Nationalism and the Environment

The best among us instinctively love — and want to protect — the beauty and health of our natural environment.

by Francis Playfair

FOR FAR TOO LONG now the ‘green issue’ has been hijacked and controlled by the left wing of the establishment. It hasn’t always been that way. For many generations the environment was a White issue and it was the White race that was at the forefront of the green movement.

To a modern reader this might seem like a bizarre claim: Is it not true that the White man is the destroyer of the land and that the benign and humble savage its protector and caretaker? No, that is not true; it is just a myth.

Yes, there are primitive tribes who have done little damage to the Earth, but this is not because they were environmentally aware — it is because they did not have the power or ability to do much damage.

The true race of the land is the White race, this can be traced back throughout our history. We have long been folk of the fields and forests, of the mountains and of the lakes — and, as the power of man grew, and the land came under threat, it was the White man who strode out to protect it once more.

In the 1870s in Washington, D.C., Dr. Ferdinand V. Hayden, head of the U.S. Geological Survey of the Territories, set about compiling his findings in an official report that joined others in urging the U.S. Congress to set aside the Yellowstone region as America’s first national park. That was accomplished just a few short months later when, in March 1872, President Ulysses Grant signed into law an act creating Yellowstone National Park.

This was a perfect example of the White race seeking to protect the environment. However it is not just the White race, but the nationalists within the White race who have always been at the vanguard of environmental progress.

In his book The Stuff Man’s Made Of, the prominent British nationalist, Jorian Jenks, anticipated the current organic food “explosion” by a quarter of a century. He maintained that between 1901 and 1956 heart disease had increased by 84%, cancer by 155%, nervous diseases by 150%, and he believed it was no coincidence that the use of chemical fertilisers had increased by a third between the wars. In addition, it had nearly trebled between 1939 and 1954 to further increase the quantity of the yield. Equally he blamed the “civilised” food of commercial farming as highly processed, low in fibre, and depleted of vitamins.

To understand better why this is fundamentally a nationalist issue, one has to understand the true nationalist and how he strives for the preservation of not only his race, but also his land and the whole planet; as he sees that we are all connected environmentally, whether we like it or not.

To illustrate this point further, we can look at how different factions view the environmental issue.

To present-day conservatives, environmental questions are seen mostly through the lens of how environmental laws affect business. Their prime concern is in making money, and ideally, for them, nearly all environmental laws should be eliminated, because they are viewed as merely driving up the costs of doing business.

This of course, neglects the human factor: We have had millions of industrial workers and their children over the years who have suffered from pollution and dangerous work environments — but the modern conservative puts profit before people.

On the other side of the coin we have the left, who see the environmental issue as being solved by programs of massive state regulation, which can only result in thousands of burdensome and restrictive laws, which stifle economic growth and people’s liberties.

But then is this not typical of the Marxist’s hatred of free enterprise and independent wealth?

I truly believe that, for many leftists, their sole interest in the environment is not for the environment’s sake but as part of their control freak agenda.

So how do we nationalists differ on these issues?

We differ because we see the land and the people as two parts of a larger whole.

We stand in opposition to the position of the conservatives which sees the land as merely a tool to be abused by man, but we also stand against the views of the left which sees man as the tool.

Man and Nature have to be in balance, if things are to work properly.

This is why we need to take the green ground back again, to offer the true environmental policies that the people want, protecting our green and pleasant land from the continual onslaught that takes place in the name of multiculturalism; that takes place to house the hordes of immigrants that flock to our shores; that takes away our beautiful countryside to build the facilities these people demand; the prisons, the asylum centers, the houses, the mosques and the synagogues. It’s time to say “stop!” — not just for the people of this land, but for the land itself.

We don’t need to destroy these beautiful nations of ours with landfill sites to bury the waste of the Black consumers who must have their carcinogenic “happy meals” wrapped in the product of clearcut forests, with throwaway trinkets inside made from our ever-diminishing natural resources. We don’t need to allow our rivers to be polluted to allow these people to live and breed in the ever more filthy and squalid conditions that they gladly accept.

Nationalism and environmentalism go hand in hand: It is pride in your people, pride in your nation, pride in the very soil of the land.

This is how it’s always been — and always should be.

* * *