Blut, Boden Und Foder

Before we begin on this subject lets just be categorically clear on the issue surrounding political violence. I do not, will not and have never condoned political violence - particularly when attacks are levied against ordinary, defenceless people irrespective of whether they're white, black, purple or hail from planet Nibiru. Not only is there the very obvious moral issue surrounding the murder of random people, but it is also a massively self-defeating act as it hardly bring's people around to consider your point of view.

Just as Islamic terrorists may have had some support in the West had they found better ways to communicate their grievances, those of us who are conscious of demographic and environmental issues in the West may too gain a greater audience and more sympathy if we were seen to be a bit more normal in bringing our points of view out into open. It is why I believe (and have believed for some time) that both Islamic and "Far-Right" terrorists have been supported by the state in the past in order to create a scapegoat, something which isn't difficult if you find some high-functioning autist to groom for your planned act of violence.

The fact that all arguments against eco-fascism, (or whatever you want to call it) begin by mentioning the rare acts of terror, suggests to me that the mainstream order doesn't necessarily have a good counter to the arguments, hence the need for a strawman to attack. Now before anyone rushes to conclusions, I no longer define myself in these terms and labels. 'Nationalist' or 'Fascist', these are labels which ultimately only divide us and prevent free discussions and evaluations of a complex world. However, I am deeply concerned for the demographics and the ecological destiny of the land of my ancestors, and so I feel I must respond to the comments made in the NewScientist magazine last year.

I had actually meant to cover this subject sooner but I never found the time. I found it ironic though that an article written in August of 2019 by Graham Lawton, one of NewScientist's staff writers, was inadvertently juxtaposed to another article written just a few months later by their guest writer James Wong, who is a respected ethnobotanist.

I shall include both articles and interject here and there to refute or argue from the the "eco-fascist" position as I go, because although I don't personally identify with the term any longer, I have a feeling that our left-wing environmentalist friends would attack me with that label anyway.

The mass shooting at a Walmart store in El Paso, Texas, earlier this month was widely reported as a racially motivated attack by a white supremacist. That is almost certainly what it was: shortly before it happened, a manifesto railing against the "Hispanic invasion" of the US appeared online, and the police believe it was posted by the shooter.

As has become depressingly familiar, the document contained numerous references to alt-right conspiracy theories such as the "great replacement", which claims that white Christian civilisation is being swamped by black and Asian people, and Muslims. But buried in it was another, rarer trope that appears to be rising up in the white nationalist agenda. The manifesto also cited environmental destruction of the US as a motivation, and blamed this on immigrants.

According to Peter Beinart, a journalism professor at the City University of New York (to whom I am indebted for bringing this to my attention in a piece in The Atlantic), the unexpected fusion of white nationalism and environmentalism is a growing phenomenon. White nationalists, he says, are increasingly hijacking environmental issues and hitching them to their own wagon. The right-wing extremist who killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, in March also cited environmental damage among his justifications. 

In his manifesto, he said that non-Europeans are the main cause of over-population.

First of all, irrespective of whether we agree with the actions of Patrick Crusius or Brenton Tarrant (I don't) their manifesto's on this occasion were correct. Non-Europeans are the main cause of over-population and certainly in the UK, population growth has been fueled to a large extent by non-white immigration. I'm sure my readers are intelligent enough to know that the immigrants themselves are not to blame, but certainly in terms of over crowding, their coming here has had a negative impact on the ecology and facilitated the swell of urban environments and the expansion of transport infrastructure.

With the last UK census now well out of date we can only guess at how bad an effect immigration has had on population growth, but when we do find out next year, I strongly suspect the concerns the right-wing have been voicing will be proven valid.

The ravings of xenophobic murderers are one thing, but, according to Beinart, these views are now finding their way into mainstream political discourse. The right-wing commentator Ann Coulter, for example, has argued that immigrants threaten the US environment because they don't have the same love of nature (nevermind that Coulter's beloved Republican party is the world's most powerful promoter of climate change denial.) In Europe, far-right leaders such as Marine Le Penin France have started talking about love of nature as a national virtue and blaming environmental destruction on immigrants.

Ann Coulter is also correct in her assessment. Foreigners don't have the same values. Or at least they certainly don't share our connection to the land beneath our feet, but then again I'm speaking from a purely English perspective. There is a little irony in traditional right-wing figures, particularly in America, talking about being saviours of the environment when their policies have brought so much ecological destruction over the last hundred years or so. Perhaps the gross materialism that has spread out of America during the 20th century under the red banner of Coca-cola, is really a symptom of nobody on that continent having the faintest connection to the land. Besides the Native Americans of course.

Either way, it would still be ridiculous to assume that every culture has the same outlook, and in my own (admittedly anecdotal) experience I would say that there is a difference in how different cultures treat nature, white Europeans are less likely to tarnish beauty spots with their rubbish for instance, but then again are orders of magnitude more likely to replace forests with shopping centres which is a damn sight worse! The main thing here is not necessarily the culture in the land, but the land in the culture, which may seem a strange thing to say, but it goes without saying that people with absolutely no sense of connection to the land will have absolutely no care for it either. Logically the newer the immigrant the less likely they are to have that connection.

These aren't universally applicable rules, I'm sure that there are many black or Asian conservationists donating their time or directly working for environmental charities in the UK - and likewise I'm sure there are plenty of ignorant white arses who would think nothing of strewing their rubbish all over the Cotswolds, but I suspect that if we got a full run down of the demographics, BAME communities would be massively underrepresented in the field.

The same can be said of people visiting national parks in the UK, with the head of the Peak District saying only in December of 2019 that they wanted to attract more people from BAME communities to visit the area. The same was said by both the National Trust and English Heritage a few years ago, with English Heritage causing a storm when it began applying "positive discrimination" against white youths for their training roles. The fact is, nothing is stopping Black and Asians from visiting the countryside in the UK, so you have to conclude that maybe there is a deeper cause for this.

The easiest explanation is that most of them are not interested in the British countryside because they are not of the British countryside, in the same way that most ethnic English people would find it very difficult to connect on an intimate basis with say the arid plains of Mongolia, or the dry grasslands of the Serengeti. The beauty of these places in and of themselves is irrefutable but ultimately irrelevant if there is no tying of the blood to the soil, or if you prefer, the folk spirit to the land wights.

Secondly, whilst it is politically incorrect, there remains overwhelming evidence that many cultures simply do not care about their natural surroundings. Of the ten rivers that contribute the most to ocean plastic, eight are in Asia and the other two are in Africa. Infrastructure will obviously play a part in this, with poorer countries lacking the organised recycling or landfill sites even, but then again South Africa which is considerably more developed than most nations on that continent still only recycles 16% of its plastics as opposed to the UK's 45% and the European Union's average of 42%.

The emergence of this bastard ideology took me completely by surprise. Like many progressive environmentalists, I have long hoped that conservative politics will eventually embrace environmentalism-after all, what could be more conservative than conservation? But there is no reason to celebrate this adoption.

The far-right's appropriation of environmentalism serves two purposes, neither involving the protection of nature. The first is to further demonise immigrants for sullying the otherwise pure environment. The second is to absolve the "native population" - for which read those of white European ancestry - from blame.

How on earth do educated people come to these bizarre conclusions? It was National Socialist Germany who were the first government to really step up and put environmentalism and animal welfare policies into place. This included reforestation and rewilding programmes that that are only just starting to come back in a big way in Europe in the last ten years or so. To say that there is no precedent for right-wing politics to be involved with ecology and wildlife conservation is just plain wrong. I actually refuse to accept that a journalist can be this badly informed. This has to be a deliberate attempt to severe the connection in the minds of his readers, surely?

The reason why the far-right are interested in environmentalism is because they have a vested interest in their roots, their connection to the soil, the land that has sustained and been home not only themselves but their ancestors going back generations. I'm fairly sure that Mr Lawton would not be so quick to demonise similar beliefs if he were to speak to Native Americans or indigenous Amazonians.

As for the demonisation of immigrants, this is only be the preserve of the ignorant and the stupid. Any "eco-fascist" with a degree of intelligence will recognise that the foreigner's presence here is not really the fault of the immigrant. Who can really blame someone for moving to a land that has more opportunities for their children?

No, I don't blame the immigrant at all, I blame the politician, the industrialist, the quangos - I blame all those who have been cursed by Andvari's gold, those who have put GDP above the preservation of their own people and the health of their own land. Most of those,initially at least, will have been of "white European ancestry" and I would sooner befriend a minority who understands the predicament that humanity as a whole is now in, than one of these money obsessed cretins.

As for absolving the native population, a popular phrase which is oft-quoted within eco-fascism is "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race." Since industrialism is a European creation, I don't see how anyone within that sphere is trying to absolve the European race from the damage we've inflicted - albeit as a side note it wasn't as if the average white working class had much of a choice, many were resettled from relatively healthy and happy rural lives into the steel mills, mines and factories with the advent of industrialism. Most Europeans have always been against industrialism because it made many aspects of life harder. So I accept that our culture has done great damage, but not necessarily our people. 

It may be that the El Paso and Christchurch killers were genuinely motivated by concerns about the environment. Filtered through their ideology, though, that just morphed into more hatred and became another justification to despise, dehumanise and kill the "other" in the name of national purity.

Furthermore, as with much of the alt-right belief system, it is based on fallacies. Poorer people in the US - a group that includes most migrants-have the smallest carbon footprints. They consume less, drive and fly less and eat less meat. The people who need to scale back their consumption are the rich, who are overwhelmingly white and of European descent.

Here I agree with Mr Lawton, cheap access to practically poisonous processed meats, the throw away society and the general wastefulness of modern Western society needs to change. Travelling is a rather more difficult thing to fix considering the entire planet is now designed around the basis of common car ownership, but generally I think we can agree that our way of life, especially in America, is unsustainable. Rather than defending Mr Lawton's wider point though, this becomes a glaring admission on his part that immigration is a truly ridiculous policy.

People immigrate to the West to increase their economic and social standing. They do not, as most middle-class intellectuals would like, travel to Europe or America for them and their children to stay at minimum wage as cleaners and vegetable pickers until the end of time. They travel here because of the opportunities available to them. Additionally, most likely because of their poorer origins, they tend to become more materialistic because they suddenly have access to all these consumer items that they might not have had beforehand. Increasing the population of the most ecologically unsustainable nations with immigration is a ridiculous policy unless you want to pursue some (genuinely) racist policy that deliberately traps migrants into poverty.

With hindsight, this tie-up was probably inevitable. The glorification of the past inherent in right-wing politics lends itself to nostalgic visions of bucolic days gone by, conjuring up a green and pleasant land uncontaminated by outsiders. It also harks back to a simpler time before the scale of damage we are doing to the planet became clear, when rich Westerners could consume with impunity.

The bucolic days of old were green and pleasant and uncontaminated by outsiders compared with today. There was community and families functioned as normal. It was no utopia, but the people had a purpose to go on. Westerners only became a husk of their former selves once consumerism entered onto the scene, a problem that has only grown since manufacturing processes became cheaper, credit became accessible and more people gained access to products that in truth, were never really needed in the first place. The times that eco-fascists would have us emulate are pre-mass-immigration, true enough, but they're also pre-consumerism and to a large degree pre-industrialisation. 

The fact the Mr Lawton believes that most white people lived consumer lives is ridiculous, there was still widespread poverty during the 1970s, and the vast majority of folk lived in huge poverty before the turn of the 20th century. 

For now, nationalist environmentalism is solely an alternative expression of white supremacy, but it could take on a life of it's own. The far right has successfully vilified immigrants as scroungers, job stealers and queue-jumpers, despite ample evidence to the contrary. This could easily escalate into a resource war: a fight for dwindling reserves of oil, gas, minerals and water, along national or ethnic lines.

The term white supremacy is made up, something used to brow beat and paint anyone who raises the points that I have been up until now with the cartoonish depiction of skin-head neo-nazis. I have come across very few "white supremacists" in my time, even whilst being on periphery of the far-right.

So again just to clarify on the points I've already made against this strawman argument, anyone who blames the immigrants themselves is an idiot, but the competition for jobs, social welfare and housing caused by government policies (mostly in order to suppress worker's wages) has the obvious effect of causing a nativist reaction. Mr Lawton says he fears an escalation of this into a resource war in the future, presumably because of the effects of climate change - he may well be right, but in making this concern public he has also made his own position untenable. Multicultural societies can work when the times are good but can quickly fracture down ethnic lines as soon as things get tough. Any student of history can tell you that. If climate change is really going to cause tensions then you want a high-trust, ordered society, something which will be quite impossible with council estate ghettos and terraces divided by ethnicity.

The political mainstream needs to confront the ever-growing threat of nationalist environmentalism - or maybe we should just call it eco-fascism - before it spirals out of control. But countering it won't be easy. As we have seen time and again, you can't win a war with facts.

If I may, I would say that the reason why countering it won't be easy, is because countering it is actually rather difficult. You can't win a war with unproven facts and cherry picked studies when people are increasingly recognising the state of the world around them. Maybe the time has come to enter into a discussion, rather than attempting hatchet jobs such as this and hoping we will just shrivel up and blow away in the wind.

Given everything that has been discussed thus far, I did find it somewhat ironic when a few months later in October, NewScientist released another article written by James Wong who (probably inadvertently) backed many of own positions.

His article began with the hashtag, facts matter, and I tend to agree. Much of what he says throughout the article is fact, and not just wishful thinking like what other progressive environmentalists write. He begins:

With the global population predicted to hit close to 10 billion by 2050, and forecasts that agricultural production in some regions will need to double to keep pace, food security is increasingly making headlines. In the UK, it has become a big talking point recently too, for a rather particular reason: Brexit.

Just to quickly clarify, the birth rate of the UK has stayed around 1.7 since the mid 1970s, this is without going into the specifics of racial demographics and the typically higher birth rates of Muslim and BAME communities.

The birth rate in Somalia for the same period has stayed around 7.

The required birth rate for replacement population is 2.3.

It doesn't take a genius to see that overpopulation is not an issue caused by Europeans, unless you apportion some of the blame to the left-wing idiots who thought supplying food and medicine to the third world without the necessary cultural and educational changes was a good idea.

Brexit is seen by some as an opportunity to reverse a recent trend towards the UK importing food. The country produces only about 60% of the food it eats, down from almost three-quarters in the late 1980s. A move back to self-sufficiency, the argument goes, would boost the farming industry, political sovereignty and even the nation's health. Sounds great - but how feasible is this vision?

Answering this question in detail could be the subject of an entire PhD. Fortunately, we can get to the crux of the issue with some simple stats. According to a report on UK food production from the university of Leeds, UK, 85 per cent of the country's total land area is associated with meat and dairy production. That supplies 80% of what is consumed, so even covering the country in livestock farms wouldn't allow us to cover all our meat and dairy needs.

There are many caveats to those figures, but they are still stark. To become much more self-sufficient, the UK would need to drastically reduce its consumption of animal foods, and probably also farm more intensively - meaning fewer green fields, and more factory style production.

But switching to a mainly plant based diet wouldn't help. There is a good reason why the UK is dominated by animal husbandry: most of it's terrain doesn't have the right soil or climate to grow crops on a commercial basis. Just 25 per cent of the country's land is suitable for crop-growing, most of which is already occupied by arable fields. Even if we converted all the suitable land to fields of fruit and veg - which would involve taking out all the nature reserves and evicting thousands of people from their homes - we would achieve only a 30 per cent boost in crop production.

So in just a few short paragraphs the management of the UK's population and food policy over the last century is shown to be an utter mess. It's unsustainable and it's dangerous. There is a perfect storm brewing in these isles, if international trade were to ever be seriously affected by outside events most of us would starve or at the very least end up severely malnourished.

For all our sakes I hope this is not what is coming for us the next twelve to twenty-four months given the current state of the world due to Coronavirus and the oil industry's decline. However let's be frank, it is a plausible outcome given the overcrowded nature of Britain and of England in particular.

Our population has increased exponentially due to the effects of immigration, between the years of 1991 to 2018, 56% of that increase in population was due to immigration. I'm not entirely sure how that rate is worked out (so whether second generation births are considered in this figure is unknown) but I have inquired with The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford for better clarification.(1.)

This increasing population alone has put pressure on our ability to feed ourselves generally, but in order to house the growing population, our green spaces are being concreted over with massive house building projects. Not only has this damaged our wetlands and woodlands, but it has also led to a decrease in agricultural output. According to one report from The Independent in 2015, the UK lost 2000 square miles of countryside in six years (2009-2015). That figure is no doubt a lot higher now, and Campaign for Rural England is now trying to convince councils to turn their development attention towards brownfield sites instead of greenbelt, but when you consider that two thousand square miles is the equivalent of two thirds of the county of Essex, you can easily see why this is a big problem.

Speaking of Essex, it's also worth noting that East Anglia, which has seen more than it's fair share of development in recent years, is also in the region which offer's the best climate and conditions for crop growing. 

These statements by Mr Wong also point to the fact that the rabid environmentalist's dream of a vegan utopia are simply ridiculous. If you want the world to be rid of fossil fuels then transporting vasts amount of food from thousands of miles away becomes difficult at best - it would be silly to write off the meat and dairy industry when it offer's the most calories per hectare in this country.

Just 23 per cent of the fruit and vegetables consumed in the UK are currently home-grown, so even with the most extreme measures we could meet only 30 per cent of our fresh produce needs. That is before we look for the space to grow the grains, sugars, seeds and oils that provide us with the vast bulk of our current calorie intake.

Britain's reliance on food imports is far from a modern phenomenon, stretching back until at least the mid 1700s, when the population was just a fraction of what it is now. As early as the 1930s, just 30 per cent of the food eaten in the UK was domestically produced.

There isn't really much to add here. Food shortages were one of the biggest causes for English colonialism to begin with, food production went down by quite a margin during the 1600s because of a colder climate, and that pushed up food prices and increased poverty. This is why, besides the obvious profits to be made, the poor and destitute were sent abroad to American colonies to work on the plantations to export grain back to Britain.

The fact that number is now much higher is down to the green revolution of the mid 20th century, in which innovations in agricultural technology caused average crop yields to almost treble. By 1987, the country was 74% self-sufficient. Since then, however, agricultural productivity has stalled, for reasons that aren't well understood. With increasing demand from a growing population, self-sufficiency levels have fallen again.

Proponents of UK food self-sufficiency often point to the Netherlands, a country that is the world's second-biggest exporter of food, despite having a land area roughly a sixth of the UK's and almost twice the population density. But this stat is based on the economic value of the Netherlands agri-food exports, not on the amount of calories the country produces. It includes sales not just of food, but of the sector's single biggest export: cut flowers.

In addition, a large part of these exports, are foods that were initially imported. The Netherlands is, for example, the world's fifth-largest exporter of oranges, despite a distinct lack of Dutch orange groves.

Expressed in terms of calories, not cash, the Netherlands is actually in the bottom 10 for self-sufficiency in the world according to the United Nations, being on par with countries like Syria, Armenia and Zimbabwe. The Netherlands is a global leader in sustainable agricultural tech, but like the UK, it has to contend with the limitations of geography, climate and population. 

Can the UK become less reliant on imports when it comes to food? Probably. Can it become self-sufficient, even in foods typically grow in the country, in the timescales being talked about? To put it bluntly, using current technology, it is a mathematical impossibility.

So basically, because of the population increases owed almost exclusively to immigration (a population that would have been decreasing now due to the ageing population) we are instead at the whims of international trade that is governed by bodies made up of ex-banking employees. And people wonder why people like myself are opposed to the modern world and want to turn the clock back? The mind boggles. This is without going into soil erosion and the possible effects of a 'green economy' on food production.

This is why I find these topics so frustrating, if the facts matter, then why is there such a vested interest in not putting everything into perspective and why is there always this move to discredit and misrepresent people who try to present a point of view that is comprehensive in its scope? It's almost as if everybody who works in the media is contractually obliged to try and bullshit the public.


New Scientist, 17th August  2019, Graham Lawton's "The Rise of real Eco-Fascism", page 24
New Scientist 26th October 2019, James Wong's "The Dream of Food Self-Suffiency", page 24


Popular Posts