my "racism," I'll let you be the judge; make your case.

But your emotionalism, cattiness, and dishonesty are all right here for everyone to see.

(I'm a misogynist because I called her "catty," I suppose? LOL! A white woman's version of the blacks' "you raciss!" No Sweetie, I don't look down on all women - just you.)

I can't speak for others, but I would gladly take that deal, DEAR.

She's a crackpot. She doesn't give a runny shyte about making any deals. She wants to lie, cheat, and steal her way to "victory" (i.e., satisfying herself she's "won").

"Pedro wouldn't be able to get in from El Salvador but neither would Otto from Germany."

Shrug.

Suits me.


That's three in a row, myself included. If she'd just asked, she'd have avoided the embarrassment, but she doesn't care because she's a crackpot.

Sign me up for a total ban on all immigration.

That's four in a row. Maybe in her mind we're all just being sneaky? LOL!

What are we up to now - 10,000 words from our racist progressive friend, and she still won't admit that open borders are a huge environmental problem?

Svigor said...

Hmm, her "misogynist" thing got me thinking. I remember Whiskey mentioning once or twice how women are the big shoppers and spenders in America (and more than once or twice how advertisers - a group who'd need to know - certainly think so). It's true in my experience. Might this not have implications for this discussion? E.g., might it be more accurate for Sweetie here to target white women for the environmental regime?

Are white women destroying the planet? If so, shouldn't we be racially and sexually profiling white women - to save the planet?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Engineer-Poet said...

BTW, there are conservative/libertarian environmentalists.  I'm one of them.  Pro-gun, too.

You should have known we existed.  Did you think that Teddy Roosevelt's breed died out or something?

Anonymous said...

Hmm, her "misogynist" thing got me thinking. I remember Whiskey mentioning once or twice how women are the big shoppers and spenders in America
---
I hope you took note of the fact that the two people who schooled Trendy Anon Lefty the hardest were both female.

This blog pushes away women like me with its Roissy-ite and Whiskey-ite hatred of women, particularly older women. You may think you don't need us because we're just dumb little walking vaginas who become useless after age 25, but your cause is not so popular that you can afford to turn anyone wth a brain away.

I don't normally comment here because of the takeover of this blog by the Roissyites, but Trendy Anon was so idiotic and confused, I just couldn't resist taking her down. (And yes it was obvious she was a "she.")

Let's see if this makes it through Komment Kontrol. Any post standing up for women against Roissy often seems to get waylaid here. . .

Sincerely,

--Non-trendy, Non-Anonymous

Svigor said...

"Hmm, her "misogynist" thing got me thinking. I remember Whiskey mentioning once or twice how women are the big shoppers and spenders in America"
---
I hope you took note of the fact that the two people who schooled Trendy Anon Lefty the hardest were both female.

This blog pushes away women like me with its Roissy-ite and Whiskey-ite hatred of women, particularly older women. You may think you don't need us because we're just dumb little walking vaginas who become useless after age 25, but your cause is not so popular that you can afford to turn anyone wth a brain away.

I don't normally comment here because of the takeover of this blog by the Roissyites, but Trendy Anon was so idiotic and confused, I just couldn't resist taking her down. (And yes it was obvious she was a "she.")

Let's see if this makes it through Komment Kontrol. Any post standing up for women against Roissy often seems to get waylaid here. . .


Is that a really, really, long way of saying women aren't the big shoppers and spenders?