The environment has moved increasingly into a mainstream debate over the last 30 years, so it is not a surprise that the extreme right have sought to engage on the topic. Their engagement actually goes back quite a number of decades, back when ecology was gaining ground in the 1970s. But how do the extreme right talk about it? And why?
When the extreme right engage with environmental discourse, they do so using the language that seems quite moderate and mainstream – they talk about pollution, about clean air and about leaving a planet for our children. We have even see extreme right groups put forward proposals for green cities, green transport and other ideas. Of course, it is important to note we also see the extreme right engage in campaigns against environmental measures. For example, in recent years the extreme right have latched onto campaigns against things like 15-minute cities.
As with many things in the extreme right, this use of mainstreamed language is done as it makes their ideas instantly accessible to the public – but also they use it in quite concept-dense ways that, for those ‘in the know’, transmits a different message. For example, where the extreme right talk about pollution they blur and mix the concepts of pollution as the mainstream would understand it, soot particles and other man-made chemicals which cloud the air or cause harm, with their own preferred narratives. In this case, the extreme right uses the idea of pollution of the race (through things like interracial relationships) and even the concept of pollution of society (the existence of a multi-racial Britain) when they talk about pollution. So those rather extreme ideas hide within their use of the mainstream language around environmentalism, and allow them to infiltrate mainstream spaces.
Some of the proposals they support is also a cross over to existing policies – in the 1990s we saw extreme right support in Britain for the emphasis on local food, local communities and local democracy. For the extreme right, these local communities would be culturally homogenous white groups and allow for the exclusion of non-white and non-British groups – not the intent of the original proposals. So it isn’t just adapting their own language to fit into the mainstream, but at times mainstream language drifts towards terms they are already using.
The extreme right have also taken advantage of existing public schemes. Just as we have seen a rise of civil society groups promoting community litter picking, so we have seen the extreme right engage in quite public acts of litter picking and clean up. Fly tipping has been targeted, rivers and walking routes cleaned – and such events are framed as welcoming spaces for others to join them in, seemingly apolitical spaces but where recruitment and radicalisation can occur. In a later blog, I will explore this outdoor focus in more detail.
Where the extreme right ends up opposing environmental projects, like the 15-minute cities, it is often done so without talking about the environmental nature. For the 15-minute cities, they claim environmentalism is not the purpose but instead it is about control of the people – the demographic re-organisation they claim is a plan of the New World Order. This not only means they can have consistency in opposing these plans while also supporting environmentalism, but they can present themselves as the ‘true’ environmentalists while suggesting mainstream politicians are only using it as a smoke screen to cover evil intent.
It cannot be said that the extreme right’s narrative around environmentalism is not necessarily genuine, but the way they understand it is very different to the mainstream despite using the same or similar language. Equally, it has to be emphasised that the extreme right are just as fringe within environmentalism as they are within mainstream society, they are certainly not a major force. However these concept-dense narratives that they create, and hide in mainstream language, mean that when exploring people’s risk of radicalisation you need to always probe a little when these concepts come up – what do they mean by the terms they are using? Seemingly standard concerns like pollution or environmental damage can hide much more troubling beliefs.
