What Does it Mean to be Green? 


The only time my Dad, a working class but aspirational patriot who through hard work rose to a middle management position, ever voted anything but Conservative, he voted Green. It was only once, I think, during the Major years. 

My Dad loved the countryside. He was a South Londoner but moved out to Essex. When he was a young boy, which would have been in the 1950s, he had a relative who owned a farm, and I think he remembered visits there as a highlight of his childhood. His patriotism and his decency were wrapped up in the love of green fields, rolling hills, long walks and country lanes. We were never ‘country people’ in the sense of working on the land or having the practical skills of country folk who still made their living by farming or similar occupations but respecting the countryside and the people in it was a key part of the lessons he gave me. 

This was what being Green meant to me, and what I see as authentic ‘Green’ thinking. It was about loving and preserving the beautiful scenes which are the result of the interaction of man and nature in harmony, over centuries. It was about feeling freer when outdoors, more soothed when looking at the shadows of clouds passing over fields of wheat, more alive when crunching through the snow on a Christmas walk. I cannot conceive of a patriotism that does not include love of the British countryside and its remarkable, for want of a better word, diversity. The diversity of Nature, I mean, rather than the ideological crusades of the present. 

I have yet to hear of, or meet, a single official Green politician, journalist, or activist, who has this love of nation and the literal roots of the nation in the soil and scenes that define us. I don’t know of one of them who actually loves the countryside or country people. So perhaps we should look at what Green means to them. 

It is, as with everything, the opposite of what it claims to be, and has now seized the Conservative Party in its grip as well as the mainstream media and most powerful institutions. Do we ever hear them talk about farming, or the British countryside and its unique character? Do they tell us that the bones of their ancestors lie in these fields, and how could they not love what their father’s loved? No. If they ever mention real country people, not just farm workers but everyone who lives in a village without it being their second holiday home, it is with scorn and contempt. They hate country people, and they hate the countryside. Do they want to preserve it? Well, no, they want to make it ‘more accessible for ethnic minorities’ or ‘more representative of modern Britain’. And they want an extra 100,000 or 200,000 or 300,000 homes built every year, until there is not a single green space left between endless stretches of concrete. They want London to cover the whole of England, and rural Essex or rural Devon or rural Cumbria to be like Birmingham and Manchester and any other metropolis. With the same different demographic, the same displaced original people, the same attitudes and assumptions, the same crime and litter. This is their ‘Green’. 

But it actually gets worse than that. Because their ‘green’ is very close, in all practical terms, to another little word with only one letter of difference. Their Green is their Greed. They set up ‘green’ companies, and then they push government to pursue ‘green’ policies which are the only ways in which these companies, selling primarily forms of energy that are expensive, inefficient and half-baked, become profitable. They force a switch from reliable and secure energy, cheap energy, successful industry, perfected technology that raises the standards of living of every household, to untested experiments, ill-conceived ideological goals, and inefficient, haphazard and unreliable technologies that are only good at making them richer through increased taxation and set aside grants and endowments we pay for. They tax us more to provide us with fuel shortages, energy shortages, and homes that we cannot afford to make warm or bright or comfortable anymore. 

The Green of today, including our loathsome Prime Minister, is a person who has a deep detestation of their fellow man, and a total disregard for their own  country. Green is not caring about specific fields and places and people. It is about grinding those people to dust beneath increased taxes. It is about turning their country into a concrete wilderness inhabited by feral strangers. It is about corruption and profit and hypocrisy. It is about signalling virtue whilst ignoring cobalt mines and lithium mines and child slavery abroad, which all create the lovely electric cars they piously worship. It is about denying everything pleasant or useful or improving of life, from ease of travel to beautiful places to heated homes, to your countrymen and women whilst you do not suffer, but profit. 

And it is even wrapped up, now, in two ideologies which, examined with the kind of wisdom that comes from the real love of Nature, are manifestly evil. These are the apocalyptic cult of climate change, one of the most irrational ideas ever to pose in the garment of Science, and the equally absurd and unnatural theory of transhumanism, the desire to radically alter, through science, mankind’s behaviour and biology, our very DNA. Both of these lead to the casual adoption of a genocidal mindset which considers the mass of mankind too burdensome to sustain and which talks, as if it were a moral thing, about the rapid reduction of the human population. Rather than being an expression of human love for Nature, the kind my father had, modern Green views being pushed on us now depend upon a detestation of humanity itself.

Daniel Jupp is the author of A Gift for Treason: The Cultural Marxist Assault on Western Civilisation, which was published in 2019. He has had previous articles published by Spiked, The Spectator and Politicalite, and is a married father of two from Essex.