When nationalist leaders and elected members have been on television, they have often been challenged to justify their policy of zero immigration, or repatriation, usually being told that “we are a nation of immigrants”.
We know this not to be true: the indigenous peoples of Great Britain have occupied this land for perhaps as long as fifteen thousand years with unbroken lineage. There may have been small contributions to the gene pool from other, closely-related ethnic groups but on the whole, this has been our homeland and our homeland only, since before the beginning of civilisation.
This is why I believe the country itself to be of the utmost importance to our nation.
I’m talking about Britain in the geographical sense; our islands, even though I know a nation is really comprised of its people, however they may be distributed. The fact is that for thousands of years we existed as a nation on these beautiful islands; they form an integral part of our national identity.
In fact, when we debate and argue with proponents of liberalism and establishment mouthpieces, when we publish manifestos promising to reverse the tide of immigration, when we complain about the colonisation of native British soil, we are defending purely these islands themselves and our right to inhabit them as a race.
It would make sense, then, not only to campaign for the right to occupy this land, but also to ensure that it is worth defending and can sustain and provide for our people. Otherwise, if the land itself is not important, we may as well argue for our right to occupy any other area as a people: perhaps part of the Middle East or South America. If we are to continue to live here and enjoy our lives, then it is necessary for us to keep this country as verdant and pleasant as it always has been.
A necessary cause
Environmentalism is not solely the domain of cultural Marxists and liberals, although it is obviously exploited by them. In its truest sense it is the preservation of the environment for the continued existence and quality of life of its inhabitants.
There are three main points I wish to raise with regards to our British environment: population, resources and pollution.
Firstly, population: immigration continues to swamp Great Britain. It is very difficult to accurately judge the extent since government figures are almost certainly underestimating the problem and disguised with terms such as “net immigration” – but it can safely be said that ‘legal’ immigrant arrivals comprise half a million per year every year. Illegal migration probably contributes a few tens of thousands on top of that. Now consider that even without continued immigration, the UK’s population would still be growing due to high immigrant fertility rates.
I’m not talking about demographics based on ethnicity here because readers should already know exactly what’s in store in that regard – I’m talking about the population as a whole, counting every living soul on these islands (and do not forget that they are islands with very finite space – not seemingly limitless giant continents).
According to the World Bank, the country’s population was just over sixty-two million in 2010, but again this does not count illegal immigrants which some nationalists believe number above a million, and may well be inaccurate in its own right in order to deceive us. This news article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15461579) suggests that we could exceed seventy-three million by 2035. The population has never been growing so fast, and continues to accelerate to ever more ridiculous proportions.
There are a few serious effects to this. Most obviously, population density will rise: there will be millions more people crammed into the same space year on year, adding to congestion on motorways, city roads, railways and the Tube. For anyone who uses the Tube regularly, it’s going to get a lot worse: and new lines and motorways are not being built at high enough rates to avoid this additional congestion. To do so would be highly expensive, and, while it is achievable, would be better avoided because increased population density is simply unnecessary.
Housing then becomes a serious issue as well; we are constantly hearing about how too few homes are being built, and again we know this to be because of immigration. The average size of new housing is also decreasing – modern homes typically have smaller bedrooms and reception rooms than pre-war residences, and house prices compared to income are rising as a predictable outcome of the increased demand.
If new housing projects are launched, they will almost certainly have to build on green belts at some stage. This worrying trend will ultimately result in more and more of our country with its pleasant pastures green being converted into fields of concrete and tarmac, supporting squalid, cramped, drab brick houses, crowded with metal forests of street lamps and signposts, and permeated by the constant noise of cars and buses and people. Grass turned to stone; wood turned to metal; peace turned to noise.
These extra people will then also suck the land dry, each of them consuming thousands of litres of water per year. Our country only experiences a certain amount of rainfall and can only fill a certain number of reservoirs and aquifers, and desalination plants which could make sea water usable are slow and energy expensive. If we experience droughts now, imagine what they will be like in a few decades with many millions more people drinking and washing all the time.
Secondly, the country will become even less self-sustainable. Take food production as an example: the Food Standards Agency claims that “Imported food makes up an increasingly large part of the UK diet and about 50% of food consumed in the UK is from countries outside the UK.” In other words: we only produce half our own food. The ratio of home produce to foreign imports is likely to decrease as population expands, since there is only a limited area of agricultural land available on our island.
Reduced self-sustainability means greater dependence on foreign trade and more severe consequences to any trade restrictions imposed on us, if and when we attempt to defy our European masters; with a single directive, the EU could cut off a large chunk of our food supply and cripple the nation, with the results being millions of starving people followed shortly by capitulation and subsequent occupation.
The sustainability aspect to population growth also applies to energy; currently we actually import electricity from French nuclear power plants, meaning we do not generate all of the power we use. Adding millions more people to the country will increase the amount of power we need to buy from EU states, especially since we have no major new energy projects and our current nuclear reactors are gradually reaching the end of their operational lives.
Finally, pollution: in this context, pollution refers to air and water pollution rather than any perceived greenhouse gas pollutants; the latter may be held in doubt by probably all nationalists while the former is a very real and very dangerous threat.
Factories, power plants and cars release particulates and chemicals into the environment as a matter of course; it is generally impossible to capture every last trace of toxic material. Cars posses catalytic converters which remove most of the worst compounds such as oxides of nitrogen and toxic carbon monoxide gas, but inevitably some carcinogens and toxins are still released and the more cars there are on the road, the worse the problem becomes as the concentration of dangerous particles increases.
Agriculture contributes a significant amount to environmental pollution, with poisonous agricultural run-off including chemicals found in fertilisers and pesticides draining into bodies of water. This is harmful for a wide variety of species and all damage to the country’s ecosystems, in my opinion, degrades the value of the country itself. Increased population requires more intensive agriculture to feed it, resulting in more poisons being spread on our fields and spilled in our rivers.
A popular cause
Attentive readers will have noticed by now that I have not only been talking about the state of Britain’s environment, but also building a case for immigration reversal throughout. Since the indigenous population is already declining in size, it is clear which population is causing these problems.
I felt raising these points to be important because of the increased prominence of environmental ideas. Schools now teach all children about pollution, oil and gas depletion, and global warming. Subjects like chemistry, geography, citizenship and biology deal with these issues; and again, while global warming may be seen by most readers as an obvious hoax, all of the points I have made apply to that too; the establishment cannot deny that immigration contributes vastly to our country’s increasing “carbon footprint”. The newest generation of children will see these as important issues more than any previous generation.
While the Green Party of England and Wales has, many suspect, ulterior motives and underlying ideologies (and deeply concerning attitudes towards drug control), in 2010 it had a membership of nearly thirteen thousand and as far as can be seen, that is still on the rise. The Green candidate came third in the London mayoral elections, and the party has 2 MEP seats, 2 London Assembly seats, an MP, and more than a hundred councillors.
In Europe, Green parties can sometimes enjoy considerable levels of support: in Germany, The Greens have 68 seats in the Bundestag, 243 local seats, 14 MEPs and a prime minister of a German state. The Greens in Austria have 20 out of 183 seats on the National Council and 2 out of 19 MEP seats. Similarly, the Swedish Green Party has one-tenth of its country’s MEPs and 25 MPs out of 349, making it the third-biggest party. In France, Europe Écologie–Les Verts has 15 out of 74 MEPs and 14% of local seats. The green movement is a growing one, lamentably unlike nationalism in most states.
In summary, my reasoning is twofold; firstly that preservation of Britain’s natural environment is of vital importance to begin with; and secondly that as children are taught to see pollution and ‘climate change’ ever more importantly, this will form part of their thought process when deciding who to support. There is an opportunity to steal from the establishment the support this will provide them, by making it clear that as nationalists, we care about the quality of our native British environment FAR more than mainstream politicians ever could – and we would be quite right in saying so too.