The Alt-Right Is Green: Not A Pepe Meme

The Alt-Right, as a movement, has distanced itself from the traditional right on many issues regarding immigration, national policy, and race realism. As the Alt-Right moves forward beyond Trump, there is an opportunity to create more separation between the Alt-Right and conservatism: we are green. I don’t mean this in the contemporary environmentalist way either. I mean that Alt-Right policy ideas would have significantly positive impacts on the environment as a whole. The Alt-Right can be green beyond Pepe. The Alt-Right can brand nationalism as a green priority. With this, the traditional left and right can be further cast aside for a better vision of the future; a green and huwhyte future.

The United States and European countries give a shocking amount of aid to the third world. The only foreign aid that anyone would get from an Alt-Right-style government is a military strike if they continue to be anti-white. As our policy, the USA, any European nation, or any future European ethnostate shouldn’t send funds to any country without it directly benefiting us. Removing Western aid from the third world and other developing countries would decrease their population numbers which in effect lowers the pollution of the world; fewer people equals less pollution. Ultimately, that is the only way to reduce global pollution. No global governmental policy is going to make an impact on these problems in any real measurable way.

Environmentalism’s ultimate goal is to preserve the environment over human life. The Alt-Right can meet them halfway; let’s reduce the third world’s addiction to first world aid thereby reducing their population, thus reducing resource consumption and pollution. At the present time, the climate change zealots are freaking out over CO2 levels. This is a symptom of a greater issue. We as a species have over consumed the planet’s resources. The way to change this isn’t fixating on the minute details but to look globally. The populations that cause the most harm and don’t care about it are third world countries. Let’s roll back our aid to them and stop their growth in order to improve the health of the planet.

Realistically, most people in the Alt-Right have their own personal views on climate change and whether or not it is man-made. Personal beliefs on whether or not climate change is anthropogenic do not matter since Alt-Right policies would be positive for the environment. In this way the Alt-Right has appealed to more people. The Alt-Right can be green without sacrificing any of its deepest loyalties to race. Race has an impact on the environment and we should point it out.

In the United States, Mexican drug cartels set up growing operations in our national parks. This ends up ruining the local flora and fauna that the park is supposed to protect. Through nationalism, we protect our national parks from this type of behavior by disallowing invasion from the undeveloped world. Ultimately, the underdeveloped world and its people are the way they are because of their inability to use the land efficiently. By refusing to take these people in we encourage them to cherish their land, water, and the air they breathe. Shouldn’t this be the goal for the green movement? I believe the Alt-Right should push them there.

The land that whites, and any people really, inhabit is deeply connected to them. The European continent gave whites their features and in turn, whites shaped the land into architectural design. The same with the North American continent, whites came and used the land for sustenance and shelter. The land was thereby transformed into towns and cities. This interconnectedness is why the Alt-Right should defend green principles. Not because it will cause rising sea levels, but because our lands helped shape us. Europe and North America are white man’s land. That sense of pride is what will push for a more caring approach to Environmentalism. We can show the world what it means to be green.

  • ChippyMcBarkles

    “Mexican drug cartels set up growing operations in our national parks. This ends up ruining the local flora and fauna”

    In Colorado tumbleweed has taken on a whole new meaning.

  • Johnny Fascismo

    Humans are meant to live in harmony with nature. When they breed at a rate that is unsustainable with what the landmass can support, nature punishes them for it. In our globalized world first world countries prop up third world countries preventing this from happening. Stopping support of destructive third world breeding patterns would be a good first step towards more sustainable environmental policies. Not looking at 1488 as a breeding competition between whites and non-whites for who can produce the largest number of mouths to feed would be a good step 2.

    • Dave Overman

      You are childless, aren’t you?

      • Johnny Fascismo

        I fail to see how thats relevant to anything I said.

        • katebushfan66

          don’t use the world ‘sustainable’ it makes you look like a greencuck.
          okay? as for parenting… do it if you want to.. no one cares.. not our business.

      • katebushfan66

        a man never knows for sure if he’s childless.. does he? [maybe a virgin man knows for sure]

    • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

      Humans are meant to live in harmony with nature.

      That’s a pleasant-sounding statement, but pause to think it over and you’ll see it’s so vague as to be almost devoid of meaning.

      Just what does it mean to live in harmony with nature? On one reading, anything which exists does so “naturally” (ie there’s nothing beyond nature in the universe), which means anything at all that humans do can be considered “in harmony” with nature, since we couldn’t contravene your dictum no matter how hard we tried.

      Alternatively, we could define “natural” as anything which is not man-made. In that case we immediately run into trouble, since every practically every human advancement can be considered a poke in the eye to nature. Remember, poverty is natural. Non-human animals all exist in a state of poverty, completely dependent on nature’s bounty for their survival. Prosperity is a singularly human achievement. In this sense, the prosperity of 21st century western man must be considered the gravest insult to nature.

      If that’s too severe an interpretation, then perhaps what is meant by living in harmony with nature is some level of human prosperity carefully managed so as not to “offend” nature. Faggy as it sounds, the notion of “sustainability” here makes sense. We shouldn’t get ahead ourselves. We should check our hubris. We need to assure ourselves that in building ourselves up, we’re not merely setting ourselves up for a great fall. The problem here that there is no easy way to tell what is sustainable and what isn’t.

      Some lying enviroscum dogturds claim that any human impact on nature is “too much.” Disturbingly, it seems that even some otherwise apparently normal people tend to agree with them. I have a different view. It’s all well and good to think of the future, but we also have to consider the here and now; and since in our own lives prosperity is always superior to poverty, perhaps we have no choice but to discover what is possible for us by going “beyond” the possible right up to the edge of the impossible. And if we try that, we might find that, right now, we’ve still got a lot of gas in the tank. Let’s not leave any money on the table!

      • Johnny Fascismo

        In my view, nature is there to serve us. I’m not saying we shouldn’t use it to our advantage. Once again I’m not an Anarcho-Primitivist, I don’t have anything against agriculture or modern technology. That being said, we have a responsibility to not overextend our usage. We rely on the environment to sustain ourselves. The environment doesn’t rely on us to sustain itself. If we threaten it for greedy or selfish reasons, it has ways of punishing us for it. If that doesn’t happen in our lifetime, it will happen to future generations.

        Also population control is just a good idea. If we push the planet to boiling point, by creating more life than it can sustain, we are not just killing the earth, but ourselves in the long run. It’s really just about being responsible. Christ, I sound like a goddamn hippie today.

        • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

          I don’t dispute any of that. But as I said in the last couple of paragraphs, trying to determine what “overextension” is is and what it isn’t is no straightforward matter – not least because that determination is complicated by some actors’ fanatical commitment to lying about the present state of the environment and environmental trends. That applies to both sides of the fence, although my personal experience is almost solely of leftie Greenpeace types telling me the sky is falling.

          Population reduction seems to be the simplest measure. If we had a quarter as many people we could have four times as many resources per person. The political difficulty there is that so much of the population growth is Africans, whom it’s apparently ipso facto ‘racist’ to even criticize, let alone to demand fewer of. One small glimmer of hope in this regard is that apparently even a mainstream political figure like Macron seems to be at least half-aware of the issue. Although he’s caught tremendous flak for his remarks, maybe other elites will begin to ever so slowly warm up to saying no to naggers.

          (Christ it just kills me that the best race the world has seen is disappearing (and its members are proud of it), while worthless nagger scum are proliferating like rabbits.)

          • Johnny Fascismo

            Well, I agree 100% with all of that. Establishment politicians always have ulterior motives and can not be trusted. Lefty environmentalists also can not be taken seriously. Anybody who talks about environmental sustainability without ever addressing overpopulation is just virtue signaling.

            Declining white birth rates wouldn’t even be the end of the world if our countries weren’t being flooded with foreigners who breed like rabbits. Automated labour is coming sooner than later, as the left demands higher wages for flipping burgers. All that will lead to is less low skill jobs. We’re importing a permanent underclass that hates us and that we won’t have any work for. This isn’t going to end well.

  • JMB

    I love this! I always asked why are we still in africa? Still “helping” them survive. Shouldn’t they have already learned how to sustain? We need our own resources for us!

    • katebushfan66

      resources… african resources are there for the taking… du-oh

  • Dave Overman

    |”The land that whites, and any people really, inhabit is deeply connected to them.”

    Gee, somebody read Mein Kampf. I’m all for protecting the beauty of the Earth, but the problem with environmentalism is the research…much of it is produced by whomever pays the most. If it weren’t so politicized it would have more respect.

    • Ed Edgerton

      Should be “whoever” in this case.

      • Dave Overman

        My undying gratitude for you keen eye for grammar. Now go eat a bowl of dick.

        • Ed Edgerton

          When I talk about saving the white race, I don’t mean people like you.

    • Yehudah Finkelstein

      Environmentalism is a lame movement that has been overrun by Jews and SWPLs. Conservationist is a better term and gets back to what people like Gifford Pinchot intended.

  • Dave Overman

    Anyone remember the Libertarian National Socialist Green Party’? Lol, I remember when they just started their website and were fumbling for a mission statement. Wait a sec, it’s probably some basement-dweller and a half dozen pals that live across the pond and never actually met each other, Amuhright?

  • Crud Bonemeal

    The good news is that many of the old school non-retarded / only semi-retarded environmentalists are now “too white”, so there will be little resistance as we move in and culturally appropriate them.

    We must become the movement for common sense preservation of the still largely unspoiled continent that our forefathers left to us, they will be forced to defend neoliberalism and paving the wilderness to build shitty houses for MOAR Mexicans.

  • Zyzz

    I like this article. I like it a lot. I think the alt right should form a set of environmental principals and beliefs. Similar to what RoK did for neomasculinity and voxday did for the alt right. Call it right won’t environmentalism (or something similar)

    I would really like to see the tenets be against corporate subsidies for “green” products. I strongly object to the idea of giving literally billions of dollars per year in the form of subsidies to companies that make literally billions of dollars per year. Be against the Paris climate accord as well – I don’t want to be tossing my money away to foreigners. He against cap and trade – let’s not artificially inflate the price of electricity. Support natural gas pipelines in New England – because natural gas is better for the environment than heating oil. Support solar and wind but only if it can stand on it own rather than only with subsidies.

    • katebushfan66

      solar and wind are cronyism.. dude… c’mon.

  • Ed Edgerton

    It should be “much in the same vein.”

  • Albionic American

    And that shows why I don’t respect the late Norman Borlaug, though many libertarians love him. For example:

    Borlaug helped to bring the white race to its current existential crisis by making tropical agriculture more productive through his plant breeding, something that the POC’s couldn’t have figured out how to do for themselves in a million years. Higher grain yields per hectare translate into more useless wogs on the planet, and more wogs just destroy the remaining natural world faster.

    By contrast, the late Earl Butz, Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Agriculture, showed a more realistic understanding of man’s natural hierarchy. He reportedly said that we wouldn’t see an overpopulation crisis if farmers just stopped planting extra crops in the first place.

  • Great article. I think Deep Green beats Deep State. IMO, If we develop a nationalist, anti-globalist front — pro-working class, pro-family, pro-White, pro-traditionalist, pro-borders, and Deep Green — we will assemble an unbeatable coalition of forces.

    • katebushfan66

      ever heard of Deep Green Resistance? that’s a true nutbar cult.

  • Albionic American

    The Chinese don’t seem to care about the environment either, given their superstitions about the health benefits of consuming the organs of wild animals that don’t even live in China. Their market for these body parts threatens to cause extinctions of species around the world:

    • Bob

      I have a friend that has a environmental company there making millions in clean up – for those who can hear… let them hear..

  • Volhalla

    In my experience, the more non-white an area is the more likely you’ll find litter and garbage along the side of the road. It’s baffling when people care more about global warming than littering and pollution.

  • A Wise Man

    Liberal Environmentalism: Less white babies and more taxes for (((Globalism)))

    Alt-Right Environmentalism: Protect the land, air, and sea from pollution, and stop fueling overpopulation in the third world.

    • Bob

      or just not not care what the 3rd world does – not our problem – no more free stuff … PAY UP..

      • katebushfan66

        agreed… enough screwing around in the 3rd world.

      • PrometheusReturns

        Or destroy the industry of the 3rd World and let their populations plummet.

        • Bob

          We should have no need to harm them – just get them out and make it clear they are on there own…

          • PrometheusReturns

            No. It’s better they’re truly on their own.

          • Bob

            What i just said?

  • Ed Edgerton

    Johnathan Haidt in “The Righteous Mind” found that the values of care, fairness, and preventing harm were associated with the left and the values of authority, sanctity, purity, and ingroup loyalty were associated with the right. The first three tend to cluster among liberals, and the last four tend to cluster among conservatives.

    It is difficult to see how natural liberals (i.e., people with the tendency towards liberal values) could commit to the alt-right, except via race-realism and HBD. In other words, they only way they could be convinced that the white race is worth saving is if they wholeheartedly believed that there was something unique about whites that was worth saving. This belief would not come from an instinct for loyalty towards ones own kind but rather a realization at the intellectual level.

    Environmentalism does not necessarily belong to one or the other set of values. It could belong to the liberal set through care and preventing harm, and it could belong to the conservative set through sanctity and purity. Most of us here probably think that saving the white race is more important than saving the environment, but we do want to save the environment as well.

  • Johnny Fascismo

    Not really related, but pretty cool.

  • Bob

    The Green Party in the EU was started by a NSDAP member… and as always the Khazar mafia came with there $$ and took it over for ZOG… Now they push all bs…

    • katebushfan66

      f*ck green.

  • katebushfan66

    Montana filmmaker J.D. King produced “Blue Beats Green” a few years ago .. his youtube channel was wiped twice when he tried to share the film for free online before the Paris Climate Summit .. I do suggest watching this film .. I don’t support being ‘green’ anything .. I’d recommend “Cloak of Green” by Elaine Dewar ~ Cdn 1995 a sadly overlooked book which documents Maurice Strong’s UN agenda / NGO incubator strategy in the 90s… Blue on vimeo…

  • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

    Environmentalism’s ultimate goal is to preserve the environment over human life.

    Yes, it’s a thoroughly sick mentality. I wonder if the author is completely immune to it, though, based on the following:

    This is a symptom of a greater issue. We as a species have over consumed the planet’s resources.

    Is the author claiming this is a problem in itself (ie apart from any other consequences it may have)? I fail to see how. The only reason those are “resources” in the first place (rather than mere lumps of matter) is because human beings have a use for them. How exactly does it matter to the planet or to nature whether there is oil in the ground or not? Nature is completely neutral towards it.

    The bigger question is why should anyone care about nature or the environment per se in the first place? The only good reason to care about nature is because it’s in our interests to. Beyond that, we should be as indifferent towards nature as nature is towards us. And frankly, nature is not merely indifferent towards our existence, it’s often actively hostile to it.

    We can all appreciate a beautiful landscape, but that’s merely nature’s surface. Scratch a bit deeper and you’ll see that most of nature is muck and ooze and violence and death, thwarting human life at every turn and utterly repugnant to our sensibilities. We’re all impressed by a majestic lion or eagle, and all our hearts are warmed by a cute little bunny rabbit, but what about spiders, mosquitoes, dust mites, bacteria, viruses? They’re all a part of nature – are we supposed to be concerned about preserving them too, quite apart from any use we might potentially have for them?

  • Arthur Vickstrom

    The land that whites, and any people really, inhabit is deeply connected to them. The European continent gave whites their features…

    One of the implications of this is that, since man is connected to the world around him, each race has a distinctive ‘habitat.’

    Is it possible that Whites begin to ‘degenerate’ when put into truly alien environments? I wonder because I have been to the hot, subtropical American South and the locals are the most obese & sickly I’ve ever met. They’re often very good people but the environment seems to be very hard on them.

    I also know an American expat who moved from Arizona to Eastern Europe and his health has made an amazing turnaround.

    • Simon_in_London

      I guess eastern Europe is closest to the Aryan/Indo-European ancestral environment. The US South is a LONG way off, I always felt sick and bloated there.

    • Bryan Caldwell

      No part of North America is sub-tropic. The tropics are delineated as between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. Not even Florida is in this zone. I live in the South (Tennessee), and it feels fine here. Europe and North America are pretty much at the same latitudes, so I think you are both mistaken. The individual who moved to E. Europe likely had an improved diet, which is why his health is better. The Standard American Diet, pushed since the 80s, relies too heavily on grains (carbs) and sugars, not enough on healthy fats. this is why people are obese, not because of environment.

      • Arthur Vickstrom

        Mate, I just googled it and Nashville is on the same line of latitude (36 degrees north) as Iraq, Syria, and Algeria. The only part of Europe on the same latitude is the Greek island of Rhodes And Tennessee is in the upper South. Places like Louisiana and coastal Georgia receive even more sun exposure.

        And large parts of America are definitely subtropic:

        But I do agree about diet being very important (although the friend I mentioned is a bit of a health nut so he was already eating well when he lived in America).

        If you guys feel attached to the South, fight for it. I’m just saying that I don’t think Brits / Northern Europeans evolved to live in that sort of place. It felt extremely alien when I was there.

        • Yehudah Finkelstein

          Latitude doesn’t tell the whole story. The impact of oceans and wind currents is also important. Northern Europe is the same latitude as Greenland and Arctic Canada but has much warmer weather due to the moderating effect of the Gulf Stream.

          But yes, your point stands. The Gulf Coast is subtropical and Miami/Florida Keys certainly are tropical climates. Hello, the Everglades are a giant fucking swamp!

          The best climate in America is along the California coast.

      • Yehudah Finkelstein

        What? The Florida Keys and Miami are certainly subtropical. The weather along the entire Gulf Coast is also hot, humid and sucks ass.

        • Bryan Caldwell

          Look at a map. Not even the Keys are in the tropics. Hot and humid does not equate to tropical.

  • kamenetz

    Good article. I might add that us Deplorables/rednecks, etc… Are very environmentally friendly in other ways which also improve personal health as well. I can’t tell the last time I had any processed meat. All my meat consumption is 100% organic by way of my rifle or shotgun!

  • Yehudah Finkelstein

    Madison Grant (who had his flaws due to espousing Nordicism), Lothrop Stoddard, and the American father of conservationism Gifford Pinchot were all explicitly pro white. The only places environmental protection laws happened prior to the Industrial Revolution were German Franconia and Feudal Japan. Conservationism is literally in our DNA and is about celebrating and preserving something greater than McDonald’s, car factories, and oil derricks.

  • Ajudeo

    “We as a species have over consumed the planet’s resources.”

    Not a Scientific Statement…….

    That’s a Religious Statement………

    If the Human Species goes Extinct due to its own Mistakes……..then it goes Extinct…….

    The Universe doesn’t care………AT ALL………

    Climate Change is Natural and has been happening since the Climate first formed……..

    The Evolution of Cyanobacteria changed the Climate……..

    Without Cyanobacteria…….we wouldn’t be here…….

    If some Percent of Climate Change is Anthropogenic…….it’s still Natural…….because Homosapiens are part of the Natural World……

    Plants, Phytoplankton, Cows……..all Natural……..are part of the Dynamic Biosphere and also contribute to Climate Change……

    And Strangely……

    NASA Data shows that Sea Levels are Falling……


    But, cutting off First World Aid to the Third World…….

    100% Completely Support this…….

    Although it will be White Christians to F it up……..EVERY TIME…….


  • Ajudeo

    Resources change over time…….

    Who knows??……

    The Exponential Birth Rate of Africans might lead to a New Resource in the Future…….



    Just a Joke, Everyone……


  • Marshall Lentini

    How can people who think climate change is a “Marxist lie” conserve the environment? and so, somehow, squandering of resources and climate change are totally different?
    Total hypocrisy and confused half-ideas.

    • Ajudeo

      How can people who think Evolution is a “Marxist Lie” conserve the Environment?

      You Doubt the GREATNESS of the Biosphere……..


    • Yehudah Finkelstein

      Most people accept climate change but have problems with the solutions like the Paris Accord that would have basically fucked over white countries while giving the heathen Chinee and Dot Indians another 15 years to prime the pumps of their economies with cheap, high pollution energy.

      • silviosilver ✓ᵀʳᵘᵐᵖ ˢᵘᵖᵖᵒʳᵗᵉʳ

        Also, you have people like me who accept that the climate may change, but are skeptical that this will necessarily be catastrophic.

  • Billy Brown

    bomb their food supplies and let nature reign

  • Endymion

    Keep mentioning this. It is imperative that we drive this point home.