Racial Preservation is Green: A View from Malta
by Norman Lowell
THE GREENS! — One has to admire their idealism. You will find them campaigning for the preservation of the shark, the whale, a snake or spider in deepest Amazon, or some little known lizard in New Caledonia. Yet, when it comes to the preservation of the White race, Greens are virulently anti-racialists, screaming abuse and chastising anyone who dares defend its preservation and its progeny: that White race which has given humanity everything; from the wheel to space ships and computers.
Greens are on the forefront of every anti-racist demonstration, always alongside the “down-trodden Blacks” — no matter what — often, not even having the decency to check into the ever-growing complaints of alleged “discrimination” — by Whites against Africans of course. A blindness, a self-hate seems to afflict the Greens. They have become today’s leading ethno-masochists.
Greens do not mind the mixing of that most civilised and advanced race, the White race — with that most primitive of all races; the Negroid. In fact, Greens remain unconcerned on the burning issue of unlimited immigration. Whenever they can, Greens actually promote and encourage racial miscegenation. And it is always the same; Black males with White women. …
Most of the Greens, as I said, are idealists. They go about in their wilful destruction of their own race out of ignorance. They are what Lenin used to call “useful idiots”! However, a few, in leading positions within the party, know exactly what they are doing. They are the conscious tools of the international manipulators — our hidden, most implacable enemies, always scheming behind the scenes for the destruction of the White race.
Many Greens do not know the origin of their party. It may come as a bit of a surprise to them that the founder of the present-day Green party is non-other than August Haussleiter: a National Socialist of the old school, a veteran who stood by Hitler’s side during the beer-hall putsch in Munich, at the start of Hitler’s political career.
Haussleiter formed the Green party in 1974, organised it, was the first chairman, imbued it with the principles it now embraces — and was then booted out for his troubles due to his “Nazi past”! He was replaced by left-wing extremists and ex-Communists of the Joschka Fischer type.
National Socialists were indeed the ultimate Greens. Their animal legislation, protecting animal rights, was the most advanced in the world. Hitler was a vegetarian since he could not bear the thought of slaughtered hens and cows. All those who knew him intimately or worked closely with him testify to this truth. He was a non-smoker and a teetotaller. A fanatic for the preservation of the countryside, a mere cottage spoiling a skyline or a valley would upset him.
Rosenberg, the party ideologue, was undoubtedly the world’s first “Green,” writing about the long-term effects on the race of increasing mechanisation and even skyscrapers! He advocated the de-industrialisation of Germany by concentrating industry in clearly defined and limited areas. He was first to tackle the problems of pollution and its effect on future generations — this in the early 1920s!
In 1944-45 Germany stood alone against the whole world. Bombed mercilessly by thousands of allied planes, its industry and economy crumbling, National Socialists still doggedly refused to send German women to work in factories — as the Americans and the British did. Germans had a noble, mystical view of womanhood; that of bearers of the race. They would not envisage German women performing a simple, mechanical operation for thousands of times a day. National Socialism was indeed the ultimate Green party.
Today’s Western environmental movement didn’t begin in the ’60s; it actually took root in the late 19th century among individuals in Germany, who today would be targeted by watchdog groups dedicated to monitoring the “extreme right.” Whatever their political orientation, these hopeful romantics were no less dedicated than their modern-day standard-bearers.
Perhaps the most influential of these pioneers was scientist Ernst Haeckel. Considered by many to be the father of modern environmentalism, this fierce German nationalist and avowed social Darwinist is credited with introducing the term “ecology” into public discourse. In 1866, he defined this new field of study as “the science of relations between organisms and their environment.”
Haeckel published a number of books articulating his Darwinist view that humans were intrinsically tied to the soil. His ideas resonated beyond his borders and years; the celebrated British author D. H. Lawrence would consider Haeckel an early influence on his thematic development and naturalistic prose style.
Haeckel was highly critical of Christianity for exalting people above wildlife. He reverently believed that the magnificent forests of his beloved Germany provided an ethereal bridge to a higher state of awareness. Yet his contribution to environmental consciousness cannot be dismissed. In her remarkable work Ecology in the 20th Century, Dr. Anna Bramwell declares that the well-known naturalist “enabled ecology to become a viable political creed.”
The First World War
Haeckel’s earth-centred weltanschauung took on greater importance following the horrors of the First World War, which sent millions of soldiers to the graveyard or horrible permanent disability. It also left massive chunks of sublime countryside barren, pockmarked, and infertile from artillery barrages. Thus did the “war to end all wars” realise the worst fears of the environmentally-minded.
For many, technology was the villain in this Greek tragedy of international proportions. The horrifying combat debut of large-scale artillery fire, machine guns, hand grenades, land mines, poison gas and other manufactured instruments of death provoked a widespread distrust of both humankind and industry.
By the 1918 armistice, many veterans, shell-shocked and reeling from the ghastly images of war, sought redemption the only way they knew how — by turning back the clock to the agrarian life of their grandparents.
This reaction to the war was manifested in Britain by the growth of many back-to-the-land movements, such as John Hargrave’s crypto-fascist “Green Shirt” movement of the ’20s and ’30s. But after unsuccessfully attempting to gain support via the electoral process, the Green Shirts and other like-minded organizations were quickly doomed to obscurity.
This wasn’t the case in Germany, where support for ecological views became widespread as salvation was sought in the anti-cosmopolitan, anti-technological “peasant movement.”
Blood and Soil
Amidst the resentment and disillusionment that marked the inter-war Weimar Republic, a newly aroused Green awareness took hold. This loose amalgamation of new ecologists comprised a cross-pollination of Haeckel admirers, popular German youth movements, and adherents of Rudolph Steiner.
This new “peasant movement” took as its slogan a simple phrase: “Blut und Boden!” or “blood and soil,” celebrating the virtues of heritage and the nobility of the pre-industrial agrarian way.
Steiner, an influential lecturer, firmly opposed artificial farming methods and served up eloquent encomiums celebrating the peasant’s role in Germany’s glorious future. His writings would greatly influence SS Chief Heinrich Himmler, Hitler confidante Rudolf Hess, and the man Bramwell considers the “Father of the Greens”: German environmentalist Ricardo Walther Darré.
Author of The Peasantry as Life Force (1928), and the seminal New Nobility from Blood and Soil (1929), the little-known figure quickly rose to prominence as leader of the post-war volkisch revolution. While he is now considered suspect at best for his pan-German racialism and links to groups supporting eugenics, Darré’s environmental program is progressive even by today’s standards. The World War I veteran wanted to see his world transformed into a planned society based on environmental ethics.
Charismatic and possessing a rare gift for organizational ability, Darré’s radical influence among rural Germans quickly gained the attention of deputies of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) by the early ’30s.
Asked to promote National Socialism in the countryside, where Hitler then lacked popularity, Darré completed this task with alacrity; his efforts easily gathered peasant support for the NSDAP in North and East Germany. His successes were rewarded in 1933, when he was named Minister of Agriculture and Reich peasant leader.
Darré set up a peasant capital in the town of Goslar with progressive measures that empowered the farmer while preserving the soil. By 1940 Darré accepted Steiner’s belief in biodynamic farming, and funded several such experimental farms. Darré continued to espouse the benefits of organic vegetation and soil conservation, but he was soon muzzled.
In 1942, completely out of favour with Hitler’s cadre of handpicked advisors, he lost his cherished position as Minister of Agriculture. Nevertheless, up until the end of the war, he continued to criticize German agricultural methods and spoke passionately of creating his envisioned peasant state.
Darré was subsequently tried at Nuremberg for his demands that his countrymen be allowed to occupy the newly-conquered Polish countryside. He was sentenced to seven years of imprisonment by the tribunal, but he continued to urge the merits of organic farming up until his death in 1953.
His advocacy was not in vain; our ongoing concern with the detrimental effects of pesticides and artificial fertilizers apparently proves that not only was Darré correct, he was ahead of the curve, espousing these beliefs some four decades before the issue became in vogue.
As is to be expected, today’s liberal-minded Greens show very little admiration for Darré, although they continue to promote his collectivist beliefs and other elements of his agenda. The mere mention of his name provokes a combination of anger and resentment. However, even left-leaning environmentalists must grudgingly pay lip service to his contributions.
“It was largely Darre’s influence in the Nazi apparatus which yielded, in practice, a level of government support for ecologically sound farming methods and land use planning unmatched by any state before or since,” notes Peter Staudenmaier in his cautionary Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience.
In a 1984 History Today article that Staudenmaier describes as “repugnant,” Dr. Anna Bramwell goes further, noting that without Darré, “The ecological movement would have perished in his time and place.”
The Future of our Mother Earth
“There’s no way to preserve a species that’s programmed to kill the planet,” explains the manifesto of today’s extreme Greens, represented by the Finn Pentti Linkola. He advocates involuntary sterilisation, and likened the planet’s population to a sinking ship clumsily attempting to seat 100 passengers on a lifeboat built for 10. “Those who hate life try to pull more people on board and drown everybody. Those who love and respect life use axes to chop off the extra hands hanging on the gunwale,” he ruthlessly advises.
To wield the axes, the onetime pacifist envisions the rise of a ruthless “Green Police” patrolling the wilderness, undeterred by what he derisively termed the “syrup of ethics.” The fierce opponent of both Amnesty International and the Vatican advocates an end to economic aid for starving Third World nations and an immediate reversal of open-door immigration policies — specifically so that millions might perish.
Of course, this would constitute a mountain of human corpses unseen since World War II Europe, Mao’s People’s Republic of China, or Stalin’s Soviet Union. But to Linkola, a few million deaths are of little importance when the entire planet is at stake. “We still have a chance to be cruel, but if we are not cruel today, all is lost,” he admonishes.
Linkola outlines the central tenets of his credo: an unyielding scepticism of egalitarian democracy and an unwavering belief that unchecked overpopulation will kill our once-bountiful planet.
The latter contention is not without merit. Recent estimates by the United Nations Population Division project a growth of over 3 billion people within the next 50 years. If the acceleration of births continues at its current pace, by the year 2150 an additional 6 billion inhabitants will threaten our imperiled ecosystem and obviously limited resources. Therefore, Linkola would shed few tears if several billion of us were to meet a quick demise. In the name of conservation, he consigns democracy, conventional humanism, and the principle of non-violence to the waste bin.
Child limit would be enforced on all households. A fierce anti-capitalist, Linkola insists fishing and organic farming constitute the two primary occupations. Manufacturing would be overseen by the state, which would openly discourage technological research, and ozone-killing automobiles would be confiscated so that roads could be cleared for additional forest growth.
Consequently, bicycles and limited public transportation would return as the most popular modes of locomotion. Products would be created to last several lifetimes, with no exports allowed. As he has often stated, individual rights would give way to the rights of the earth, with his “Green Police” punishing miscreants who violate his beloved Gaia.
Like the National Socialists, Linkola would strive for “A return, from unthinking consumption to a pre-industrial agrarian society.” For most of today’s Greens this is too violent a change to envisage.
Today, Linkola stands alone but determined. A one-man force of will who remains undaunted in his quest to end the desolation of the earth. Although branded an “eco-fascist” by detractors and openly despised by the more image-conscious activists, he is actually more of a traditional ecologist than his critics would care to admit.
From an historical perspective, Linkola’s books and articles resurrect a legacy of environmental consciousness that began over a century ago in the dark forests of Germany, where the first systemic environmental philosophy was formulated.
In 1980, Rudolf Bahro, the East German dissident and later a leading exponent of Green views, discovered the positive side to National Socialism and launched his idea that Europe needs an eco-dictatorship, an eco-Fascism — a Green Adolf!
A Green party that would stand for the preservation of every species — including, and most of all, the racial preservation of the White race.
For one cannot be Green and not be a racialist. Unless that is, one is either incoherent or intellectually dishonest — or both.
Racial preservation is Green!
* * *
Source: Norman Lowell