It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NAZI GREENS - An Inconvenient History • Martin Durkin

page: 15
17
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Relevant to what?

The article in the OP claims :

Green ideology was at the core of National Socialism. When we wonder what diseased thinking could motivate people to turn on the gas taps at Auschwitz, this is where we must look.


The author had their target despite saying that he wasn't aiming at anything.

If you re-read what you quoted you will see that the blame is placed on romanticism. Sure the romatic ideal of early 20th century germany may have been green at it's core but, that can change from time to time and place to place. If your purpose is to warn people of the path taken by the nazis then you need to see what that essay is really saying.

It isn't really attacking environmentalism, it is attacking romanticism, which in this example happened to be green. In 21st century USA romanticisim might not be green.




posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

It was the "unpolitical" zealotry part of that quote that I was referring to primarily but, yes, the combination of environmentalism, romanticism and misology produce such results.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

What does that even mean?

ETA: It seems logical that a combination of X, romanticism and misology would also produce such results. Which is why Martin Durkin's conclusions don't necesarily jive with what Staudenmaier is actually saying, though it would seem that he helped himself to a nice chunk of that info for his own article.
edit on 2-10-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Eco-warriors are proto-brownshirts.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

You missed Staudenmaier's point completely because you have a side to support.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I understand, he is recognizing the demarcation between ecological advocacy and environmental fascism, and there certainly is one but, that point merely divides two stages of progress along the very same path.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Not just that. You are focusing on the environmentalists.

Brownshirts can come from any group even if the ideal is based on something commonly accepted as "good".



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

What does that even mean?

ETA: It seems logical that a combination of X, romanticism and misology would also produce such results. Which is why Martin Durkin's conclusions don't necesarily jive with what Staudenmaier is actually saying, though it would seem that he helped himself to a nice chunk of that info for his own article.


You seem to be telling me that I should believe that the commonalities are pure coincidence?

I certainly don't deny that romanticism and misology are a bad combination.



The attraction such perspectives exercised on idealistic youth is clear: the enormity of the crisis seemed to enjoin a total rejection of its apparent causes. It is in the specific form of this rejection that the danger lies. Here the work of several more theoretical minds from the period is instructive. The philosopher Ludwig Klages profoundly influenced the youth movement and particularly shaped their ecological consciousness. He authored a tremendously important essay titled "Man and Earth" for the legendary Meissner gathering of the Wandervögel in 1913. 18 An extraordinarily poignant text and the best known of all Klages' work, it is not only "one of the very greatest manifestoes of the radical ecopacifist movement in Germany," 19 but also a classic example of the seductive terminology of reactionary ecology.

"Man and Earth" anticipated just about all of the themes of the contemporary ecology movement. It decried the accelerating extinction of species, disturbance of global ecosystemic balance, deforestation, destruction of aboriginal peoples and of wild habitats, urban sprawl, and the increasing alienation of people from nature. In emphatic terms it disparaged Christianity, capitalism, economic utilitarianism, hyperconsumption and the ideology of 'progress.' It even condemned the environmental destructiveness of rampant tourism and the slaughter of whales, and displayed a clear recognition of the planet as an ecological totality. All of this in 1913 !


Are sou absolutely certain that today's environmentalists aren't romantic misologists?



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Defining environmentalism of any degree as a step down the same path as fascism may even technically true but it is also completely worthless. If we accept that any move away from outright anarchy is a course towards authoritarianism then even libertarianism is a step toward towards it as it requires the enforcement of property rights.

A individual or a political philosophy can accept the need for collective action without being authoritarian. That is unless the goal posts of what is authoritarian are moved so much to make the term meaningless.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
You seem to be telling me that I should believe that the commonalities are pure coincidence?

I'm saying that focusing on a single group is missing the point. The force that put the nazis into power would, and did, use any other group that lent itself.


Are sou absolutely certain that today's environmentalists aren't romantic misologists?

They can be all that and more but it doesn't mean other groups are not equally so. Therefore, it isn't an environmentalist trait.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

This seems to get back to my point about pre-nazi ideas that end up along the same path. I used the cynics as an example. They were naturalist but eventually their view became negativistic so much so that a lot of the naturalist philosophy becomes lost and the entire meaning of the word cynic has changed.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp

Defining environmentalism of any degree as a step down the same path as fascism may even technically true but it is also completely worthless. If we accept that any move away from outright anarchy is a course towards authoritarianism then even libertarianism is a step toward towards it as it requires the enforcement of property rights.

A individual or a political philosophy can accept the need for collective action without being authoritarian. That is unless the goal posts of what is authoritarian are moved so much to make the term meaningless.


Yes, we have been trying to differentiate between collectivism and cooperatism, for lack of a better word.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I assume (and apologies if I have missed any relevant posts, skimmed to catch up) that you defining this round the concepts of voluntary cooperation and enforced collectivism.

My point (which I may not have made very well) is that the distinction in itself is meaningless. All societies need enforced actions or they simply become anarchy. The only difference is in the level of enforcement and the method by which collective decisions are made.

This means that attempting to equate environmentalisms with Fascism has no more meaning than attempting to equate any political philosophy (apart from pure anarchy) with Fascism.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Anytime people get along, get things done and prosper it always has to be because of some government plan, stewardship or oversight.

I disagree, the reality is that very nearly all of us do those things without coercion, direction or affirmation.



The highest rulers, people do not know they have them
The next level, people love them and praise them
The next level, people fear them
The next level, people despise them
If the rulers' trust is insufficient
Have no trust in them

Proceeding calmly, valuing their words
Task accomplished, matter settled
The people all say, "We did it naturally"

Tao Te Ching


Perhaps there is societal utility in government at least as much as it ensures that nobody interferes with anyone else.

But, it is when the state begins to do the interfering that problems arise.

edit on 2-10-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Environmentalism seems to lead to a misology that when compounded with the enforcement (authority) to enact environmentalist policy becomes authoritarian.

Now on the individual level environmentalism has no comparison with authoritarianism.

The problem lies in the conundrum that environmentalist goals can only come about through authoritarian means. Unless you "make" everyone agree but then that just proves the point further.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
Yes, we have been trying to differentiate between collectivism and cooperatism, for lack of a better word.

Lack of a better word?

Maybe there is no real difference. Maybe cooperatism is a form of collectivism.

Some people forced an element of cohersion into the definition of "collectivism" and now they are looking for another word that means working together that doesn't inlcude that element.

In the end it doesn't matter because as, ScepticScot pointed out, all societies have enforced actions.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
The problem lies in the conundrum that environmentalist goals can only come about through authoritarian means. Unless you "make" everyone agree but then that just proves the point further.

That's true of all societies so, what is the point of looking for differentiation?

In the end it is just a model on paper.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

No its not. Not all societies are authoritarian. You are using semantics to make it seem so. We can see that societies who have attempted to nationalize environmentalist policies have used authoritarian methods though.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
Anytime people get along, get things done and prosper it always has to be because of some government plan, stewardship or oversight.

It's always because of some form of organization. The point at which it can be called government were the sliding goalposts mantioned above.



edit on 2-10-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
No its not. Not all societies are authoritarian.

Depends on who you ask.




top topics



 
17
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join