It’s an interesting paradox to observe in Europe, that those political activists who put environmental issues at the forefront of their thinking overwhelmingly advocate for mass immigration from the Third World. Environmentalists, from England to Estonia, are invariably among the first to be seen with the “refugees welcome” placards. They pursue an ideology of quasi-humanism and blame American imperialism – not without foundation it must be said – for the mass movements of people, and demand that our hospitable European nations open our homes to the world’s poor. They have synthesised Marxist internationalism with environmental politics to devise an odd blend of eco-activism and immigration advocacy, yet these positions are juxtaposed by any objective analysis.
Of course, there’s a number of obvious issues with their positions. Firstly, mass immigration is leading to chronic over-population in our countries. This means more people to house – and therefore more houses to build – and more people using fossil fuels in the midst of our once beautiful natural landscapes. Then, we have to take into consideration the fact that most immigrants are Muslims who insist that their meat be ritually slaughtered, a truly cruel process that should abhor any sane nature lover. But notwithstanding these simple facts of mass immigration, there’s another problem for Green activists that simply cannot be overlooked in the final calculation.
The most important factor that cannot be legislated for is the deep rooted opinions and prejudices brought to Europe by the immigrant population. Any empirical analysis of the facts can easily demonstrate that Europeans are the only race who truly care for the environment, whilst for Third Worlders it’s relegated to an issue of tertiary significance. For most people of the Third World, Green politics is a completely alien concept. They simply do not care for the environment in the way we do. This might be because of their proclivity for religious fundamentalism, as Islam teaches that this life and world are essentially worthless non-entities to be endured, or it may simply be a case of IQ and conscientiousness – both of which are inheritable traits, by the way. But the reason why is mostly irrelevant, for the outcome remains the same.
We can probably agree that the prevalence and success of a Green Party or other political party with environmentalism at the forefront, are good indicators of a population’s propensity for caring about the environment. If a nation has no Green Party, it’s safe to presume it cares about the environment considerably less than a nation whose Green Party has been in government. It’ll probably come as no surprise to learn that most non-European countries do not have a Green Party represented an any way on local, regional or national scale. In fact, there’s only two nations that are non-European majority that would fit this criteria, and they’re Benin and Kenya – in both cases, Green Parties constitute a small parliamentary opposition. Japan has one notable Green Party politician, the Mayor of Amagasaki. One nation outside of Europe has a Green Party in government; New Zealand, with a 93% European-descended population. Canada, Chile, Columbia, Brazil and Australia – nations that are also majority European – also have Green Parties represented as parliamentary opposition and in regional legislatures.
So of the vast majority of the earth’s nations that are not in Europe or comprised of European-descended people, a grand total of two can boast parliamentary representation for their respective Green Parties.
Of the fifty countries in Europe, thirty-one have Global Greens affiliated Green Parties in parliament or have had Green Parties represented in government within the last decade. Sixteen of these countries have Global Greens affiliated Green Parties represented in coalition government at a regional and/or national level, including Austria, France, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, Latvia, Germany and Greece. A great number of these instances involve a Green Party as senior coalition partner, particularly at the regional/state level in countries such as France and Germany. Even nations in Eastern Europe, where one does not necessarily associate the local politics with environmentalism, Green Party representation is strong.
And it isn’t just parliamentary representation that confirms the European races’ depth of feeling for the environment; polls and surveys have consistently found environmental issues at the forefront of the general population’s political thinking. A pan-European study of attitudes towards Green politics, commissioned by the European Union Commission in 2007, found that 96% of Europeans say environmental issues are ‘fairly’ or ‘very’ important to them. The lowest national response was found in Romania, where a lowly 90% answered in the affirmative. Joint highest were the Cypriots, Swedes, Greeks and Maltese, 99% of whom replied that environmental issues were important to them. This neatly dispels the myth that Third Worlders aren’t environmentally conscious for socio-economic reasons, as Greece and Cyprus are amongst the EU countries with the lowest average annual salaries, yet amongst the most environmentally conscious.
This already presents enough of a problem when dealing with issues of a global nature, such as climate change, but the problem is magnified, irredeemably so, if a country with progressive environmental attitudes replaces its existing population with people whose culture is entirely unconscious of these issues. And as we’ve observed with other backward attitudes of these people, they don’t change from one generation to the next. In fact, all analysis suggests that such prejudices and preferences are only further entrenched in second and third generation immigrants.
To summarise, it beggars belief that environmental activists can reconcile their politics with immigration advocacy. It requires a certain amount of mental gymnastics to be able to hold these two contradictory positions simultaneously, much less than to justify them! Even before we address the social attitudes of the immigrant population, one has to overlook the systematic destruction of the countryside as a result of excess house building, not to mention the excessive consumption of fossil fuels by the excess immigrant population. Thus, we have a question that Green activists must address for their political positions to have any legitimacy whatsoever – which they currently do not.
Green politics is important. It’s not simply the preserve of the political left. Indeed, a central tenet of conservative thinking should be the conservation of the natural world, particularly the immediate landscapes of ones own nation. Denying the realities of man-made damage to the natural world for the sake of being right-wing is damaging, and generally motivated by a misplaced adherence to neoliberal economic theory. No, we must drop these positions. There’s a large gap in the political market for forces without these Green-leftist contradictions, but for a movement that can truly own environmental issues with coherence and conviction. Nationalism can and must assume the mantle.