18 2 mins 10 yrs

From the Guardian of all places: German far-right extremists tap into green movement for support

Debunking the popular view that equates eco-friendliness with
cuddly, left-leaning greens, …Hotbeds of far-right eco-warriors are to
be found throughout Germany. In the Mecklenburg region in the north,
they have been quietly settling in communities since the 1990s in an
effort to reinvigorate the traditions of the Artaman League – a farming
movement whose roots lie in the 19th century romantic ideal of “blood
and soil” ruralism, which was adopted by the Nazis.

Heinrich Himmler, the SS leader, was a member.

At the same time as it was butchering millions of people, the Nazi party
supported animal rights and nature conservation. But it is disturbing
for many Germans to think that while they support local producers and
reject genetically modified food, pesticides and intensive livestock
farming, there is now little – superficially at least – to distinguish a
supposedly well-meaning, leftist Green from a far-right eco enthusiast.

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

[Crossposted on AllSeeingEye]

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

18 thoughts on “Eco Fascists Aren’t Always Cuddly

  1. Mahons

    That is an article of faith in Rightworld, hence the “eco-fascists” smear which is routinely used.

  2. Mahons,

    Given their unfailing bigotry, and the ususal insistence that they are always right and especially their unfailing method of implementing their ideas by force of law, rather than by common consent. – Yes I would say that a majority of envioronmentalists most certainly deserve the label of ‘fascist’.

    The initial respondent to your 8.24 comment is a vey good example…

  3. You would never have had these by ” common consent ” . They cost money.

    use of catalytic converters in all cars

    elimination of lead in all petrol sold in the US

    stopping the release of pollutants into rivers

    installation of scrubbers in coal burning plants

  4. Ernest – the majority of environmentalists (which is a fairly broad classification isn’t it) are fascists? I can’t say I find that remotely true.

  5. It’s not a great surprise. There has long been a strain of environmentalism/naturalism/getting your kit off in the German people, and the the National Socialists drew on it as a tool of control. In fact it’s well documented that German environmentalists were among their strongest supporters during the Nazi rise to power.

  6. Well yes, they also found strong support among accountants, lawyers, tailors, carpenters, painters, capitalists, youth, soldiers, clerks, married couples, shoe salesmen, conductors, taxi cab drivers, and the unemployed.

    Can we please return this place to reality.

  7. The people of America are pretty happy that we now have much cleaner rivers, lakes, oceans and air, thanks to the EPA regulations and thanks to the California leadership on this issue.

  8. Peter –

    Be cool.

    I’m not having a dig at your average environmentalist. It’s simply a fact of history that the National Socialists strongly promoted environmentalism, and that they received strong support specifically because of it.

    It’s a Germanic thing. Wrapped up in it is the pagan streak they have over there. The Nazis drew on that also for its symbolism.

    Look, I’m an environmentalist and I have a great reverence for our pagan forebears and the culture they left us, but I’m a pretty un-Nazi type of fella. The two don’t have to go hand in hand. (Mind you, describing people as heretics and calling for their homes to be bured – yes, that’s pretty fascist.)

  9. Pete

    As Phantom pointed out, the environment needs regulations to clean up. The phasing out of lead in petrol is a good example. This was bitterly opposed by car manufacturers and their supporters on the political right. The polluter will always want to go on polluting and market forces are often ineffective, as in this case.

  10. Peter –

    Do you want to talk about Germans or Phantom?

    Since you change the subject to Phantom, he’s wrong. The environment needs wealth and technology to be cleaned up even further. When you look at, say, the UK, that 60-odd million of us can live on such a small piece of land, it’s already remarkably clean.

    That’s capitalism and free-ish markets for you.

  11. Without regulation, our waters and air would still be filthy. Its often cheaper to have a polluting system and usually cheaper to not have to upgrade to a less polluting system.

    It’s not really a debatable point.

    Even locally, NYC recently passed regulations that will phase out the use of an extremely polluting type of fuel oil used for heating apartment houses
    http://www.edf.org/health/report/dirty-heating-oil-new-york-city

    The landlords could have used cleaner technology decades ago. They didn’t do it because it was cheaper to use the polluting fuel. Now they have no choice. And our air will be cleaner.

  12. Peter –

    Because I respect other people and can be bothered to respond to points made – unlike certain other regulars in these here parts – I will respond to your point about leaded petrol. You said:

    “As Phantom pointed out, the environment needs regulations to clean up. The phasing out of lead in petrol is a good example.”

    In truth, the need for leaded petrol was coming to an end anyway. Without it, a condition called “engine knock” sometimes happened, but engine technology had advanced to a point where engine knock was becoming uncommon. Lead would have disappeared from petrol anyway, because it was an additive, so why put in an additive which costs? It would not have continued. The ban was a symbolic. There had been a campaign against lead and the political forces behind it pushed for a full win, even though it was unnecessary.

    By the way, we can see now it was a mistaken campaign. If the propaganda had been correct, we’d now have a bation of child geniuses, but we don’t.

  13. Phantom –

    You make my point for me:

    “Its often cheaper to have a polluting system and usually cheaper to not have to upgrade to a less polluting system.”

    Yes, we need wealth for the environemnt to become cleaner. We need wealth and the technology which comes of it. You can have all the regs you lie, but of an economy cannot afford those regs then they are useless at best or extremely damaging.

  14. Lead would have disappeared from petrol anyway, because it was an additive, so why put in an additive which costs? It would not have continued.

    Yes, but how many years would it have continued without the ban?

    By the way, we can see now it was a mistaken campaign. If the propaganda had been correct, we’d now have a bation of child geniuses, but we don’t.
    Truly pathetic, but it shows where your real loyalties lie.

  15. Pete

    I do hope that you convince youtself with this malarkey. You sure do not convince otherw.

    I gave you an example where landlords in the very rich city of NY chose not to buy cleaner heating plant, despite their wealth and despite the fact that there were reasonably priced alternatives. Poor people dont own apt blocks.

    They soon won’t have the choice to pollute my air any more. Their choice has been made for them and for the benefit of all the city. Thats why we have a government.

    And this shows how ” libertarians ” have no respect for environmental matters. All you guys care about is money and you can’t put a dollar sign on a child’s feedom to breathe clean air.

Comments are closed.