Climate Change Is Racist!
By Paul Homewood
There’s a new book out, which ludicrously claims that climate change is racist!
When we talk about racism, we often mean personal prejudice or institutional biases. Climate change doesn’t work that way. It is structurally racist, disproportionately caused by majority White people in majority White countries, with the damage unleashed overwhelmingly on people of colour. The climate crisis reflects and reinforces racial injustices.
In this eye-opening book, writer and environmental activist Jeremy Williams takes us on a short, urgent journey across the globe – from Kenya to India, the USA to Australia – to understand how White privilege and climate change overlap. We’ll look at the environmental facts, hear the experiences of the people most affected on our planet and learn from the activists leading the change.
It’s time for each of us to find our place in the global struggle for justice.
The book’s argument is the rather tired one, that the bulk of carbon dioxide emissions come from the “rich, white half of the world”, whilst the “poor, black half” suffer the consequences.
But what the book totally fails to recognise is just how much better off the African and other third world countries are as a direct result of the industrial revolution and subsequent economic growth in the developed world.
By every metric, including life expectancy, child mortality, malnutrition, education, healthcare, clean water and poverty, life has been transformed for the better in the third world.
When the climate rhetoric is swept away, what the book really seems to be objecting to is the fact one one part of the world is better off than the other.
I would not normally leave Amazon reviews on books I have not read. But I have read the excerpts, and they more than justify criticism. Please feel free to add your own!
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
But it can’t be ludicrous; the word racist is used so that proves it’s an objective view LOL
Race is racist…. it must be banned!
The climate doesn’t care what colour you are. It doesn’t have an opinion. The climate changes from time to time, usually in geological time scales, without reference to the DNA, physical attributes, abilities or wealth of the creatures it impacts. Ergo, climate and climate change can’t be racist. Various races have risen to the ‘top’ during historical periods of climate change but the weather had nothing to do with their successes, merely how they adapted to it and their natural environment alongside a multitude of other factors. Jeremy’s book has a headline grabbing title and I look forward to him taking up Paul’s offer and enlightening us further on how an inanimate concept could have a racist outlook.
Thanks for taking the trouble to alert us. I am almost tempted to buy the book if only to see whether it addresses the issue of atmospheric pollution from fires for cooking etc in India — a concern of their own government for some time.
The only racist element in the ‘climate change’ farce is the campaign by rich G7 nations to prevent people without electricity benefitting from coal fired power stations. Add also a trace of de haut en bas colonialism- ‘what do we really care about all those starving blackies’
It’s actually worse than that. This bloke has actual power:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/peter-foster-mark-carney-man-of-destiny-arises-to-revolutionize-society-it-wont-be-pleasant
Can you just clarify who you mean by “this bloke”? Because it could be understood as being me – and I don’t have any ‘actual power’ or know Mark Carney.
Carney, of course!
Great article, btw.
Under CRT isn’t everything done, said or thought by a white person racist? “China is responsible for 25% of CO2 emissions” – an obviously racist opinion when expressed by a white person – but not if said by a black/brown person.
Good grief.
We may as well just all sit indoors with the curtains drawn. One can’t do anything now without being offensive to some minority or another.
No mention of the fact that it is a policy objective of the predominantly white Environmental Movement to ensure that the poor of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa remain poor by denying them the means to enrich themselves as we did two centuries ago, namely by the use of fossil fuels which replaced the out-dated technology of the windmill and the primitive farm implements that were all we had (or could afford).
The emphasis on reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide is not intended either to clean the air or reduce the temperature. Our petty “Lear-like” fulminations will have no greater effect on the earth’s climate than a burp in a thunderstorm and the climastrologists know this perfectly well as their own personal behaviour demonstrates on a daily basis. CO2 is the unique “waste product” of burning oil, gas or coal. Demonise that and you are well on the way to (as I describe it) “unpicking the Industrial Revolution”. Why anyone of sound mind would wish to do that is a mystery. One can only assume malice by the leaders and self-delusion by the camp-followers
Mike… “CO2 is the unique “waste product” of burning oil, gas or coal.” Yes, but along with water vapor without which it does little warming. Look at Mars. And, water vapor is hard to model.
Yes, but hang on a mo: the politicians and scientists who insist that emissions must be cut urgently and substantially are almost all that epitome of evil, the old white male with a Eurocentric background. And the countries opposing them and insisting on their right to prioritise economic development and poverty eradication (via the use of fossil fuels) are almost all non-white countries that for centuries experienced imperialistic exploitation by evil Europeans. As by definition the former are racist and the latter are noble, that must mean that they, the latter, have got it right. Or have I misunderstood something?
Hi Robin!
Hello Jeremy – good to see you here!
I’m hoping to post a detailed comment on your book – which I have read – very soon.
I should perhaps have added that I hope to post it on your website: https://earthbound.report/2021/06/10/available-now-climate-change-is-racist/
I may also put something on Amazon.
It’s only a souce of money generation.
The fact that the title is outrageous gets it talked about.
You can tell something by the company a person keeps.
I see the author’s name is connected with Mark Carney.
That’s all I need to know. Another book to prop up a wobbly coffee table and nothing more.
You’ve got a wobbly coffee table? You’re a racist!
And wobbly is a pejorative ableist term. How dare you.
When I was young, we used to dream of having a wobbly coffee table …..
“It’s only a souce of money generation” – I wish! I won’t make minimum wage on this, when all is said and done.
Good luck with your coffee table though.
Good. The author has to be named, so we know who to blame.
Actually, with a couple of minor edits, I think you can make this book more appealing. Just change “racist” to “elitist” is a good start, change “people of color” to “people in poverty” and “Climate Change” to “climate hysteria”. Just look what this minor edit does to this sentence, ” It is structurally elitist, disproportionately caused by majority wealthy people in majority wealthy countries, with the damage unleashed overwhelmingly on people in poverty. The climate hysteria crisis reflects and reinforces elitist injustices”. Of course the “It” in the first sentence refers to climate change hysteria. I think that reads much better.
What he is saying is that prosperity is a white supremist conspiracy to adversely affect the well being of non-whites.
“It is structurally racist, disproportionately caused by majority White people in majority White countries, with the damage unleashed overwhelmingly on people of colour.”
The review doesn’t specify who is categorised as a person of colour but I would put in to the non-white category 21/2 billion people in China and India who are unselfconsciously emitting more pollution than all the white supremists put together.
Can we have badges made, we can wear, with “White Supremist” on it so we can be quite clear who they are. I’d start producing them myself but it might produce some prosperity which creates adverse effects on people of colour.
This is such a silly book I nearly couldn’t be bothered to comment.
Hmm, again – you should read the book before writing sentences that begin with “what he is saying”. Because you haven’t got that right.
Well it’s true Jeremy that MM’s first sentence is not what you’re saying – indeed you note that what you call ‘structural racism‘ is no longer explicit prejudice (so it’s not a conspiracy), but something that may have occurred long ago – something with what you call ‘a long echo’. Hmm …
But the quotation is from the description of the book on Amazon. And it’s a not a bad summary of your book’s message. Moreover you do assert that climate change is ‘part of a White supremacist legacy that reaches deep into the past, through slavery, empire and neo-colonialism‘. So arguably Mad Mike is not completely wrong.
“disproportionately caused by majority White people in majority White countries” You are referring climate change here and asserting foremost that CC is caused by man’s activities. I don’t think you will find much support for that theory on this site.
I haven’t read your book and admittedly am relying on the summary provided so i can only give my take on what is the underlying meaning of what it says. Prosperity is not mentioned, I agree, but in my opinion, thats what has happened with man’s activity. That was the planned outcome and it’s largely succeeded, benefitting the whole of mankind by increasing life expectancy, wellness and, in many cases, giving freedom from oppression.It is necessarily produced by white people as we had the necessary ideas and resources to do it. If non whites had the same opportunities do you think the outcome would be much different?
The phrase “structurally racist”, maybe in your book, is a nonsense when used in relation to climate change, whatever it’s cause, as racism is a state of mind that infers detriment of of one race or individual of that race imposed by another individual or group of another race. Can’t see how you get from racism which refers to humans to climate change which refers to the World’s reaction to stimulus and will affect us all without favour. If you had asserted that various groups would be affected more than others that would be fair comment but to link it to racism is opportunist and mischievous.
PS You might to read some other views on climate change here. There is much data on this site and views that should be on MSM but never will be due to cancelling etc.
Structurally racist is a meaningless term. There is no structure, there has been no intent. There may be unintended outcomes (though I dispute your claims that black Africans are suffering anywhere) but unintended means unintended. If you believe that some sort of compensation should be provided for unintended outcomes that might be argued but to dress it up in this pseudo-economic, pseudo-political, pseudo- socialist nonsense destroys any sense. For a start, unequal outcomes do not prove that there is a case for anything. Just because Mr A gains ten and I only gain two doesn’t prove anything – I am still better off. It would make a actual proper economic studies to make a case, combined with real science, not the absurd claims of climate activists. But then it wouldn’t be such a “radical ” book.
No damage has been “unleashed”.
If there is any, it has slowly built up over time and even now requires “sophisticated” attribution models to detect. It’s especially bizarre given the indisputable and massive improvements in every measure across Africa over the last 20-30 years, the period when Climate Change has supposedly been worst. Or does your book simply ignore the gains in wealth, life expectancy, infant mortality, education, morbidity, basic freedoms, women’s rights, agricultural yields, clean water, health provision?
climate change is mainly driven by the cycles of the sun.
The sun makes people darker – hence we tan. Hence the sun must hate white people.
Is climate change racist? Discuss.
“I would not normally leave Amazon reviews on books I have not read.” Good for you Paul. Disappointing to hear you didn’t live up to that usual standard on my book, and started telling everyone what it says when you don’t actually know.
If you want to set that straight, let me know your address and I’ll put a copy in the post for you.
I’ve probably been a bit unfair, so how about this?
You write a short summary of your book, say 1000 words, and I’ll publish it. Cant say fairer than that.
Should be an interesting discussion!
If you can’t attach it as a comment here, let me know and I’ll email you
Paul
I can ask for more that that, given you have actively encouraged your audience to undermine my book with one star reviews, despite not having read it.
If you retract your review, or at least amend it to say you haven’t read it, I will happily write you 1000 words and we’ll talk about it.
Would your rather defensive tone in this post have anything to do with the rational demolitions of your central thesis by other contributors?
I have read enough of it, ie the Foreword, Introduction and the rest of the preview available on Amazon to know that your whole basic premise is false, ie that people of colour are worse off (ie have been damaged) because of climate change.
There is no evidence that this is the case, in particular that “weather is getting worse”. But much more fundamentally, you cannot disentangle fossil fuels, climate change and economic & social well being. As a direct result of the Industrial Revolution and subsequent economic growth (all only possible with fossil fuels), the developing world is immeasurably better off in any category you can think of. I have named a few, but you are welcome to check out some others – I suggest you look at the World in Data website:
https://ourworldindata.org/natural-disasters
As you whole premise is false, the book is a nonsense, and my review stands as an accurate observation.
But my offer still stands, write me an article showing why I am wrong, and I will be happy to publish it.
Jeremy:
I’ve just posted a review on Amazon. I gave the book only one star; and not because Paul had encouraged me to do so. No, I believe it misleads readers about white responsibility for climate change and, in so doing, risks exacerbating already fragile inter-race relations. That, I think, is irresponsible.
Robin
Jeremy,
I support your objection to PH that he hadn’t read your book and I think his response was reasonable.
However you have now added the following statement:
“I can ask for more that that, given you have actively encouraged your audience to undermine my book with one star reviews, despite not having read it.”
Having re-read PH’s post, I cannot see anywhere that he has actively encouraged his audience to give a 1* review. Could you please point out where he did this?
So poor people do not benefit from the improved growth of plants due to increasing CO2?
The greening of the world only benefits the wealthy….hmmmm.
Jeremy, it is unfair for people to leave a * review on your book when they haven’t read it. Nevertheless, this is not something “your” side are averse to. An example:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/9/7/manndacity-integrity-and-amazon-reviews.html
You should expect your ideological enemies to leave * reviews, just as you may well receive free *****s from people aligned with your aims. Speaking of which, when The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars came out, Shub Niggurath reported on the orchestration of ***** reviews for it (2012).
On the face of it, the book’s title is ludicrous and is asking to be dunked on. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that all the wailing about climate change is coming from rich, guilty, western countries. Third world countries couldn’t care less. The priorities of folk in poor countries are things like electricity, an end to corruption, education, healthcare… and their governments don’t give a stuff about phantom problems like climate change, other than as a way of generating cash flow from countries like the UK.
What’s next?
Covid-19*
*Came from Mars
?
That’s whataboutery and it’s dishonest whoever does it.
Compliments to Jeremy. Good to see someone actually defending his work and willing to engage and discuss it with critics. makes a change from the usual “the science is settled” so will not debate attitudes we often come across
Totally agree mar. Jeremy has shown a lot of bravery to post on this site. Although we always knew he would be given a fair hearing and not be subject to abuse, Jeremy didn’t, or maybe he is a secret watcher.
Not sure it takes much bravery to come on here, when you have the Government, Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition (not to mention the treacherous GangGreen opposition), all the instruments of State sanctioned violence, all the NGOs and “Charities”, the future King, 97% of state funded academia, 97% of the media (including the mandated State broadcaster of lies), the Tech Billionaires, the senile old git who had the US Presidential Election stolen for him, the European Commission, not even to mention Goblin Thunderpants, all panting to hang on his every mendacious word.
Sorry if this isn’t as kind and gentle as the other comments. Take heart, I’ve no doubt Vladimir and Xi will send you a little something to cheer you up.
Aftet all, as you are well aware, no-one would dream of thinking either Vlad or Xi has ever had a racist thought in their beloved heads.
Impressed Jeremy has turned up to defend his book. Well done PH for offering the right of reply.
This might get interesting.
Saw this st a motorway service station at 4.00pm on 1st June. No one needing electricity but the petrol station was busy! Regards Henry Algeo
>
Thank you for this post. Strongly agree. I have a few related posts. Here is one of them.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/11/28/the-incredible-beauty-of-forest-cover/
So, presumably, the next glaciation will be “racist” when it mitigates against “white” people by covering 50% of the Northern hemisphere in a kms thick ice sheet where the majority of them live?
Very noticeable that all those telling me “climate change” is a problem are multi million or billionaires living very opulent, consumptive lives way, way above my level – Gore, Gates, Attenborough, Charlie The Brainless, the Thunberg entourage and many more.
The olden days term I recall for these useful idiots was ‘champagne socialists’. Today the best term is from James Delingpole – ‘Watermelons’
Outcomes that have no motives cannot be racist. They may be unfair but unless white people deliberately set out to emit lots of CO2 knowing it would harm black people it is simply false to claim it as racism. Emisdionscare simply the result of people attempting to better the lives of people. There is no malice and no harm intended. To claim there is, to use words that imply there is, is race baiting.
Why an apparently intelligent person would make such an argument and stoke division in this way is beyond me. To make money? To appear important? Or is it just prejudice without intelligence?
I may be being very uneducated or naive here but, as I understand the theory of evolution, correct me if I am wrong, but can’t every Homo Sapien alive today trace their ancestry back to “mitochondrial Eve”, an allegedly person of colour from Africa? If that is true that all modern ‘white people’ have her as their ancestor, why is it ‘racist’ that we moved out of Africa and populated the western world, and became paler over time, and developed to where we are today? Why is it that those who remained, who didn’t progress and develop as we did, are ‘victims’ of the western world? If Africa has the mineral resources, which it does, why didn’t they progress as the west did? Why didn’t the ‘Industrial Revolution’ happen in Africa? It doesn’t make any sense to me. So a group of peoples who took the risk to leave their locality to explore other areas and eventually became white and prosperous are to blame for those who stayed home and stagnated and are ultimately responsible for all the world’s ills?They all had the same brain power and opportunity.
The simple point is that black Africa has gained vastly from White emissions and wealth, whether it be vaccines, drugs or trade. Then there’s the vast Public Good of knowledge (proper economic term, non-rivalrous, non-excludable) – flight, electricity, phones, clean water, farming technologies and all rest that most people who write this sort of nonsense ignore because they don’t understand it. They simply measure “incomes” and think they are economists.
It is curious about why some groups progressed and some groups didn’t. It might have been difficulties in communications or simply they didn’t see the need. i can’t remember any mention of higher learning or much of the written word in sub Saharan Africa but it would make a good subject for someones Phd although they would have to link it to racism or climate change to get some funding.
Dave
-“If Africa has the mineral resources, which it does, why didn’t they progress as the west did?”-
I think that it is just a matter of timing . At the end of the last Ice Age and Britain was repopulated it had all the mineral resources for Bronze and iron ages : copper and tin , ironstone, coal almost everywhere and plenty of trees for charcoal. However it took another 5000 years for a metal working society to develop , and not without a nudge and a wink from our continental neighbours so societies have to be ready for the next stage of their development, as Mike, above, suggests. Africa would have, IMO, progressed in the same way that we in Europe did, but at their own pace. However we in the West intervened, sometimes helpfully, sometimes not.
Thanks, that makes sense. I was just curious as to why the west developed when and how it did, but Africa didn’t, even though all the humans had been around for the same length of time. I appreciate its not a simple thing to answer but it some parts of Africa, to this day, virtually no progress has been made. I need to do some more reading!
The variations in climate are no more ‘racist’ than any other academic subject — physics, chemistry, or history, etc. Climate variations happen, humans do not have a clear idea of why they happen, no more than understanding how clouds occur or dissipate. This book is just utter nonsense, as this planet has warmed for the last 150 years (by about 1°C) and history shows that non-white peoples of the world have been just as affected (overall) as white people. It is after all a global effect!
This book is at it’s heart ‘racist’ in it’s own terms, as it fails to recognize humans are human and not an agglomeration of ‘races’ defined by skin colour. Biologically different skin colour is NOT an indication of differences in race!
This book attempts to divide people by skin colour, a classic socialist’s trick, by distracting from the main argument that the rich and powerful wish to install a One World Government over the heads of those less wealthy, less educated, and less aware. This book does so by inventing a means of causing animosity, disruption, and strife through lies and fakery (that AGW ‘climate change’ is real and is ‘racist’) between white skinned and non-white skinned peoples of the world. Lies and fakery designed to instill a sense of victimhood on non-white peoples of the world, while professing that ‘white’ people are the guilty oppressors.
Racism is considerably broader than personal prejudice, though apparently not a lot of people know that on this comment thread. Structural racism is widely understood as being about outcomes, not intent.
You’d only have to read as far as the back cover of the book to find this acknowledged. Here’s an introduction:
(Can’t speak for others) but I am well aware about the twisted echo chamber reinforced racism in all levels of everything obsession prevalent in academia and left/liberal cliques.
I do not need informing/educating, I need you to accept that I know (as well as you know anything) that you are wrong and doing no good whatsoever stirring with pointless tortuous meanderings.
I recommend you listen and learn from Thomas Sowell etc. and perhaps you will come to realise it is people like you that are the real issue.
Regardless, there is not a single victim of climate change in the world currently of any race, so on that level alone your book is based on an entirely false premise.
The way things are headed with climate change politics though, it is highly likely less well off countries will be denied the right to raise themselves up to the same level of wealth and health we enjoy – rather ironic given you standpoint.
Or maybe you consider it ‘climate justice’ if you just bring us all back down to the lowest level of living standards in the world instead?
Jeremy, your battle lines would better be drawn between the rich and poor rather than between a racial divide. The poor, whether white or minority, will suffer disproportionately from climate change policies. This much is obvious: whether it be the new draconian house insulation/heating regulations, the phasing out of petrol cars, or rising electricity bills – since the poor spend a larger fraction of their cash on these things, they will be worse off.
In particular the poor of the next generation, including in this country, will have fewer freedoms than we enjoy, and less cash.
Your book might have been:
Climate Change Policies*
*Hurt the Poor
And its title, at least, would have been true.
This is also something I write about, and is much better understood. The racial inequalities of climate change have not been considered, and so that’s the subject of the book. I do regularly write about how it impacts rich and poor differently.
Of course, wealth inequalities and racial inequalities overlap.
“Racism is considerably broader than personal prejudice” says J. Williams.
No it is NOT, it is a personal and individual choice ONLY. Everything else is socialist doctrine dressed up as something bigger, another excuse for banning instead of education.
Well, no. These are well established principles in dialogue around race.
And that has nothing to do with socialism. I’m not a socialist myself.
No J. Williams you are wrong
There are NO “established principles”, all there is are pontificating over-emotional nutjobs (usually white people) and socialist nonsense.
Tell me as your picture show yet another white person gabbing about race, why should anyone believe you? Or is it that you are just another pompus white guy telling non-white people how to feel?
Jeremy: the veracity or otherwise of your book, and particularly its title, would seem to turn on a concept that you term ‘structural racism’. I thought therefore that I’d do a web search to determine what that means. And I came up with three definitions:
And this is how you define it in the book:
I don’t see how these definitions, including yours, can be said to apply to climate change. Please explain. Thanks
On the other hand, ordinary people, myself included, just try to treat people as they find them and really don’t care about skin colour or ethnicity or sexual orientation or anything else.
If I meet someone and I think they are an idiot, or selfish or generous or kind or whatever, that’s what I base my judgement on. I try to treat people with respect unless they give me good reason not to.
Dressing up the whole of life as racism and then suggesting people don’t even realise they are racist is, quite frankly, a path to madness. There’s also this absurd obsession that only white people can be racist. Anyone who believes that should travel a bit more and trying living in some different countries and parts of the world. China, Middle East and South Africa come immediately to mind.
Agreed, it’s almost impossibe to be a racist if you have lived in other countries around the world and have respected and involved yourself in their local cultures.
The most racist people I have encountered are Asian people who have not lived outside their own country and who base their views of other cultures due to historical conflicts, e.g. Chinese vs Japanese, Koreans vs Japanese.
It strikes me that the charge of ‘Structural Racism’ is thrown about wildly by immature people with a very narrow view of the world who cannot form a more cohesive argument.
You’d think someone that really thought the world was so under threat/unjust would do something concrete about it. Go abroad, set up a school, a conservation project, water aid, farming training, health facilities…… anything. Something POSITIVE.
As a point of fact, by 2019 China’s CO2 emissions exceeded all developed countries combined, and currently China’s cumulative CO2 emissions in modern history have overtaken all countries except the USA – which won’t take long at the current rate.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1007454/cumulative-co2-emissions-worldwide-by-country/
Well, Jeremy, you should avoid coming here if we’re all such hopeless yokels.
Speaking just for myself, I think I can just about understand your ‘structural racism” and all the rest. I also understand that it is fashionable, virtue signalling bollocks.
You hint at the commonplace loony left ‘equity’ rather than ‘equality’, in other words, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Leonardo, William Wilberforce and all the rest are all to be vaporised because White Supremacy. No such thing as being ‘colour-blind’, so much of Martin Luther King’s speeches need flushing down the toilet, apparently.
Can we expect European runners being favoured with equality of outcomes in competition with their East African colleagues?
Oh, I thought not.
And can we expect some mild criticism of the Chinese Communist Party for their genocidal treatment of the Uighers? Or of Hamas and the PLA’s firing 4,500 rockets at Israeli civilians whilst cynically using children as human shields? Or of the Sudanese arabs treatment of the South Sudan blacks?
Of course not. Only white people can be racist. That’s right, isn’t it, Jeremy?
Go take a hike.
It’s all about the money and nothing else. Here’s an earlier effort :-
Mark Carney on Climate Risk and Insurance.
in Business Climate Change Economics.
27th October 2015
by Jeremy Williams
Jeremy – I put it to you is that all you’ve done is to jump on a fashionable bandwagon.
As previously pointed out, if you’d witten about rich and poor and how extreme weather effects the different groups it might of been worth reading.
What’s with the strange obsession with Mark Carney?!
This is the first book I’m aware of that considers climate change and race, so there is no bandwagon here. If I wrote to be popular, I’d write about vegan food and Tesla.
Excellent commentary, many thanks; especially for the new TLA – VSB!!
Paul, I don’t appear to be able to reply directly to your comment, but that’s a pass from me on writing a post here. If you’re ready to publicly write off my arguments without hearing them, then we clearly lack the common ground that would make debate possible. But thanks for the offer!
Cold feet, eh? Nothing to be ashamed of. Defending your thesis against people who disagree with you is a lot tougher than writing for people who think like you.
Cold feet is a condition well known to parents of children who have to withdraw their naive and stupid comments in the face of contrary evidence! If the cap fits Jeremy, please do wear it
Martin, I didn’t say you were hopeless yokels. I said there’s a lack of understanding of systemic racism in this thread – which I’m not going to judge anyone for, by the way. It’s not taught in schools, and for a long time I didn’t understand it either.
You’ve leapt to some very extreme language there about vaporising Shakespeare, which is odd and not remotely what I believe. Neither do I believe that racism is exclusive to white people.
Taking a hike though, that’s good advice and I will do when it stops raining.
Dissecting what Jeremy said:
“I said there’s a lack of understanding of systemic racism in this thread”
Hardly surprising, it seems to be some half made up nonsense that I am sure Jordan Peterson would have a field day with.
“– which I’m not going to judge anyone for, by the way.”
Phew, that’s a relief! How much would I care?…zero.
“It’s not taught in schools”
And lets hope it never is. Children have their heads filled with enough nonsense these days anyway.
“Neither do I believe that racism is exclusive to white people.”
So at least there IS some common ground between us.
BTW, still waiting for a reply to my point upthread which is this:
So more about Jeremy’s credentials – Bristol University Press descibes him as a journalist with no scientific qualifications. Found in a section labelled – Transforming Societies.
So motivation seems to be money and power through control. By means of whipping up fear and anxiety – constantly.
Bristol is the place that a year ago, rightly or wrongly a brass statue of Edward Colston was dumped in the harbour.
Where half the councillors are from the Green Party what ever that means – short hand for ego maniac virtue signallers I believe.
This book is fashion lead, sensational and unhelpful.
Jeremy, you are profiteering on the back of racial unrest.
Shame on you.
How unusual for a VSB spouting ‘journalist’ to stick his head above the ramparts, to be shot down by an avalance of facts! It’s a shame that more of them don’t do it. Not that it will make a blind bit of difference to the echo chamber groupthink in which they immerse themselves, but it does allow us all to have a good laugh in these cheerless lockdown days 🙂
No, I have no scientific training, and I’m not writing about science. I’m writing about social justice. I also started writing this book five years ago, well before Colston.
For a book that took five years in the writing and then you claim ‘won’t make minimum wage on this’ what was your motivation ? To waste trees or something more sinister ?
To write about social justice you say …
To differentiate by way of race, and linking it to terms like climate justice is a list of emotlve trigger points/words ; it reads
more like stirrings things up. Feelings and opinions instead of an informed debate.
It certainly comes across as racist to me.
Bristol Uni is where Stephan Lewandowsky resides. That’s the psychologist who thinks climate skepticism is a mental condition and invents survey results to suggest they also believe in conspiracy theories like the lunar landings were a hoax.
Some might be tempted to argue Lewandowsky also has no scientific training. At least, none he remembered.
The whole top and bottom of this ‘climate change’ racism garbage starts with the dumbest of the dumb and their ‘Critical Race Theory’ (an American import of NO worth!). Maybe the believers in this ‘theory’ should listen to this guy …