Bernie Sanders recently declared that as US President he would promote overseas population control, through abortion and contraception, to combat ‘climate change’. Needless to say, his comments yielded some crucial takeaways. Some have been expressed in short on Right-wing Twitter; others will be elucidated here.

Large segments of the modern Left believe ‘climate change’ threatens humanity’s continued existence. For example, I often see posters in Fremantle put up by the group ‘Extinction Rebellion’. As the name implies, this group forecasts an apocalyptic future for earth, if sufficient “action” is not taken on climate change.

Putting aside elementary questions of if climate change is real, or whether Leftists adequately define effective “action,” it is eyebrow raising that Bernie Sanders remains the only prominent Leftist to call for global population control. With every additional CO2 emitting human, tackling climate change becomes increasingly difficult. An unparalleled emergency–as climate change is purported to be–would necessitate taking all possible measures.

Which brings us to two utterly contradictory claims on ‘climate change’ and how we should resolve it. Upon examination, these unveil the true intent of those who inculcate fear about ‘climate change’.

Now to the first of these contradictions. Claiming opposition to ‘climate change’, many powerful media and cultural influences encourage Western people to have fewer children. Likewise, we are instructed to eat less meat–thus becoming physically weaker–again, in order to save the climate.

This message is espoused in Western countries, which all have below replacement birth rates. However, exploding African and Asian birth rates are, incomprehensibly, not addressed. Therefore, under the guise of climate change, already low Western birth rates must be reduced; yet high non-Western birth rates are left unabated. And if anyone, even indirectly challenges this dissonant state of affairs, they are roundly condemned. Case in point: when Bernie Sanders said population control ought be applied to Africa, he was denounced as a “eugenicist.” Conversely, you never hear such criticism when anti-natal policies are routinely levelled at Western people.

Secondly, the same voices who claim Western countries must reduce birth rates, endorse mass third-world immigration into the West. They claim this enormous, perpetual change is needed for “economic reasons.” This too, is an utterly inverse position in the context of climate change. How can climate change be countered, when Third Worlders in their tens of millions, acquire Western living standards each year? How can transferring a person from Sub-Saharan Africa to Europe, causing them to expend CO2 at Western rates, be justified given the climate threat?

Of course, it must be that the elites, are not nearly as concerned about ‘climate change’ as they profess. In these circumstances, where the ensuing consequences of White displacement are of such a likely and foreseeable nature, we are open to infer a nefarious intent–on the part of certain elites. Specifically, it appears the narrative of climate change as promoted, is calculated towards inducing the dispossession of Western people. And given future allowances–such as separate ethno-states–are decried as immoral, the most sinister of explanations arise: panic over climate change is perpetuated to bring about the complete and irreversible destruction of Western people.

Now I presume that people lower down the food-chain–your average Fremantle Greens voters–do not comprehend these malevolent ends. Moreover, people do hold legitimate concerns over climate change, primarily out of a genuine care for the environment. In this respect, climate change has subverted the otherwise noble, inherently White tendency to conservationism.

Because it is distorted, this basis of popular belief in climate change provides us with a real opportunity. If either one of the aforementioned ‘climate change’ contradictions are effectively conveyed and then received by intellectually Leftists, belief in this anti-White initiative may begin to unravel.

Further, any look at population growth trajectories, or comparison of Western vs non-Western approaches to environmental management, belies the perverted notion which underlies the logic of ‘climate change’: that White people bedevil the earth’s future. In establishing this, we can remove a significant obstacle to contemporary support for nationalism–and perhaps win some over in the process.