TheyLovedBloodand Soil but Not the Mind 219GeorgeL. Mosseelucidateson howthe environmentalismof twentieth-centuryWest-
ernersandNazis,alike,originatedwiththe nineteenth-centuryVolkishmovement’s fet-
ish overthe undevelopedwildhabitat—“Manwas seennot as a vanquisherof nature,nor
washe creditedwiththe abilityto penetratethe meaningof natureby applyingthe tools
of reason;insteadhe wasglorifiedas livingin accordancewith... mysticalforces.In this
way,insteadof beingencouraged” to contemplatethe propertiesof his ownrelationship
with“urbanizationandindustrialization,manwasenticedto retreatintoa ruralnostal-
gia. Notwithinthe city,but in the landscape,the countrysidenativeto him,wasman
fatedto mergewithand becomerootedin natureand the Volk.Andonlyin this process,
takingplacein the nativeenvironment,wouldeveryman” be ableto attachsomemean-
ing to his existence.^135
Are Youfor Riehl?
Onenineteenth-centuryMunichprofessor,WilhelmHeinrichRihel,wouldprovide
inspirationbothto the Volkishmovementandto the twentieth-centuryGermanGreen
Party.He did so throughhis treatiseLandund Leute(Placesand People), pennedbetween
1857 and 1863.Mossetellsus that Riehl“discussedthe organicnatureof a Volkwhichhe
claimedcouldbe attainedonlyif it fusedwiththe nativelandscape.... The cultureof a
Volk,” whichwasto worshipthe untrammeledwilderness,“waspositedas the very
oppositeof a mechanicalandmaterialisticcivilization.Riehlrejectedall artificialityand
definedmodernityas a naturecontrivedby manand thusdevoidof thatgenuinenessto
whichlivingnaturealonegivesmeaning.Sucha contrivance—a city and its factories,for
example—wasseenas lackinggenuineness.... For Riehl,as wellas for subsequent
Volkishthinkers,” nothingbut the inhumanwildernesswas“genuine,sinceit wasin-
fusedwithboththe life forceand historicalmeaningfor the Volk.Anymerelyman-made
improvementuponit woulddestroythe ordainedmeaningof nature.. .” AndMosse
continues,“Startingoncemorewiththe idealof nature,Riehlheldup the unspoiled
countrysideas the modelfor the socialstructurehe desired.” MossewritesthatRiehl
estimatedthe bourgeoisieto be “a disruptiveelement” thatwas“composedmainlyof
merchantsand industrialistswhohad no closeconnection” to the divinewilderness.
To Riehl andother Volkish thinkers “the citycame to symbolizethe industrial
progressand modernitythat all adherentsto the Volkishideologyrejected.... Riehl,who
wascreditedwiththisapocalypticvision,criticizedbig citiesfor wantingto become
internationalurbancenters.. .” Continuingthe summary,MossewritesthatRiehlfeared
that the cosmopolitanbourgeoisiewould“exercisea suzeraintyovera worldin whichall
thatwasnaturalhadbeendestroyed.. .” Revilingindividualism,Riehlheldin high
regardthe utopiancollectivistcommunitiesstartedby the likesof the wealthyRobert
Owen—the precursorsto our ownera’s hippiecommunes.As MosseparaphrasesRiehl,
an individualshouldaspireto havinghis economicoutput“sharedby all his fellows,” as
thatwouldresultin cultural“simplicity,removalof the frustrationsinflictedby an artifi-
cial urbanwayof life, genuinenessof emotionsand theiruninhibitedexpression,and the
rewarding sense of belongingwithin both a historicallyand cosmicallysanctioned
whole.” As Mossedescribesthe Volkishcollectivistcommunes,“The utopiaswereeffec-
tivelyremovedfromthe real world,ruralislandsin a sea of industrialization.Basicto the
utopianmovementwasthe urgeto returnto the land.It embodiedan effortto rootthe
naturalrhythm,thatsoothedthe discordof urbanlife.Theappealwasleveledat city
dwellers,at disgruntledintellectualsandeducators,peoplewhohadideologicallyde-
clinedpositiveidentificationin urbanlife preciselybecausetheyrejectedthe valuesof
modernity.It wasspurredon by a doublepurpose:to escapethe debilitatingeffectsof
city andindustryandto reconstitutethe Volkandthe race.... the utopiansettlements