Is environmentalism just another variant of Cultural Marxism? Time to set the record straight

In the wake of President Trump’s announced decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Accord, many of his supporters are celebrating a decision which has seemingly triggered the Left, especially after months of Trump’s cucking and outright betrayal of other campaign promises.

He may be selling out on Israel, immigration and NAFTA, the thinking goes, but at least he’s willing to stick it to the Left on the environment. This issue masks yet another break from true Right principles, and at the same time, highlights an insidious strain of creeping Liberalism within our ranks. It’s time to set the record straight on the relationship between environmentalism and the Alt-Right.

Common perception dates the birth of the environmentalist movement to the counterculture of the late 1960s and early 70s, following publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency and organizations such as Greenpeace, and the founding of Earth Day. The movement rapidly gained popular momentum because of the shocking ecological impact of a century of unchecked industrialization, as in 1969 when an Ohio river became so polluted it actually caught on fire(!). In the public consciousness, this movement is now fused with many cultural Marxist ideas of the era, such as second-wave feminism, forced integration of public schools and the abolishment of national origin quotas for immigration. As a result, there are many on the Right who associate opposition to environmentalism with fighting cultural Marxism, and this is absolutely wrong.

Until the George W. Bush era, environmentalist causes found broad support among both liberals and conservatives. As late as 2004, the Sierra Club included a major faction which was implacably opposed to mass immigration on environmental grounds, and was only purged from the organization by Cultural Marxists after a prolonged and bitter power struggle. If anything, the historic Republican Party can claim a greater legacy on environmental issues than the Democrats: not only did Bill Clinton come under severe criticism from environmentalists for his passage of NAFTA and support for corporate globalization, but it was none other than Leftist boogeyman Richard Nixon who presided over the “environmental decade” of the 1970s, creating the EPA and passing the Clean Air Act in 1970. Yet even Nixon’s substantial contribution pales in comparison to Republican President Teddy Roosevelt, who proclaimed “Conservation as a National Duty,” created the United States Forest Service, established 150 National Forests, and placed over 230,000,000 acres under public protection.

This history is suppressed today, not only because it is in the interests of astroturfing Big Business in the GOP to pretend environmentalism was always aligned against patriotism and tradition, but also because the Left wants us to forget not all environmentalists were always radical supporters of race-mixing, feminism and mass third world immigration. The flag-waving cuckservative oligarchs of the energy industry use this issue to dupe masses of rural and working class Red State America into supporting their destructive greed, while the Left uses it to recruit millions of educated middle-and-upper-class white youth in the cities and on college campuses for their anti-white agenda. How many intelligent, conscientious urban hipsters, SWPLs and Bernie Bros end up siding with the Leftist destroyers of their people because, after all, the Right wants to destroy planet Earth?

If the above historical facts come as a shock, one should stay in Wonderland a little longer, and see just how deep the Rabbit Hole goes: not only was environmentalism not born in the Leftist degeneracy of the 1970s, but the roots of the environmentalist movement run straight back to the beginning of the racialist Right itself.

Charles Lindbergh, the unbelievably courageous aviation hero and spokesman for the America First Committee, which sought to keep the US out of WW2, wrote: “How long can men thrive between walls of brick, walking on asphalt pavements, breathing the fumes of coal and oil, growing, working, dying, with hardly a thought of wind, and sky, and fields of grain, seeing only machine-made beauty, the mineral-like quality of life?” This literal tree-hugging environmentalist (there is a famous photograph of him hugging a tree) also wrote, “We can have peace and security only so long as we band together to preserve that most priceless possession, our inheritance of European blood, only so long as we guard ourselves against attack by foreign armies and dilution by foreign races.”

The man who coined the term “ecology” was 19th-century German biologist and naturalist Ernst Haeckel, and his influence on the historical racialist movement cannot be overstated. This topic is explored in a 1996 book called “Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience” by left-wing academics Janet Biehl and Peter Staudenmaier, which should be required reading in the Alt Right. They examine a number of figures central to the development of both ecology and racialism, such as author and poet Ernst Moritz Arndt:

While best known in Germany for his fanatical nationalism… historians of German environmentalism mention [Arndt] as the earliest example of “ecological” thinking in the modern sense. His remarkable 1815 article “On the Care and Conservation of Forests,” written at the dawn of industrialization in Central Europe, rails against shortsighted exploitation of woodlands and soil, condemning deforestation and its economic causes…. Ardnt’s environmentalism, however, was inextricably bound up with virulently xenophobic nationalism. His eloquent and prescient appeals for ecological sensitivity were couched always in terms of the well-being of the German soil and the German people, and his repeated lunatic polemics against miscegenation, demands for teutonic racial purity… marked every aspect of his thought. At the very outset of the nineteenth century the deadly connection between love of land and militant racist nationalism was firmly set in place.

These Leftist critics, writing during the 1990s “end of history,” pejoratively describe the 19th-century völkish racialist movement as: “a powerful cultural disposition and social tendency which united ethnocentric populism with nature mysticism.”

At the heart of the völkish temptation was a pathological response to modernity. In the face of the very real dislocations brought on by the triumph of industrial capitalism and national unification, völkish thinkers preached a return to the land, to the simplicity and wholeness of a life attuned to nature’s purity…. [T]he völkish movement carried a volatile amalgam of nineteenth century cultural prejudices, Romantic obsessions with purity, and anti-Enlightenment sentiment into twentieth century political discourse. The emergence of modern ecology forged the final link in the fateful chain which bound together aggressive nationalism, mystically charged racism, and environmentalist predilections.

In other words, the racialist and environmentalist movements share the same origin point in history. The key to understanding the deeply right-wing roots of ecology is understanding that the historical Right-Left axis comes from the French Revolution, with the main difference being that the Left stands for egalitarianism, while the Right stands for the aristocratic principle of nature. Unlike communism and capitalism, both which owe their origins to the Enlightenment, fascism has its roots in the Romantic movement which sprang forth as a rebellion against the excesses of Enlightenment materialism and exaggerated rationalism. Racial nationalism was born in the Romantic movement, which is why it is such a revolutionary challenge to the world of today.

Tracing the story of German racialism and environmentalism reveals the interesting history of the Wandervögel youth movement, described as “right-wing hippies” with a “back-to-the-land emphasis” and “passionate sensitivity to the natural world and the damage it suffered.” A historical precursor to our current Nipsters, perhaps, and a point of crossover appeal to the Bernie Bros? Surely, for all their cultural Marxist virtue signaling, the modern environmentalist movement is overwhelmingly dominated by white people, to the point where one might be tempted to say environmentalism, even more than Cracker Barrel, is the last bastion of implicit whiteness.

The ethnostate created in Germany between 1933-45 was the most environmentally advanced in the world. “Blood and Soil ideology” was explicitly environmentalist, founded as it was on the connection between the people and the land, and this view was represented at the highest levels of power by such leaders as Richard Walter Darré, Fritz Todt, Alwin Seifert and Rudolf Hess. Todt, the builder of the Autobahn, demanded a harmony with nature and with the landscape in the creation of the legendary highway system:

The ecological aspects of this approach to construction went well beyond an emphasis on harmonious adaptation to the natural surroundings for aesthetic reasons; Todt also established strict criteria for respecting wetlands, forests and ecologically sensitive areas. But just as with Arndt, Riehl and Darré, these environmentalist concerns were inseparably bound to a völkish-nationalist outlook. Todt himself expressed this concern succinctly: “The fulfillment of mere transportation purposes is not the final aim of German highway construction. The German highway must be an expression of its surrounding landscape and an expression of the German essence.”

Hess, an “inveterate nature lover,” enthusiastically backed “a wide array of environmentalist legislation… approved and implemented at national, regional and local levels,” including “reforestation programs, bills protecting animal and plant species, and preservationist decrees blocking industrial development…. Planning ordinances were designed for the protection of wildlife habitat and at the same time demanded respect for the sacred German forest. The Nazi state also created the first nature preserves in Europe.” One of the greatest accomplishments of National Socialist ecologists was the Reichsnaturschutzgesetz of 1935. “This completely unprecedented ‘nature protection law’ not only established guidelines for safeguarding flora, fauna, and ‘natural monuments,’ across the Reich; it also restricted commercial access to remaining tracts of wilderness. In addition, the comprehensive ordinance ‘required all national, state and local officials to consult with Naturschutz authorities in a timely manner before undertaking any measures that would produce fundamental alterations in the countryside.’”

Contrast this attitude to that of Russian Jewess Alisa Rosenbaum, also known as Ayn Rand, who according to columnist Florence King, “hated nature lovers so much she almost threw (her biographer) Barbara Branden out of the house for saying that she enjoyed scenery.”

To Rand, nature was not only wild and irrational, just as Rousseau said, but also “malevolent”…. Anyone who dared say a good word for nature had to listen to Rand sing the praises of skyscrapers, concrete, steel girders, smokestacks, and even industrial smoke, for these were the products of the rational mind of Man, who invented them. The individual unwise enough to suggest that these things are inanimate had to sit up until 4 a.m. listening to Rand explain why a blast furnace symbolized an “exalted sense of life.”

Ayn Rand typifies the insidious strain of anti-racial, anti-nature classical Liberalism which has wormed its way into our movement. The Ayn Rand Institute “maintains it is vital to oppose the antihuman ideology of environmentalism and to uphold the indispensable values of reason, science, technology, industrialization and laissez-faire capitalism,” a view which celebrates mankind’s triumph over nature. Contrast this to the view of a National Socialist educator, who wrote “anthropocentric views in general had to be rejected. They would be valid only if it is assumed that nature has been created only for man. We decisively reject this attitude. According to our conception of nature, man is a link in the living chain of nature just as any other organism.” This perception led directly to “the link between environmental purity and racial purity”:

Two central themes of biology education follow from the holistic perspective: nature protection and eugenics. If one views nature as a unified whole, students will automatically develop a sense for ecology and environmental conservation. At the same time, the nature protection concept will direct attention to the urbanized and “over civilized” modern human race.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was a close friend of Ayn Rand, and was a member of Rand’s inner circle who read “Atlas Shrugged” as it was being written. When he was sworn in as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in 1974, Ayn Rand stood at his side. Greenspan was the spiritual godfather of the globalist financial class which dominated American policy during the 1990s and ran our economy into the ground in the new century. The anti-environmentalism of the present “conservative” movement is nothing but a modernist, capitalist, classically Liberal, materialist Jewish conception which has found fertile ground in the hands of billionaire plutocrats wiping out nature all over the Earth for the sake of higher profit margins.

The Alt Right was born as an “alternative” to Bush-Cheney era neoconservatism, when this strain of vile anti-environmentalism became entrenched within the Republican Party. The same capitalist, globalist “Right” which rejects environmentalism also fully embraces immigration to lower the cost of labor, as well as race-mixing and the defilement of Western culture in the pursuit of the almighty dollar. But the history of the real Right unambiguously reveals the inseparable connection between race-consciousness and ecology, love and care for the land as corollary to love and care for one’s people, the aristocratic value of beauty and culture fulfilled in the Romantic passion for nature, the desire for a clean and healthy race expressed also in the demand for a clean and healthy environment, and the absolute rejection of the egoistic, destructive profit motive when it clashes with either the life demands of race-preservation or land-conservation. In recent years the cultural Marxist Left has been allowed to run wild with environmental causes, even though ecology runs totally counter to their modernist, hedonistic, individualistic, egalitarian ideology. True environmentalism belongs to the real right – to the Alt Right – and it’s time we take it back.