The manifesto the El Paso shooter (who will remain nameless here) posted before his deadly rampage reveals that, along with hatred toward immigrants, he held a radicalized view of humankind’s relationship to nature.
The manifesto was titled “The Inconvenient Truth About Me,” an evident homage to the false narratives presented in Al Gore’s climate “documentary” An Inconvenient Truth.
The first two sentences pretty much sum up the four-page screed: “In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto. This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”
The Christchurch reference embraces the manifesto of the killer of 51 Muslims in New Zealand, who called himself an “eco-fascist” three times in his 74-page declaration.
The El Paso shooter’s manifesto is dominated by diatribes against immigrants, including invective against “race mixing” and a “Hispanic invasion of Texas.” He advocates creating an American confederacy of territories with each designated for a particular race.
Throughout the document, race hatred is interspersed with vitriol against so-called corporate greed and technological change and an embrace of radical environmentalism. The mass murderer certainly was no right-wing, Trump-loving nut case as he has been portrayed in the media. In his now-suspended Twitter account, he had posted tweets in support of Antifa and socialism, along with anti-ICE rants.
The killer’s own words reveal how thoroughly he was indoctrinated with the belief human actions are destroying the planet and extreme measures are required to save us from ourselves and the world from us. It is plausible to see the document as indicating his perverse environmentalism forms the basis for his racism and anti-immigration views.
“The American lifestyle affords our citizens an incredible quality of life,” the killer wrote. “However, our lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country. The decimation of the environment is creating a massive burden for future generations.”
“Y’all are just too stubborn to change your lifestyle,” the killer wrote. “So the next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources. If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.”
Common Environmental Radicalism
Fortunately, the number of white supremacists with radical, racist, and anti-immigrant views like those of this deluded young man is incredibly small. I have never met one, as far as I know, and I suspect few reading this commentary have, either. Unfortunately, the number of persons around the globe who subscribe to the El Paso shooter’s extreme environmental beliefs is vastly larger and very visible. Many believe, as did the shooter, the Earth would be a better place with fewer humans or no humans at all.
Some of the most notorious recent mass killers also subscribed to a radicalized view of the environment. The Christchurch mosque shooter wrote in his manifesto, “there is no nationalism without environmentalism” before killing dozens of people. The Unabomber was radicalized by activist groups such as Earth First! and targeted people on an environmental “hit list” put out by a group of environmental nihilists.
Those who subscribe to far-left, antihuman environmentalism inhabit the top echelons of many environmental organizations and high-level governmental positions, and many are accorded great respect. Sir David Attenborough said, “We [humans] are a plague on the Earth.” Prince Charles would like to decimate mankind, saying, “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”
Vile and hateful rhetoric inciting violence against climate skeptics is now commonplace. Robert Kennedy, at the 2014 People’s Climate March, said skeptics like me “are contemptible human beings.” A long list of well-known characters—including David Suzuki, James Hansen, and Bill Nye—say climate skeptics should be jailed, or worse.
Former Clinton administration official Joe Romm of Climate Progress predicted mass murder of climate skeptics, writing, “An entire generation will soon be ready to strangle you and your kind while you sleep in your beds.”
Threats, Intimidation, Physical Confrontations
Those of us who write and talk about climate change and dare to confront the so-called consensus opinion on it, pointing out climate has always changed and the recent changes are not unusual, are subjected to threats, intimidation and, at times, physical confrontations by people radicalized by heated environmental rhetoric.
I have personally received such threats and was physically confronted by Antifa protestors while speaking in St. Louis last year. In 2017, on Earth Day, seven shots were fired into the office of well-known climatologist and skeptic John Christy at the University of Alabama at Huntsville.
The El Paso shooter apparently succumbed to this relentless barrage of climate alarm and acted on those respected people’s admonitions to “save the planet” through violence.
There is widespread agreement people should denounce those who promote fear and hatred on the basis of race. A similar condemnation is in order for those who propose harming people in response to irrational and unfounded fears of a climate that has been changing for billions of years.
Climate realists, such as myself and others who have carefully studied the issue, offer a vision of humans wisely using natural resources to flourish on Earth in a way that embraces people—distinctly contrary to the hatred of others and of self that apparently was a source of the El Paso tragedy.
Gregory Wrightstone ([email protected]) is a geologist and author of Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn’t Want You to Know.