| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Deep Ecology: Green Nazism
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Deep Ecology: Green Nazism

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Deep Ecology: Green Nazism
    Posted: 15 Feb 2011 at 01:27
If someone believes the ecological movements are spontaneous, they should be better informed.
At the core of that movement is "Deep Ecology". A doctrine that teaches a worldwiew which is not necesarily scientific. I will remark the more dangerous ideas in this political doctrine.

In further postings, we should analize how Nazism is related with this doctrine, and the risks for the world peace it carries.

Let's start by seen those principles.

The eight principles of Deep Ecology:

THE EIGHT PRINCIPLES OF DEEP ECOLOGY
Revised January 21, 2000
as written by Arne Naess and George Sessions

1. The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes.

(A very anti-humanist principle. Trees are as important as human beings)

2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.

(Something that is not sustainable by science. It is a dogma)

3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.

(Another dogma)

4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires such a decrease.

(Here we go. The goal is the depopulation of the world to reach the eco-lunatic Nirvana)

5. Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.

(Another dogma. Preaching the Apocallipsis is typical of any religion)

6. Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.

(In other words, eco-lunatics want the control of it all)

7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating quality (dwelling in situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.

(Here it goes again. The preaching of a eco-lunatic society that control the minds of its subjects)

8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.

(Calling for the formation of the troops)

Where are these ideas comming from? Heiddeger anyone?


Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Feb 2011 at 01:40
Fascist ecology: The origins of the ecological movement in Nazism.

The complete article can be seen here:
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html


Fascist Ecology:
The "Green Wing" of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents

Peter Staudenmaier

    "We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole . . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought." 1

In our zeal to condemn the status quo, radicals often carelessly toss about epithets like "fascist" and "ecofascist," thus contributing to a sort of conceptual inflation that in no way furthers effective social critique. In such a situation, it is easy to overlook the fact that there are still virulent strains of fascism in our political culture which, however marginal, demand our attention. One of the least recognized or understood of these strains is the phenomenon one might call "actually existing ecofascism," that is, the preoccupation of authentically fascist movements with environmentalist concerns. In order to grasp the peculiar intensity and endurance of this affiliation, we would do well to examine more closely its most notorious historical incarnation, the so-called "green wing" of German National Socialism.

Despite an extensive documentary record, the subject remains an elusive one, underappreciated by professional historians and environmental activists alike. In English-speaking countries as well as in Germany itself, the very existence of a "green wing" in the Nazi movement, much less its inspiration, goals, and consequences, has yet to be adequately researched and analyzed. Most of the handful of available interpretations succumb to either an alarming intellectual affinity with their subject." 2 or a naive refusal to examine the full extent of the "ideological overlap between nature conservation and National Socialism." 3 This article presents a brief and necessarily schematic overview of the ecological components of Nazism, emphasizing both their central role in Nazi ideology and their practical implementation during the Third Reich. A preliminary survey of nineteenth and twentieth century precursors to classical ecofascism should serve to illuminate the conceptual underpinnings common to all forms of reactionary ecology.

Two initial clarifications are in order. First, the terms "environmental" and "ecological" are here used more or less interchangeably to denote ideas, attitudes, and practices commonly associated with the contemporary environmental movement. This is not an anachronism; it simply indicates an interpretive approach which highlights connections to present-day concerns. Second, this approach is not meant to endorse the historiographically discredited notion that pre-1933 historical data can or should be read as "leading inexorably" to the Nazi calamity. Rather, our concern here is with discerning ideological continuities and tracing political genealogies, in an attempt to understand the past in light of our current situation -- to make history relevant to the present social and ecological crisis.
The Roots of the Blood and Soil Mystique

Germany is not only the birthplace of the science of ecology and the site of Green politics' rise to prominence; it has also been home to a peculiar synthesis of naturalism and nationalism forged under the influence of the Romantic tradition's anti-Enlightenment irrationalism. Two nineteenth century figures exemplify this ominous conjunction: Ernst Moritz Arndt and Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl.

While best known in Germany for his fanatical nationalism, Arndt was also dedicated to the cause of the peasantry, which lead him to a concern for the welfare of the land itself. Historians of German environmentalism mention him as the earliest example of 'ecological' thinking in the modern sense. 4 His remarkable 1815 article On the Care and Conservation of Forests, written at the dawn of industrialization in Central Europe, rails against shortsighted exploitation of woodlands and soil, condemning deforestation and its economic causes. At times he wrote in terms strikingly similar to those of contemporary biocentrism: "When one sees nature in a necessary connectedness and interrelationship, then all things are equally important -- shrub, worm, plant, human, stone, nothing first or last, but all one single unity." 5

Arndt's environmentalism, however, was inextricably bound up with virulently xenophobic nationalism. His eloquent and prescient appeals for ecological sensitivity were couched always in terms of the well-being of the German soil and the German people, and his repeated lunatic polemics against miscegenation, demands for teutonic racial purity, and epithets against the French, Slavs, and Jews marked every aspect of his thought. At the very outset of the nineteenth century the deadly connection between love of land and militant racist nationalism was firmly set in place.

Riehl, a student of Arndt, further developed this sinister tradition. In some respects his 'green' streak went significantly deeper than Arndt's; presaging certain tendencies in recent environmental activism, his 1853 essay Field and Forest ended with a call to fight for "the rights of wilderness." But even here nationalist pathos set the tone: "We must save the forest, not only so that our ovens do not become cold in winter, but also so that the pulse of life of the people continues to beat warm and joyfully, so that Germany remains German." 6 Riehl was an implacable opponent of the rise of industrialism and urbanization; his overtly antisemitic glorification of rural peasant values and undifferentiated condemnation of modernity established him as the "founder of agrarian romanticism and anti-urbanism." 7

These latter two fixations matured in the second half of the nineteenth century in the context of the völkisch movement, a powerful cultural disposition and social tendency which united ethnocentric populism with nature mysticism. At the heart of the völkisch temptation was a pathological response to modernity. In the face of the very real dislocations brought on by the triumph of industrial capitalism and national unification, völkisch thinkers preached a return to the land, to the simplicity and wholeness of a life attuned to nature's purity. The mystical effusiveness of this perverted utopianism was matched by its political vulgarity. While "the Volkish movement aspired to reconstruct the society that was sanctioned by history, rooted in nature, and in communion with the cosmic life spirit," 8 it pointedly refused to locate the sources of alienation, rootlessness and environmental destruction in social structures, laying the blame instead to rationalism, cosmopolitanism, and urban civilization. The stand-in for all of these was the age-old object of peasant hatred and middle-class resentment: the Jews. "The Germans were in search of a mysterious wholeness that would restore them to primeval happiness, destroying the hostile milieu of urban industrial civilization that the Jewish conspiracy had foisted on them." 9

Reformulating traditional German antisemitism into nature-friendly terms, the völkisch movement carried a volatile amalgam of nineteenth century cultural prejudices, Romantic obsessions with purity, and anti-Enlightenment sentiment into twentieth century political discourse. The emergence of modern ecology forged the final link in the fateful chain which bound together aggressive nationalism, mystically charged racism, and environmentalist predilections. In 1867 the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel coined the term 'ecology' and began to establish it as a scientific discipline dedicated to studying the interactions between organism and environment. Haeckel was also the chief popularizer of Darwin and evolutionary theory for the German-speaking world, and developed a peculiar sort of social darwinist philosophy he called 'monism.' The German Monist League he founded combined scientifically based ecological holism with völkisch social views. Haeckel believed in nordic racial superiority, strenuously opposed race mixing and enthusiastically supported racial eugenics. His fervent nationalism became fanatical with the onset of World War I, and he fulminated in antisemitic tones against the post-war Council Republic in Bavaria.

In this way "Haeckel contributed to that special variety of German thought which served as the seed bed for National Socialism. He became one of Germany's major ideologists for racism, nationalism and imperialism." 10 Near the end of his life he joined the Thule Society, "a secret, radically right-wing organization which played a key role in the establishment of the Nazi movement." 11 But more than merely personal continuities are at stake here. The pioneer of scientific ecology, along with his disciples Willibald Hentschel, Wilhelm Bölsche and Bruno Wille, profoundly shaped the thinking of subsequent generations of environmentalists by embedding concern for the natural world in a tightly woven web of regressive social themes. From its very beginnings, then, ecology was bound up in an intensely reactionary political framework.

The specific contours of this early marriage of ecology and authoritarian social views are highly instructive. At the center of this ideological complex is the direct, unmediated application of biological categories to the social realm. Haeckel held that "civilization and the life of nations are governed by the same laws as prevail throughout nature and organic life." 12 This notion of 'natural laws' or 'natural order' has long been a mainstay of reactionary environmental thought. Its concomitant is anti-humanism:

    Thus, for the Monists, perhaps the most pernicious feature of European bourgeois civilization was the inflated importance which it attached to the idea of man in general, to his existence and to his talents, and to the belief that through his unique rational faculties man could essentially recreate the world and bring about a universally more harmonious and ethically just social order. [Humankind was] an insignificant creature when viewed as part of and measured against the vastness of the cosmos and the overwhelming forces of nature. 13

Other Monists extended this anti-humanist emphasis and mixed it with the traditional völkisch motifs of indiscriminate anti-industrialism and anti-urbanism as well as the newly emerging pseudo-scientific racism. The linchpin, once again, was the conflation of biological and social categories. The biologist Raoul Francé, founding member of the Monist League, elaborated so-called Lebensgesetze, 'laws of life' through which the natural order determines the social order. He opposed racial mixing, for example, as "unnatural." Francé is acclaimed by contemporary ecofascists as a "pioneer of the ecology movement." 14

Francé's colleague Ludwig Woltmann, another student of Haeckel, insisted on a biological interpretation for all societal phenomena, from cultural attitudes to economic arrangements. He stressed the supposed connection between environmental purity and 'racial' purity: "Woltmann took a negative attitude toward modern industrialism. He claimed that the change from an agrarian to an industrial society had hastened the decline of the race. In contrast to nature, which engendered the harmonic forms of Germanism, there were the big cities, diabolical and inorganic, destroying the virtues of the race." 15

Thus by the early years of the twentieth century a certain type of 'ecological' argumentation, saturated with right-wing political content, had attained a measure of respectability within the political culture of Germany. During the turbulent period surrounding World War I, the mixture of ethnocentric fanaticism, regressive rejection of modernity and genuine environmental concern proved to be a very potent potion indeed.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Feb 2011 at 02:09
Heiddeger, the Nazi, in his friends:



A paper on Heiddeger and Deep Ecology. The link is exposed.

http://www.colorado.edu/ArtsSciences/CHA/profiles/zimmpdf/heidegger_deep_ecology.pdf




Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Feb 2011 at 05:21
There's something about the German language and metaphysics that makes the mixture explosive. On the other hand Metaphysics always ends up seeming silly in English and impenetrable in French. In neither Britain no France does it seem to do much harm.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Feb 2011 at 06:11

I find the idea that "green" or "ecological" movements in general should be a sort of "nazism" without much substance. Certain groups tend to label everyone they dislike "nazis".

Another thing: I think there is great difference between sympathy for persons and sympathy "for humanity". I am a bit sceptic about the later, and especially what is its meaning.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Feb 2011 at 08:47
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

I find the idea that "green" or "ecological" movements in general should be a sort of "nazism" without much substance. Certain groups tend to label everyone they dislike "nazis".

The links are shown above. Just read the refferences to convince yourself.


Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Another thing: I think there is great difference between sympathy for persons and sympathy "for humanity". I am a bit sceptic about the later, and especially what is its meaning.

Humanism is an ideology. The single ideology that put the human at the center of our universe. Other ideologies put other things at the center:

(1) Nazism, the center is the race.

(2) Communism, the center is the group.

(3) Nationalism: the center is the country.

(4) Religion: the center is God.

(5) Ecologism: the center is nature.

In a certain way, you can see the ideological conflicts of the last centuries, that produced so much hate and dead, as a fight between anti-human versus humanist ideologies. When the center is not the human kind, anything can happen with humans.




Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Feb 2011 at 09:22
I agree much with Fantasus and say this is kinda BS and the "green nazi party" was never huge during the actual Third Reich and never existed; its a modern movement and one that in itself probably only has a couple readers with a website. Its unfair to associate the two "movements" as inherently "Nazi" and say that these individuals rather than the "whole" of Nazism believe these beliefs. Yeah Hitler "made efforts" to do environmental things and so on.

Edited by Joe - 15 Feb 2011 at 09:23
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Feb 2011 at 09:29
Indeed. The Deep Ecology is a dangerous movement, given the fact nobody believes in its origins.

The key is here:

"Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole . . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought."

Putting nature on top of humanity is the key. Nazis tried theirs eugenics and genocidal programs to "help nature". You can see the common link there.

Today, these same ideologists want to reduce population in a 99%. How they are going to achieve that? By castration, massive suicide, or simply by resorting to theirs old method: the gas chambers?


Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Feb 2011 at 09:40
Yeah but to say that any movement that advocates death is inherently Nazi is also ridiculous. Just cause the Nazis say "One People One leader one country" during the third reich and stuff like the 14 words today "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." is really the "key" of what they believe. The idea of destroying Jews came out of the war itself. I think the nazis actually saw what they were doing by taking Poland for Prussia was "legitimate" and nobody would "do anything anyway". Nazism is based on contradictions; Jews are considered a parasite, rats, cockroachs, lowest of the low and yet still extremely dangerous. The idea is that theres "Aryan blood" and "other races". So it really comes down to a strong identification with peoples from a "certain region" and a mistrust and a propagation of hatred for "outsiders".

This other movement you speak of is not like the Nazis in anyway. Saying "these sames ideologists" is a simplification and doesn't speak of the Nazi movement. Even if there was people in the Nazi movement that transcribed to these beliefs of "99 percent of the world" should perish or whatever. Hitler wanted to be Augustus "To build an empire of a thousand years". One people one fuhrer one empire.

Its ridiculous to take a few rare individuals who meant nothing and twist them into "importance".


Edited by Joe - 15 Feb 2011 at 09:41
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Feb 2011 at 10:03
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

I find the idea that "green" or "ecological" movements in general should be a sort of "nazism" without much substance. Certain groups tend to label everyone they dislike "nazis".

The links are shown above. Just read the refferences to convince yourself.


Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

Another thing: I think there is great difference between sympathy for persons and sympathy "for humanity". I am a bit sceptic about the later, and especially what is its meaning.

Humanism is an ideology. The single ideology that put the human at the center of our universe. Other ideologies put other things at the center:

(1) Nazism, the center is the race.

(2) Communism, the center is the group.

(3) Nationalism: the center is the country.

(4) Religion: the center is God.

(5) Ecologism: the center is nature.

In a certain way, you can see the ideological conflicts of the last centuries, that produced so much hate and dead, as a fight between anti-human versus humanist ideologies. When the center is not the human kind, anything can happen with humans.





My scepticism towards the idea of "the human" has increased as I grew older. I see humanity as diverse, a multitude. Can it (or we) then be at the center? Of course we can each put a specific human being at the center, and many people (all?) are a bit self centered. After all each individual is a human being, so why not put the individual he/she know most about in a central position?
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7823
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Feb 2011 at 10:37

Originally posted by Pengiun Pengiun wrote:

1. The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes.

It is not possible to fully understand interactions between the human and non-human world. I trust you're not questioning that the well-being of humans should be a human priority, so it is prudent to be highly cautious of what we do to non-humans because we may not understand their actual usefulness to us!
Quote 2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.

(Something that is not sustainable by science. It is a dogma)


That is supported ad nauseum by scientific findings. Monocultures farming does not produce as much food per acre as a diverse environment (it is however much less labor intensive). Bio-diversity is essential to good soil and good water management. Inedible plants assist the growth of edible plants.
Quote 5. Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.

(Another dogma. Preaching the Apocallipsis is typical of any religion)


If you live in a big city, then all you see is human-made things, and it is easy to form this opinion.
Probably my opinion is also biased against this statement by living in an area of low population density.
Quote 7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating quality (dwelling in situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living.

Surely quality of dwellings is just a subset of standard of living?
Quote Fascist Ecology:
The "Green Wing" of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents

So what if some Nazi's had this opinion. They also started Volkswagen, would you rally against them using the same arguement?

Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Feb 2011 at 10:40
I think its easy fodder to say the Nazis "did something" and they believed it. so this modern group is "like" the Nazis. 
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Feb 2011 at 11:24
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

So what if some Nazi's had this opinion. They also started Volkswagen, would you rally against them using the same arguement?


Indeed, Nazis developed the technology to put man in the Moon, with Von Braun. Von Braun was acussed to use slave labour in his rocket facilities in Nazi Germany, but nobody cared about it.
A nazi composer Karl Orf wrote Carmina Burana. A piece of music that delighted Hitler. Confused
Heiddeger, a Nazi, is considered the top phylosopher of the 20th century Shocked
And Nazis made the basis of the Deep Ecology movement. Confused God help us!
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Feb 2011 at 11:30
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

I think its easy fodder to say the Nazis "did something" and they believed it. so this modern group is "like" the Nazis. 


I am not saying Deep Ecologists are "LIKE" the Nazis. What I am saying is the ideology of Deep Ecology has its roots in the Nazi thought. What I am saying is that Deep Ecologists aren't LIKE Nazis, they ARE Nazis.

Please, make the distintion between the average rational ecologists and the fanatics of the Deep Ecology movement. It is the latter who are in control, I am afraid, and the radicals among them are a dangerous bunch.

Ecofascism anyone?

Food for thought.

Nazi and Fascist views on ecology

Historian of fascism Roger Griffin has noted, in an essay on the relationship between fascism, religion and nature that "the place which a transformed relationship to nature occupies within the fascist scheme for national regeneration as well as the role played in it by pagan, "immanentist" or cultic concepts of nature can vary enormously depending on which species of the genus is considered".

In 1935, the Nazi regime enacted the "Reich Nature Protection Act". While not a purely Nazi piece of legislation, as parts of its influences pre-dated the Nazi rise to power, it nevertheless reflected Nazi ideology. The concept of the Dauerwald (best translated as the "perpetual forest") which included concepts such as forest management and protection was promoted and efforts were also made to curb air pollution.

Admiration of nature was a strong theme of the German Nazi party and the Wagnerian German romanticism that predated it, and is also a key issue for some modern fascist movements. The Nazi government also investigated sustainable forestry.

Anna Bramwell claims that Nazi Germany was the first country in Europe to create wilderness reserves. This is described as a "gross error" by Frank Uekötter. There were in fact nature reserves in 1838 in the Czech part of Austria-Hungary for example. In fact, the first nature reserves were in Finland at the start of the 1800s. During their rise to power, the Nazis were supported by German environmentalists and conservationists, but environmental issues were gradually pushed aside in the build-up to the Second World War.

By contrast, non-German forms of fascism for the most part lacked any noteworthy ecological strand. One exception was the peasant-based Iron Guard of Romania, who saw capitalism, which they associated with Jewry, as being destructive to both the Romanian countryside and their Orthodox Christian culture. Elsewhere in Europe, ecological concerns were found individually rather than collectively, e.g. Julius Evola, an Italian writer and supporter of the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini, who wrote books glorifying a primitive state of nature and denouncing modernity. Griffin has argued that "fascism repeatedly generates images which evoke a specious kinship with a "panenhenistic" communion with nature"  as a means of mobilising members of the fascists' ethnic group to the cause of ultranationalism. He cites the glorification of wilderness in Nazi art and the ruralist novels of fascist supporters Knut Hamsun and Henry Williamson as examples of this.[1] Some have associated French Esoteric Hitlerist and Hindu convert Savitri Devi with ecofascism, due to her support for animal rights and vegetarianism, which she linked to a condemnation of Jewish dietary practices.


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Feb 2011 at 11:38
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

...
My scepticism towards the idea of "the human" has increased as I grew older. I see humanity as diverse, a multitude. Can it (or we) then be at the center? Of course we can each put a specific human being at the center, and many people (all?) are a bit self centered. After all each individual is a human being, so why not put the individual he/she know most about in a central position?


Of course, the individual is in the center, but also the family is central, as larger human groups as well, like the country, the culture and the whole world of people. What is important is to keep a ballance between these "centers".

In this point of view, preserving nature is important for the well being of humanity. There is not other reason at all to preserve it. Humans need nature, whales and rustic places simply to keep a mental equilibrium which is not possible in Asimov's Caves of Steel... Confused
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Feb 2011 at 17:56
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:

...
My scepticism towards the idea of "the human" has increased as I grew older. I see humanity as diverse, a multitude. Can it (or we) then be at the center? Of course we can each put a specific human being at the center, and many people (all?) are a bit self centered. After all each individual is a human being, so why not put the individual he/she know most about in a central position?


Of course, the individual is in the center, but also the family is central, as larger human groups as well, like the country, the culture and the whole world of people. What is important is to keep a ballance between these "centers".

In this point of view, preserving nature is important for the well being of humanity. There is not other reason at all to preserve it. Humans need nature, whales and rustic places simply to keep a mental equilibrium which is not possible in Asimov's Caves of Steel... Confused

I have some problems with that! 1: why should all other creatures be there only for humans? 2: does such a multitude of "centres"  make sense? 3:what does "balancing" those "centres" mean more precisely?4: Science can hardly justify giving humans a central position of humans i the larger universe, so there must be other reasons  to do so.5: Do we have to "humanise" the world as much as possible? "Humanise" here means recreating the world as much as possible to fit  "human" - or rather societies ends. As many humans - and their artifacts as possible everywhere.
6:  "sympathy for the human race" may easily be a veil hiding the real not so pleasant relationships between humans(humans can be our enemies, but how can non-humans be?). 7: The idea that humans should multiply and spread (not least in the Bible) may seem a bit anachronistic - in this age we may consider we may have spread and multiplied enough. While we may have friends, people we like and sometimes even love, how many can say they like or love crowds? And there again some humans may dislike a lot of people, or even nearly everyone. Why then add to the numbers of coming generations?
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Feb 2011 at 21:22
Let us also not forget that "green" thoughts about conservation and about living in harmony with nature existed before there were any Nazis. National parks and other reserves, protection of species and thoughts about the intrinsic values of nature and animals existed long before the Nazis and has developed mostly without any admixture of Nazi thoughts and ideology.

Edited by Carcharodon - 15 Feb 2011 at 21:38
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Feb 2011 at 21:45
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Let us also not forget that "green" thoughts about conservation and about living in harmony with nature existed before there were any Nazis. National parks and other reserves, protection of species and thoughts about the intrinsic values of nature and animals existed long before the Nazis and has developed mostly without any admixture of Nazi thoughts and ideology.


Indeed. However, remember that here I am criticizing Deep Ecology, also known as Ecofascism. I am not critizing ecology in general, at all, but the extreme ideas of some fanatics.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Feb 2011 at 21:58
Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


I have some problems with that! 1: why should all other creatures be there only for humans? 2: does such a multitude of "centres"  make sense? 3:what does "balancing" those "centres" mean more precisely?4: Science can hardly justify giving humans a central position of humans i the larger universe, so there must be other reasons  to do so.5: Do we have to "humanise" the world as much as possible?


First, Science is not a religion. Science is just the study of the physical facts of the world. Science is not moral either, as you can see by studying the thousand of human right violations commited by scientists. Scientists that worked not only for Nazi Germany, but also for the U.S.S.R, China and even Israel (remember the case of the irradiated Sephardite children)

Humanism is an ideology that put man in the center, instead of God, the country or the people, or nature. Humanism say man is the measure of all things. You can't have higher goals that protecting humanity and the rights of every single man in planet earth.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't protect nature. Not at all. But it means we shouldn't exterminate humans to protect it.


By the way, nature is not a moral entity either. In nature the law of the stronger and the survival of the fittest is the real law. If humans copy the laws of nature we are back into genocidal ideologies, like Nazism.

Originally posted by fantasus fantasus wrote:


"Humanise" here means recreating the world as much as possible to fit  "human" - or rather societies ends. As many humans - and their artifacts as possible everywhere.
6:  "sympathy for the human race" may easily be a veil hiding the real not so pleasant relationships between humans(humans can be our enemies, but how can non-humans be?). 7: The idea that humans should multiply and spread (not least in the Bible) may seem a bit anachronistic - in this age we may consider we may have spread and multiplied enough. While we may have friends, people we like and sometimes even love, how many can say they like or love crowds? And there again some humans may dislike a lot of people, or even nearly everyone. Why then add to the numbers of coming generations?


The Bible contains many humanitarian concepts, but it is not the more important authority in humanism, at all. In fact, dogmas go against humanism, particularly dogmas that put God as the final reason of being.

Of course the idea we should multiply endless is anachronical. That was an idea put ahead at a time the world was relatively empty. Today we have a real excess of population. But countries like Brazil and most of the so called "Third World" in Asia and Latin America (with the exception of Africa, of course) has already peaked in theirs population rate, and population are getting leveled already. So, the big concern for most of the world is not population anymore. The big problem is poverty, and how to get 90% of the world population out of that condition.

That will generate a lot of problems because simply is impossible to give people a decent life without economical development.







Edited by pinguin - 15 Feb 2011 at 22:00
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 02:39
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

First, Science is not a religion. Science is just the study of the physical facts of the world. Science is not moral either, as you can see by studying the thousand of human right violations commited by scientists. Scientists that worked not only for Nazi Germany, but also for the U.S.S.R, China and even Israel (remember the case of the irradiated Sephardite children)

Humanism is an ideology that put man in the center, instead of God, the country or the people, or nature. Humanism say man is the measure of all things. You can't have higher goals that protecting humanity and the rights of every single man in planet earth.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't protect nature. Not at all. But it means we shouldn't exterminate humans to protect it.


By the way, nature is not a moral entity either. In nature the law of the stronger and the survival of the fittest is the real law. If humans copy the laws of nature we are back into genocidal ideologies, like Nazism.


The Bible contains many humanitarian concepts, but it is not the more important authority in humanism, at all. In fact, dogmas go against humanism, particularly dogmas that put God as the final reason of being.

Of course the idea we should multiply endless is anachronical. That was an idea put ahead at a time the world was relatively empty. Today we have a real excess of population. But countries like Brazil and most of the so called "Third World" in Asia and Latin America (with the exception of Africa, of course) has already peaked in theirs population rate, and population are getting leveled already. So, the big concern for most of the world is not population anymore. The big problem is poverty, and how to get 90% of the world population out of that condition.

That will generate a lot of problems because simply is impossible to give people a decent life without economical development.

  I am not unaware science is not religion, neither do i think the Bible is an authority for humanism. And I thinkl the idea humans should be exterminated for "the sake of nature" has little support anywhere. Some of my reservations towards humanism, as You see it, is it for me seems vague, but i admit I have not any clear answers myself. "Man" or "humanity" seems to be very broad words, generalisations. Those who put "man" at the center may easily end up to put themselves in the center and making "me" the measurestick for all. Or some greatly admired person.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 03:24
Humanism is a low profile ideology. However, it is central in politics, freemasonry and also in modern "humanist" religions. It is so "mainstream" that is almost unnoticed. You see the humanist ideal when you read the declaration of human rights, for example, and in the global fight for freedom, equality and fraternity.

Humanism believe we are all equal in principle, at least equal in rights. And that's the starting point.


Edited by pinguin - 16 Feb 2011 at 03:25
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 05:26
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Quote 2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.

(Something that is not sustainable by science. It is a dogma)


That is supported ad nauseum by scientific findings. Monocultures farming does not produce as much food per acre as a diverse environment (it is however much less labor intensive). Bio-diversity is essential to good soil and good water management. Inedible plants assist the growth of edible plants.

But we're talking derivatives here. Or maybe a touch of catastrophe theory. Decreasing biodiversity in a certain agricultural environment past a certain point can lead to disastrous reduction in output. But increasing biodiversity in an environment can also do the same thing. All agriculture is essentially targetted at reducing biodiversity: it's what farmers do. You want a field of wheat or of turnips or an orchard of apples or a vineyard not a waste of multitudinous varieties of weeds.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1497
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ArmenianSurvival Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 07:23
     Its not really important to me whether or not something was supported by the Nazis. Whats more important to me is what the end goal of certain ideas are and through what means they intend to reach those goals. I support taking care of the environment, and I think certain companies should be indicted with the full force of the law. When you dump toxins or any chemicals in enormous quantities in ANY habitat, whether natural or man-made, you should go to jail and perhaps be executed depending on certain criteria. Thats just my opinion.

      But as much as I am against these actions, and as much as I love nature on a personal and spiritual level, I occasionally run into extreme ideologues who advocate human population control (aka population reduction) as a means of maintaining the ecosystem. In my opinion, these ideologues don't really have the ecosystem in mind when they talk about population control. I think what they really have in mind is reducing the human population to a point where it can be managed, controlled, and molded into a certain shape by the top tier of humans. A lot of the ecosystem talk and concern for peasants around the world is smoke and mirrors to these ideologues. Of course, many people have a genuine, altruistic concern for these matters. These are not the people I'm talking about.


Professor Eric Pianka is one of these ideologues. Heres an interview with the professor. The interviewer is an annoying pest, but listen to Pianka: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLFivVpMb1c

You can even read a short article written by Dr. Pianka here: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/Everybody.html

Notice how real concerns like destruction of natural habitats and providing for the poor of the world are mixed with his ideas of population reduction.


You can also make the argument that Bill Gates is one of these ideologues. Listen to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064&feature=related

Bill Gates is famous for funding vaccination in places where many people die of waterborn viruses. Whats interesting to me is that I've never heard him mention water purification and water filtration, I've only heard him preach about vaccinating children against everything in the dirty water. And by Gates' own admission, vaccines are a means to reduce human populations.


Even the powerful Rockefeller clan favors population control. He mentions using the U.N., which his family helped found, as a means to control (reduce) the population. The U.N. is known for giving vaccines to poor children, which according to Gates is a means of controlling world populations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqUcScwnn8&feature=related


Then you have the ominous messageboard known as the Georgia Guidestones, which was commissioned by an unknown person with a lot of money (hmmm...) Read about them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

Read the inscriptions for yourself: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/25/Georgia_Guidestones_English_Full.jpg

Notice how the first inscription clearly states-- Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

      How the hell can you bring human population to 500 million people without killing billions of people? And who has enough money to build such a monument and remain unknown? This is very wierd to me and arouses a lot of suspicion. Like I said, a lot of these ideologies seem to me to desire reduction of the human population in order to excercise complete and unchallenged control over it.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 09:56
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

     Its not really important to me whether or not something was supported by the Nazis. Whats more important to me is what the end goal of certain ideas are and through what means they intend to reach those goals. I support taking care of the environment, and I think certain companies should be indicted with the full force of the law. When you dump toxins or any chemicals in enormous quantities in ANY habitat, whether natural or man-made, you should go to jail and perhaps be executed depending on certain criteria. Thats just my opinion.

      But as much as I am against these actions, and as much as I love nature on a personal and spiritual level, I occasionally run into extreme ideologues who advocate human population control (aka population reduction) as a means of maintaining the ecosystem. In my opinion, these ideologues don't really have the ecosystem in mind when they talk about population control. I think what they really have in mind is reducing the human population to a point where it can be managed, controlled, and molded into a certain shape by the top tier of humans. A lot of the ecosystem talk and concern for peasants around the world is smoke and mirrors to these ideologues. Of course, many people have a genuine, altruistic concern for these matters. These are not the people I'm talking about.


Indeed, I agree with all your post, and I will focus in this segment.
It is true that ecology and the ecological movement in general, is not radical. However, the ideologies of Deep Ecology and Ecofascism, are an extreme position that indeed has an origin in the Nazi regime.

Deep Ecology is simply Nazi thinking codified in a way that sounds pretty for modern minds. Remember that Heiddeger was a Nazi, and he was a founder of this line of thought.



Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Feb 2011 at 10:04
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

But we're talking derivatives here. Or maybe a touch of catastrophe theory. Decreasing biodiversity in a certain agricultural environment past a certain point can lead to disastrous reduction in output. But increasing biodiversity in an environment can also do the same thing. All agriculture is essentially targetted at reducing biodiversity: it's what farmers do. You want a field of wheat or of turnips or an orchard of apples or a vineyard not a waste of multitudinous varieties of weeds.


Altering the environment for extracting more resources from it is a common practise since civilization started. Whithout it, we couldn't sustain our large populations and our standard of living.
What is important is to create self-sustainable environments, that are renewable. This can be achieved with relatively small biodiversity.
Yes, I know it is important to preserve wild areas for people to explore and takes a hollydays. All over the world those wild areas exist and are preserved. However, in the rest the land must be put into work, to produce food, meat, milk, wood and the thousand of basic products that sustain our lifestyle.

I think about this topic when I go to visit "nature" in my own country. We have reserves were we preserve ancient forests, trees and the few wild animals we have. They are pretty, indeed, and a nice visit. However, most of our forest are "artificial". Eucaliptus and north American pines are grown there for commercial purposes. They are cut clean once every decade, and you can see those ugly bald hills around the landscape. However, these "artificial" forest continue producing oxygen, and serve as a refuge for birds and small animals, no matter they are not native! I wouldn't say this is an ugly landscape at all. It is only different.


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Feb 2011 at 05:45
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

You can even read a short article written by Dr. Pianka here: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/Everybody.html
The article is bad enough. But, naturally enough, I also read the linked-to article on economics by Robert Nadeau. No economist he - he teaches 'environmental science' and 'public policy' - so it's not surprising it is a mass of economic gobbledygook by someone who doesn't even know the difference between classical and neoclassical economics.
 
One of the features of the movement - like many quasi-scientific ones- is the profusion of articles by people who, however expert they may be in other areas, know nothing about the subject at issue.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.