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: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
The crux is that the "best", and therefore the "should", is different for everybody.

The crux of what?




posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
The crux is that the "best", and therefore the "should", is different for everybody.

The crux of what?


Of your statement that best and should are the same thing.


What is best and what they should is the same thing and the reason both ideas fail.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Came across the following Fascist Ecology: The "Green Wing" of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents which stated -


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


A literal connection between the founder of the field of ecology and National Socialism. Also note the connection to monism and his ties with the Thule Society. This is where the new age has been influenced by these ideas from the beginning and vice versa. Sprinkle in some of the hardcore materialist/Marxist wing of modern environmentalism and we get a nice fervent mix of ideas in which a potential future extremism arises.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Doesn't seem to be the same context used in the post I was replying to.
edit on 27-9-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta



It may come as a surprise, then, to learn that Klages was throughout his life politically archconservative and a venomous antisemite. One historian labels him a "Volkish fanatic" and another considers him simply "an intellectual pacemaker for the Third Reich" who "paved the way for fascist philosophy in many important respects." In "Man and Earth" a genuine outrage at the devastation of the natural environment is coupled with a political subtext of cultural despair. Klages' diagnosis of the ills of modern society, for all its declamations about capitalism, returns always to a single culprit: "Geist." His idiosyncratic use of this term, which means mind or intellect, was meant to denounce not only hyperrationalism or instrumental reason, but rational thought itself. Such a wholesale indictment of reason cannot help but have savage political implications. It forecloses any chance of rationally reconstructing society's relationship with nature and justifies the most brutal authoritarianism. But the lessons of Klages' life and work have been hard for ecologists to learn. In 1980, "Man and Earth" was republished as an esteemed and seminal treatise to accompany the birth of the German Greens.


Misology, as always, takes center stage.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
The core of Austrian Economics is that people will do what they want to. They will always choose what they think is the best or most fun.

What is best and what they should is the same thing and the reason both ideas fail.


What is best is defined from the individual's point of view. A person will always choose what what he thinks will improve his situation or increase his enjoyment of life. Austrian Economics holds this as the truth that is the source of all human activity.

That is not the same as the assumption of the socialist, who expects people to behave in such a way as to make the plan work.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 03:27 AM
link   
Face palm!

Good god!

Humans are crazy!



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Might I ask the OP what the purpose of this thread is? Are you saying that Nature is evil, and that only Nazis care about the environment? Also, you have proclaimed yourself the winner in a debate you clearly lost. Fascism is not socialism. The Nazis were clearly right wing.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


What is best is defined from the individual's point of view. A person will always choose what what he thinks will improve his situation or increase his enjoyment of life. Austrian Economics holds this as the truth that is the source of all human activity.

That is not the same as the assumption of the socialist, who expects people to behave in such a way as to make the plan work.


Thank you for saying this nonsense.

"A person will always choose what what he thinks will improve his situation or increase his enjoyment of life."

Because of course, ever person is a sociopath, motivated only by greed and hedonism. Nobody does anything for any non-selfish reason, ever. One of the biggest problems with libertarians is that they are basically a cult of true believers who are just as misguided in their fanaticism as any communist ever was.

The simple fact of the matter is just like communists, you've constructed an elaborately constructed fantasy world built on bulls# dogma, largely premised on false assumptions about human behavior.

A person walks into a grocery store and is presented with 8 brands of toothpaste. Which brand will that person buy? The one with the most appealing packaging? The cheapest? The one that isn't the cheapest but is on sale? (woot! must be a good deal!) The one that was in the commercial that showed the most attractive people? The one the person has a coupon for? The one that wasn't tested on animals? The one that was on the most accessible shelf? (who wants to bend down to save a nickel?) The brand that is the most expensive? (maybe it's a better quality?) The one that the person grew up using? How about the one that is fundraising for some charity the person strongly supports because a relative is a sufferer?

BUT WAIT!

Maybe the person is buying toothpaste for a FAMILY. So maybe it's about a family member's taste preference? Maybe the kids like it because it's a cool color or has dinosaurs on it. Maybe the spouse has negative associations with certain brands for an unknown reason. Maybe one time it seemed like this one brand really just worked better somehow.

Praxeology is pseudoscientific garbage.

"Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts."

Ludwig von Mises, Human Action p.32

Worse yet, it wasn't enough to use this garbage as the foundation for economic theory, it's the rotten core upon which this whole libertarian fantasy world is constructed. The other thing libertarianism has in common with communism; proponents of both seek to turn heterdox economic theory into the answer for everything.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
Might I ask the OP what the purpose of this thread is? Are you saying that Nature is evil, and that only Nazis care about the environment? Also, you have proclaimed yourself the winner in a debate you clearly lost. Fascism is not socialism. The Nazis were clearly right wing.


The author is drawing a parallel between modern popular political environmentalism and the ecological conservatism of national socialists and earlier German traditions.

The implication being that the striking similarities between the two are more than coincidental.

I can't figure out why simple language is not comprehensible to socialists, you seem to be otherwise reasonably well educated yet, you still refuse to acknowledge that national socialism is socialism.

I suppose next you'll say that it wasn't national either.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

So, if I can summarize based on your statement, you don't believe that individuals act in their own subjective best interests, you consider that concept "nonsense".

Please explain how and why then do people act?



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp


The author is drawing a parallel between modern popular political environmentalism and the ecological conservatism of national socialists and earlier German traditions.


Yes, I know. Obviously, the author is opposed to environmentalism or he'd have written a book tracing it back to William Blake and Thoreau. (Can't have that, can we?)


The implication being that the striking similarities between the two are more than coincidental.


Did you know that the Nazis were also opposed to vivisection?



en.wikipedia.org...

Does that mean that vegetarians are all really Nazis? The fact of the matter is that Nazi culture was a very strange brew. It mixed science and superstition, morality and depravity, cold logic and raw irrationality.


I can't figure out why simple language is not comprehensible to socialists, you seem to be otherwise reasonably well educated yet, you still refuse to acknowledge that national socialism is socialism.


So is General Motors a real General? Does he serve in the same Army as General Mills? Is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea democratic? Is it a republic? The fact is, just because someone chooses a name doesnt mean the name is an accurate reflection of what it really is.


I suppose next you'll say that it wasn't national either.


If you think about it, it was actually international, because it sought to embrace the German Volk irrespective of which nation-state they resided in.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

You are supporting my point near as I can tell, the NAZIs had higher ethical standards for dealing with fauna and flora than with people.

I think the word you are looking for is expansionist rather than international.

I should add that selflessness and charity are also "selfish" because they do in fact serve the actor's intentions and produce a desirable feeling of satisfaction just the same as any other action. So, if you broaden your perspective a little, I think you can agree that most people do what makes them happiest. Though, it is more accurate to say that they do what produces the highest level of satisfaction at that moment.

As for your continued denials...

From Nihilist St. Nick's link:
Fascist Ecology:
The "Green Wing" of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents




At the level of ideology, then, ecological themes played a vital role in German fascism. It would be a grave mistake, however, to treat these elements as mere propaganda, cleverly deployed to mask Nazism's true character as a technocratic-industrialist juggernaut. The definitive history of German anti-urbanism and agrarian romanticism argues incisively against this view:

"Nothing could be more wrong than to suppose that most of the leading National Socialist ideologues had cynically feigned an agrarian romanticism and hostility to urban culture, without any inner conviction and for merely electoral and propaganda purposes, in order to hoodwink the public [ . . . ] In reality, the majority of the leading National Socialist ideologists were without any doubt more or less inclined to agrarian romanticism and anti-urbanism and convinced of the need for a relative re-agrarianization."

edit on 28-9-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Fascism: an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy;

However German's have always loved nature. I lived there for 2 1/2 years, and found the country beautiful. You are just creating a straw-man to cover your own dislike of the planet, and to use a tar-brush to discredit true conservatives - those who don't want filth in our environment.

Shame on that sentiment.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

So you quote the author's statement of his opinion as though it were a fact. Unless he was a card carrying member of the Nazi Party, he has no personal knowledge of how sincere the Nazis were.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

You must have missed some of the thread. You skate the issue by mentioning some of the romantics and the like. Those very same sentiments are in part tied to volkish or neo-pagan movements that were popular in the period leading up to and during the NAZI reign. The science of ecology was formalized by a leading proponent of proto-nazi ideaology. Did you read any of the posted credible information you dismiss as opinion simply based on your need to defend something you obviously do not fully understand? There is no need for an emotional investment in the argument. If you want to be a conservationist go ahead no one is saying that conservation is not important especially on an individual level. It is when it is used as a type of policy on a national level that the true motives come out which is primarily authoritarian control. Therefore all efforts to control the environment are by default efforts to control human interaction with the environment.

This goes a step further when a spirituality is added similar to new age and neo-pagan beliefs. Again Ernst Haeckel (founder of ecology) was a proponent of this modern take on pantheism he called monism. Dressed up in scientific language. The justification for most Nazi actions were a belief that they were changing and correcting the natural order with science to create a new perfect order.

These ideas did not begin or end with the Nazis. They were taken and added to by radical hippies and Marxist academics. This is how you end up with the modern "Green Agenda" and people like Paul R. Ehrlich that call for mass culling and sterilization. Sounds very similar to what the Nazis were doing on an ideological level. Remove the issue of race and there is no difference.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: theantediluvian

So, if I can summarize based on your statement, you don't believe that individuals act in their own subjective best interests, you consider that concept "nonsense".

Please explain how and why then do people act?


How do you expect me to reply to that? With my own competing set of axioms that also fail to describe not only individual behavior but that of an entire complex system?

I believe that trying to predict human behavior based on inherently lacking models is a lot like trying to forecast the weather. The difference being that weatherman admit that their models have limited predictive capabilities and libertarians are trying to use theirs as a foundation for economics, sociology, ethics — you name it.

Let's look at the very foundation of praxeology. Human Action, Part One, Acting Man (pg 11):


HUMAN action is purposeful behavior. Or we may say: Action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals, is the ego's meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions of its environment, is a person's conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life. Such paraphrases may clarify the definition given and prevent possible misinterpretations. But the definition itself is adequate and does not need complement or commentary.

Conscious or purposeful behavior is in sharp contrast to unconscious behavior, i.e., the refiexes and the involuntary responses of the body's cells and nerves to stimuli. People are sometimes prepared to believe that the boundaries between conscious behavior and the involuntary reaction of the forces operating within man's body are more or less indefinite. This is correct only as far as it is sometimes not easy to establish whether concrete behavior is to be considered voluntary or involuntary. But the distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness is nonetheless sharp and can be clearly determined.

The unconscious behavior of the bodily organs and cells is for the acting ego no less a datum than any other fact of the external world. Acting man must take into account all that goes on within his own body as well as other data, e.g., the weather or the attitudes of his neighbors. There is, of course, a margin within which purposeful behavior has the power to neutraIize the working of bodily factors. It is feasible within certain limits to get the body under control. Man can sometimes succeed through the power of his will in overcoming sickness, in compensating for the innate or acquired insufficiency of his physical constitution, or in suppressing reflexes. As far as this is possible, the field of purposeful action is extended. If a man abstains from controlling the involuntary reaction of cells and nerve centers, although he would be in a position to do so, his behavior is from our point of view purposeful.


And also this bit from Murray Rothbard, in The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics, excerpted at Mises.org:


Let us consider some of the immediate implications of the action axiom. Action implies that the individual's behavior is purposive, in short, that it is directed toward goals. Furthermore, the fact of his action implies that he has consciously chosen certain means to reach his goals. Since he wishes to attain these goals, they must be valuable to him; accordingly he must have values that govern his choices. That he employs means implies that he believes he has the technological knowledge that certain means will achieve his desired ends. Let us note that praxeology does not assume that a person's choice of values or goals is wise or proper or that he has chosen the technologically correct method of reaching them. All that praxeology asserts is that the individual actor adopts goals and believes, whether erroneously or correctly, that he can arrive at them by the employment of certain means.


Let me summarize the basic concept here:

Decisions are conscious and purposeful, made in every case with the objective of achieving some goal to which value is attached.

What's wrong with this approach?

People have all sorts of compulsions, preferences and biases at an unconscious level; all of which impact decisions. People behave irrationally. I want to live a long healthy life, I know that smoking won't help me obtain this goal, yet I smoke. Recent research suggests that this stems from an unreasonable belief in my own ability to beat the odds. I won't even address the overcoming sickness by force of will alone BS but suffices to say it typifies the woo nature of the premises underpinning praxeology.

External factors in decision making are largely ignored and the breadth of omission is proportional to scale. I would say that this is a fundamental weakness when trying to model any complex system.

Taken together, you have a woefully lacking and in many regards, downright inaccurate model of human behavior which is then scaled in an attempt to understand and predict human behavior in complex systems. Then this mess is used as evidence of the validity of a host of ideological postulations.

Garbage in, garbage out.
edit on 2015-9-28 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

If you really want to have an in depth discussion about praxeology, economics and a priori vs a posteriori, I am all for it.

You seem to grasp the basics though you simultaneously reject them.

For instance, a smoker, knowing that smoking will potentially harm himself, engages in the activity of smoking nevertheless because he values the immediate satisfaction of smoking to some possible negative outcome at a later date.

I must say that I appreciate your digging into the concepts rather than simply attacking logic and rationality.




posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: greencmp

So you quote the author's statement of his opinion as though it were a fact. Unless he was a card carrying member of the Nazi Party, he has no personal knowledge of how sincere the Nazis were.


You are not the only person to cry foul and consider all of the information contained within the essay propaganda, misrepresentation and outright lies.

As you have correctly assessed, I don't believe that they are but, your immediate dismissal doesn't leave any room for discussion.

Why would you waste intellectual energy on phantoms, sprites and innuendo?
edit on 28-9-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Here is a bit about the author of the piece I posted Fascist Ecology: The "Green Wing" of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents


Peter Staudenmaier is a social ecologist and historian who has been involved with the Institute for Social Ecology since 1989. He has been an active participant in the anarchist movement, the green movement, and the cooperative movement in the United States and Germany for over two decades. He lives in Wisconsin and teaches history at Marquette University.


social-ecology.org - Peter Staudenmaier

Clearly a staunch conservative with anti-conservationist views




top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join