NAZI GREENS - An Inconvenient History • Martin Durkin

a reply to: NihilistSanta

His intent is to warn activists about the dangers of extremism. I don't have a problem with that. My problem is that you are presenting his research in an attempt to draw a direct line linking modern eco-activism to Nazism. That's a bit different, don't you think? That's why I brought up the parallel to their (preposterously schizophrenic) animal protectionism. Rather than trying to make activists aware, you are twisting it to condemn them. Obviously Staudenmaier's intended audience would be aware of ecology's "positive" roots; you are ignoring these antecedents to convey your own agenda.

a reply to: DJW001

I am not twisting anything .It is presented in the paper. Read some of his other papers. Yes he is warning of extremism which is exactly my point. The point is not to discredit ecology or sustainable ideas. It is to point out that those issues when combined with the state can breed authoritarian systems. That the idea is ripe to be hijacked and uses well meaning rhetoric to sway good individuals into supporting draconian legislation which at times can border on anti-human quasinihilism. Which greencmp also has recognized.

originally posted by: DJW001
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.

Thoreau was a naturalist and held a very similar attitude toward government as myself.

As such, he doesn't qualify as an eco-totalitarian. In fact, he was a dyed in the wool "libertarian".

"...and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government."

"...until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State … which … would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it."

-Henry David Thoreau

a reply to: greencmp

As such, he doesn't qualify as an eco-totalitarian. In fact, he was a dyed in the wool "libertarian".

Which is why you don't mention him in trying to portray environmentalists as "left wing Nazis," which is presumably the point of your posts.

a reply to: DJW001

Well, this isn't exactly rocket science as they say.

I didn't impugn Thoreau because he never advocated for totalitarianism and rightly distrusted the well established failings of the state.

Grave caution should be exercised in awarding authority to the state and the current batch of starry eyed greens do not respect the animal.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Nobody does anything for any non-selfish reason, ever

As never, not even once?

Basing a philosophy of normal on the outlier is bizarre.

Presumably you mean that most of what people do is for the benefit of others, regardless of any reciprocal feelings or hurt to the doer.

But you didn't write that because it is obviously not true.

Socialism is rude and stupid.

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.

That is all Keynesian "Homo Economicus" mainstream socialist junk.

Praxeology includes all of the non economic decisions, which are not seen, and which also determine demand.

A person walks

Why did he walk now? Now must be a good time for him, or perhaps the only time before a job interview or a date or whatever.

He decided he needed to buy the toothpaste for a reason. Wouldn't he rather not spend money and time to buy the toothpaste? Buying toothpaste rather than watching TV or whatever seemed to him the best thing to do, so he is walking in order to get into the store.

He is walking to fulfill his goal of completed dental hygiene and because he believes that toothpaste will help him do that.

"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

He decided to buy toothpaste because he wanted to. That is a priori. It can not be proved that he will always want to buy more toothpaste, maybe he will make his own.

Given that toothpaste is sold, and the people selling it make money at it, it is safe to assume that people will continue to buy toothpaste in the near future. That is an economic truth.

How much toothpaste will they buy? That depends on the price, the flavor, the chemicals in it, whether it does what it says it will on the package, or whatever reason the buyer thinks is important.

The toothpaste seller has to make the kind of toothpaste that the buyer prefers, or else the seller will not receive profits.

So for whatever reason, greed or altruism, the seller has to produce what the buyer wants.

The price system tells the buyer what things will cost, and the price system tells the seller how low he will have to sell. There is no value judgment here, the toothpaste has a cost in resources and labor.

The price is a market phenomenon based on what people choose to do.

originally posted by: 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.

I'm sure people buying into whatever plan they choose will try to make that plan work because it will improve their situation or increase their enjoyment.

In the end, both assume that people will act a certain way and both are wrong.

a reply to: greencmp


I read somewhere that Nazi's wore SHOES!!!!!

Better ban shoes next!!!!!

Hahaha, the mental leap that you're trying to induce in others is absurd.

And this is coming from a person who doesn't drink the populist global warming kool-aid BTW.


Oh PS. National Socialism does not equal "Nazi" as modern people understand it.
Nor does fascist = Nazi
Nor does National Socialist = Fascist

Each of those things are separate ideas, one specifically referred to the NSDAP application of such.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

I am glad to hear that you have a healthy fear of the state and its vast crop of eco-sycophants.

a reply to: greencmp

Grave caution should be exercised in awarding authority to the state and the current batch of starry eyed greens do not respect the animal.

In your reactionary opinion. How do you suggest that ecological issues that cross national boundaries be addressed? Remember the depletion of the ozone layer? That could not have been addressed by running public service ads on late night TV, could it? And yet fluorocarbons were banned and the ozone layer restored without jack-booted thugs breaking down doors. How would you handle a situation like acid rain or pollution in the Great Lakes or Caspian where more than one nation is involved?

a reply to: DJW001

I think the only way to address pollution is with property rights.

How Property Rights Could Help Save the Environment

As for CFCs, as it turned out, hair spray and other atomized dispensers could easily be reformulated not to contain them.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: DJW001

I think the only way to address pollution is with property rights.

How Property Rights Could Help Save the Environment

As for CFCs, as it turned out, hair spray and other atomized dispensers could easily be reformulated not to contain them.

But why should a manufacturer go to the expense of changing their formula, and thus, industrial manufacturing process, just because a bunch of wild eyed hippies (closet Nazis) and scientists (notoriously corrupt) say they should? Why should American factories stop using cheap coal because a bunch of Canadian fishermen are complaining about their catch?

Property rights can help save the environment, but only if property owners care. Historically, people have been dumping their waste into rivers because they "own" that stretch of river and don't care about the strangers downstream. They have rendered swaths of land unusable because they had the right to extract every mineral from the land they "owned."

Admit it: your thread was an attempt to short-circuit Godwin's Law by comparing environmentalists to Hitler right at the start. Yes, the Nazis had a lot of weird ideas that some people might think are good ideas. On the other hand, just because the Nazis incorporated an idea into their sick, delusional "philosophy" does not render them invalid. Their belief in eugenics does not render Darwin a proto-Nazi, nor does it make contemporary genetic research "fascist." Their gross abuse of linguistic research in support of their preposterous racial theories does not make contemporary philologists Nazis.

The way you have used the truth to sell a lie would make Dr. Goebbels proud.

a reply to: DJW001

That's easy, people used the power of the purse to disincentivize ill-formulated products and they still do.

Many, many products have gone the way of the dodo due to consumer backlash. In some cases, companies have saved their businesses by openly admitting their formerly destructive manufacturing processes and detailing their new and improved processes.

I think you should probably read the essay.

a reply to: greencmp

That's easy, people used the power of the purse to disincentivize ill-formulated products and they still do.

And the tobacco industry spent millions to cover up the truth and is still going strong.

a reply to: DJW001

We have actually addressed this very example earlier.

Praxeologically speaking, a man chooses to smoke a cigarette now not because of Joe Camel and his phallic schwag but, because it pleases him to do so. Not because he has been lied to, far from it, he knows full well what possible harm he may bring upon himself.

Are you saying that you think people don't know that smoking is harmful?

Why do people still smoke?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: 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.

I'm sure people buying into whatever plan they choose will try to make that plan work because it will improve their situation or increase their enjoyment.

Trying to make the plan work will not automatically cause it to work. A plan will assign resources into the future. Those resources may or may not be assigned into a high demand market when the time comes. Especially if the price system is ruined.

In a free market economy, the entrepreneur takes on the risk of assigning resources into the future. If he is successful then he gets profits, maybe gets rich, and the consumers get something new that they wanted. If he fails, the resources will get reassigned to the markets with the highest consumer demand.

In the end, both assume that people will act a certain way and both are wrong.

Socialism assumes that people will do what they are told, like slaves.

Praxeology assumes that people will act, using their brains, to alleviate their discomforts or gain new good feelings. When are people not doing that?

a reply to: greencmp

Why do people still smoke?

That was not my point. All you have done, time and again, is evade. Industries that engage in harmful activities would rather spend money to deceive the public and corrupt the government than abandon the harmful practices if the loss would be greater. Acid rain was curbed not because industry voluntarily stopped using high sulfur coal, but because the governments of the United States and Canada reached an agreement to legislate emission caps.

Your attempt to equate sound environmental legislation with Nazism would be pathetic if it weren't so offensive.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Praxeology assumes that people will act, using their brains, to alleviate their discomforts or gain new good feelings. When are people not doing that?

When they are misinformed. When they are masochistic. When they are stupid. When they are presented with too many choices and not enough information. When they are fallible. When they are human. Homo economicus does not exist.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Trying to make the plan work will not automatically cause it to work.

Never said it would. I was mearly pointing out that the motive is the same as the one given for the Austrian School theory.

Socialism assumes that people will do what they are told, like slaves.

Or they can be fooled into thinking something is in their best interest. In the end both threats and trickery work.

Praxeology assumes that people will act, using their brains, to alleviate their discomforts or gain new good feelings. When are people not doing that?

They do it all the time but that does not guarantee the the Austrian School plan will work.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Praxeology assumes that people will act, using their brains, to alleviate their discomforts or gain new good feelings. When are people not doing that?

When they are misinformed. When they are masochistic. When they are stupid. When they are presented with too many choices and not enough information. When they are fallible. When they are human. Homo economicus does not exist.

I should have said "to do what they think will... "

Praxeology holds that people will choose the means that they think has the best chance at achieving a goal. Those means include rain dances and socialism. Choosing a rain dance or socialism is rational and normal if the individual thinks it is the best way to get what he wants.