I expect this piece appearing at one of Germany’s leading weather forecasting sites, donnerwetter.de, to be controversial and that there could even be efforts to force the site to take it down. The commentary points out that some of the main elements of today’s environmental and climate movement sweeping across Europe were and are common among fascism and Nazi ideology.
In a nutshell: Yes, it’s good to be concerned about the environment, but let’s not get fanatic about it.
The relationship between the fascism and the green movement are well established, though maybe not very well known. The root of green is in fact quite brown. This is one aspect of the green movement that many environmentalists prefer not to bring up.
Donnerwetter.de tells readers:
The core and fulcrum of modern ecologists and climate fascists is the view that mankind is the enemy of nature, and that we are all guilty of destroying nature. Nature stands for the ‘Good’ and the ‘Precious’, while man plays no role.
Rules of nature in the form of a falsely understood Darwinism are applied to mankind so that social responsibility no longer plays a role.
The rules for human interaction are taken from nature. Subjection to a ruling ‘race’ is accepted as a given. Nature above all and everyone: This way of thinking is very common among the extreme animal and nature protection parties.
Until the romanticists rediscovered nature in the 19th century, it had been considered more as a danger – as wilderness in which one could quickly starve and die. Today many ecologists see only the romantic side of nature; perhaps because man has been so dominant in crowding it out.”
“Carrying capacity” of “less than a billion people”
Donnerwetter continues:
Finally, fascist ideologies are used when it comes to the world’s population. To be more precise, for reducing humanity to its level of ‘sustainability’. In Germany many hold views such as ‘There are too many’ and ‘war and selection are needed’ and even don’t shy away from expressing it publicly.”
This reminds us how once the high profile director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Professor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, also advisor to the Vatican and Chancellor Angela Merkel, once said that the “carrying capacity” of the earth was “less than a billion people“. Sadly many climate scientists and activists seconded this personal population-hostile observation.
Climate friendly veganism/vegetarianism popular among Nazis
One major component of the green environmental movement is vegetarianism/veganism. These diets, comprising little or no animal-based foods, today are being increasingly heralded as climate friendly, and moral with respect to animal welfare and nature protection. It turns out that the promotion of these dietary practices and beliefs is nothing new as vegetarianism was the preferred choice of Nazi leaders and their ideology. The Israeli-based Haaretz here wrote recently: “The Nazis were Vegans, Too“. As reader the comments show, environmentalists and granola eaters were outraged Haaretz would remind us of that inconvenient psychosis.
Nazis ate organic
At WND here Ellis Washington writes how the Nazis were avid organic eaters, writing that Hitler had been inspired by his favorite composer Richard Wagner who “argued in an 1891 essay that meat-eating and race-mixing were the twin causes of man’s alienation from the natural world. Wagner demanded a ‘true and hearty fellowship with the vegetarians, the protectors of animals, and the friends of temperance.'”
Recently reader Stefan B. sent NTZ an article from a 1937 newspaper, Der Schwarze Korps, which extoled the virtues of vegetarian diets.
Among the propaganda in the full page feature stories shown above is a comparison between plant-eating horses, which are said to physically outperform flesh- eating dogs. It also notes that the raising of livestock for food requires far more agricultural land than food from grains, etc., i.e. the very same arguments we hear over and over again from environmental elitists today.
Of course being a proponent of organic or vegetarian diets alone does not automatically make one a (potential) fascist. What does send up a red flags, however, is how such a person views mankind’s place on the planet, i.e. as a legitimate inhabitant or as a pest that needs to be harshly dealt with. Too often it is the latter.
The climate change movement is based on dichotomies, and there is more than a whiff on anti-humanity to it. Consider it in the context of Orwell’s Animal Farm.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/12/17/animal-farm-climate-change/
Thais seems to align pretty much along the lines that Robert Zubrin has documented in his book, Merchants of Despair. As I recall, the root of anti-humanism goes back to Thomas Malthus, which was then picked up by the German government of time.
The population of the EU is about 508 million. If today we can only afford 1 billion people on the planet, proportionately, that means the EU needs to reduce itself to 80 million, not much bigger than the current population of the entirety of Britain, including all of Ireland. The 360 million Americans become 60 million.
Like that is going to happen.
This is the conundrum of the eco-green: sustainability is a function of lifestyle and consumption patterns. If the New England birkenstockers don’t agree to drop their lifestyle, AND agree that all people have the right to maintain their ethnic groups and family lineages, and so voluntarily commit national suicide, then there is only one solution. The rest of the world has to stop breeding AND let their populations collapse.
There is no way out of this problem, and the eco-greens know this. “Overpopulation” in its Greenpeace interpretation means there are too many black, brown, yellow and reds on the planet. The white, European-derived numbers are just fine – in fact maybe not enough in the current world.
The low-consumption, low-energy lifestyle is a fraud as proposed by the eco-green. Recycling, green-energy is the lifestyle of choice – not reducing per se. Still, it is a lifestyle that the likes of Robert Kennedy Jr specifically said does not need to be reduced (interviewed on the streets during the latest big Green march). That semi-fix is insufficient for 6 billion.
David Suzuki, the Canadian green activist, spoke of the problem of overpopulation to a group of First Nations people (the Canadian aboriginals). It was ironic that he spoke to the group that have an annual birth rate of 2.4% compared to the non-aboriginal, Canadian rate of 1.08%.(http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fniah-spnia/pubs/aborig-autoch/stats-profil-atlant/index-eng.php#a621). When he spoke of the need to stop breeding on the planet, he was telling the assembled group that not he or his friends needed to stop having babies, but those sitting listening to him needed to stop. It was a moment of dissonance I’ll never forget.
Two ways this can pan out: the greens become aggressive and government policy goes against the non-developed world improving and growing. Or the greens revert to their shells and focus on being moral leaders in their own backyards. Regardless, immigration controls will have to happen if the numbers, by themselves, are the problem. You cannot pretend the problem of overpopulation and overconsumption has gone away if it is camped in your own backyard.
Meanwhile, in Germany …. and how is this going to work out?
Actually, left alone, the population of the EU would be reducing itself, over time.
Western countries are actually, by virtue of a low, non-growth birthrate depopulating themselves if it were not for immigration. That should be a win in Suzuki’s books.
Dr Suzuki should then be all for halting immigration and getting his behind over to developing countries and telling them to stop reproducing at such high rates.
OOPS. That requires industrialization and reliable energy. The Zook ain’t gonna go for that. He prefers poverty and high mortality it seems.
To be honest, I am not against a reduction in population. The small town of 12,000 that I grew up in is now 40,000 and the quality of life has dropped remarkably because of it.
Re: “The small town of 12,000 that I grew up in is now 40,000 and the quality of life has dropped remarkably because of it.”
Would it be accurate to state that the comparison is being made to how things were 50 or 60 years ago?
Such comparisons are subject to a strong, selective bias driven by nostalgia.
It would be far more accurate to emphasize that – in general and looked at objectively – today’s quality of life makes people wealthier, healthier, more sated, more comfortable and enjoying far longer lives on average than was the case fifty, a hundred or a 150 years ago.
The average life expectancies are still increasing all over the world, and today far more food is being produced with much less agricultural land.
The third world doesn’t need Western pressure or tricks to make it reduce its population. All it needs is a reduction in Western help with the technological means of civilization.
Even after we’ve showed them how they still can’t do it themselves. It’s only through our continued support that they can develop and remain “developed”.
The article has some good ideas and points on other subjects. But on the environment, it is just plain out false.
Please google a definition of fascism and you will immediately see, that it doesn t make any sense on this subject. Fascism is anticommunism (doesn t make any sense on the environment), a political party (there is no global climate party), based on single leader principal (the climate movement is the opposite) and based on the nation state (again, the climate movement is the opposite).
The climate movement has nothing to do with fascism. it is rather the opposite.
And that fascists also had some green ideas (mostly saving the national nature) does also not help you. This type of environmentalism today mostly is on the other side of the climate issue, protecting forests against wind mills.
The comparison is totally wrong.
Well sod, like all leftists you have ZERO knowledge of history. The guy who coined the term fascism, Mussolini, started his career in the socialist party. The NSDAP copied most of his manifesto and added nature protection.
BTW Mussolini’s manifesto is in the wikipedia, read it, it sounds like one possible organizational structure of a socialist state (industry following orders from the state, creating a de facto planned economy – just no formal expropriation like in the USSR – and even the USSR expropriated only big businesses. Small businesses were allowed to survive – only profits were outlawed, leading of course to a slow die-off of private enterprise).
The first guy who called the Nazis “extreme right wing” was… Stalin. So you and the German media and parties are all parroting Stalin.
Why do you do that? Are you a Stalinist?
Since…
…it is obvious that those “Socialist” “Workers” couldn’t be anything but conservative Right Wing extremists. //sarc//
“Mussolini, started his career in the socialist party. The NSDAP copied most of his manifesto and added nature protection.”
What does Mussolinis past have to do with fascism? What does the NAZI Party term socialism mean for fascism? What does the nature part in the NAZI Party mean for environmentalists today?
You are making random comments with zero causal connection to the subject on discussion here.
Since “sod’ is such a scholar, I’m sure he’ll have no trouble finding the relevant sections connecting the fascists with their environmentalism:
Hitler here…
http://mainestategop.blogspot.com/2009/05/john-ray-on-adolph-hitler-and-his.html
and Mussolini here…
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/musso.html
It is no coincidence that modern Leftists, the fascists or fascist wannabe’s of our day, pretend to care about the environment; and in their zeal to appear to preserve it they invariably cause far more harm than they claim to prevent.
just one example…
https://news.vice.com/article/drone-footage-shows-extent-of-damage-from-greenpeace-stunt-at-nazca-lines
I drink, therefore I am.
I eat no meat, therefore I am a vegetarian.
What make people dangerous is not what they drink or eat, but what they think (I use that word to be generous.) Any intolerant ideology, be it animal rightism, extreme leftism (including National Socialism), extreme Islam, or climate alarmism is dangerous.
Noteworthy: Before 1933 there was a youth movement in Germany called Der Wandervogel, Proto-hippies (actually some of them emigrated to California, probably inspiring the later hippie movement); proto-ecos; esoterically inspired -like many groups (including the Nazis) of the time-; when the Nazi party rose, 70% of them became members -far more than in the average population-, as the NSDAP was the one party standing for nature protection, and indeed after coming to power, created the first nature reserve in Europe.
Related to Wandervogel is antroposophism, founded by Rudolf Steiner, inventor of organic food (called biodynamische Landwirtschaft by him, bio-dynamical agriculture). Steiner was also an esoteric, inspired by Blavatzki, and founder of the Waldorf schools, which to this day form a network of private schools in Germany famous for their rejection of technology (and for dancing their names). Waldorf students mostly go into the arts and rarely into engineering; and mostly have no access to computer programming during their schoolyears, though it’s getting ever harder for their parents to prevent them from gaining such access, after all, even Green Waldorf alumni bureaucrats want their Apple i-pad these days.
A Russian told me that Stalin started as a free-love leftist sort of regime, too. (That’s probably when he was calling the Nazis “far right”.) These totalitarian regimes need a nice face to get started, then they clamp down hard.
It should not surprise anyone that Bolshevism promoted free love. It was built on the foundation of Marxism, and the abrogation of the family is one of the major planks of communism (a.k.a. socialism). For instance, ‘The Manifesto of the Communist Party’ (Marx and Engels, 1847/48) states:
“Abolition of the family! Even the most radical get riled up about this shameful intention of the communists.
What is the present family based on? On capitalism, the acquisition of private property. It exists in all of its meaning only for the bourgeoisie, but it finds its complement in the enforced lack of families of the proletarians and public prostitution.
The family of the (41) bourgeois naturally falls by the way-side with this, its complement, and both will vanish when capitalism vanishes.” and
“But you communists want to introduce the community of women, the whole chorus of the bourgeoisie shouts into our face.
The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but an instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited cooperatively and naturally can’t think of anything else but that the lot of cooperativeness will also affect the women as well.
|479| He has no clue that what this deals with is to abolish the status of women as nothing other than instruments of production.
As an aside, nothing is more laughable than the moral outrage of our bourgeois about the alleged official communal women of the communists. The communists don’t have to introduce the concept, it has almost always been in existence.
Our bourgeois, not satisfied that the wives and daughters of the proletarians are at their disposal, not to mention official prostitution, find their main amusement in mutually seducing their wives.
The bourgeois marriage is in reality the community of the wives. One could at best accuse the communists that (43) instead of a hypocritical, hidden one, they want to introduce an official, open-hearted women’s community (44). Furthermore, it goes without saying that with the abolition of the present circumstances of production the women’s community that results from it, that is, official and unofficial prostitution, will vanish as well.”
Igor Shafarevich summed up the four major planks of socialism in ‘The Socialist Phenomenon’:
>>>
1. The Abolition of Private Property….,
2. The Abolition of the Family….,
3. The Abolition of Religion….,
4. Communality or Equality….
<<<
More: http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html#pagestart_194
Some confusion upthread. National Socialist German Workers’ Party is the english translation of the NAZI party. Later leftists called it fascist to get distance on the socialist label.
Please look at a definition of fascism. The NAZI Party is a near perfect copy of the original italian movement (which created the term) and is obviously fascist.
The environmental movement against climate change does not fit a single important point of the definition of fascism and is mostly the opposite.
Please do not ignore the facts.
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. Name adopted in 1920, well before the Fascists came to power in Italy and Spain.
It was noted in the 1930’s how easy it was for communists to switch to the nazi party. Indeed many observers before 1933 referred to the Nazi Party as bolsheviks, seeing little difference between the two.
“Please do not ignore the facts” – sod
You would do well to heed your own advice.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1228
Also, see the other refs I provide by John Ray, who goes into the matter in excruciating, and very enlightening, detail.
OK, now that you’ve seen that Leftists are Socialists – Here’s the German connection with environmentalism.
And here’s the UN connection.
Greenies = Leftists = Fascists
…whose purpose is to make subservient Fools of us all.
Fascism is very much a form of socialism as well. Mussolini started out as a socialist. The “fasces” are an age-old symbol of the republic, with the same meaning as Hobbes’ Leviathan – forming a strong body from many weak limbs; Fasces are depicted on the original declaration of human rights by the French revolutionaries, and on the Abe Lincoln memorial for instance.
The environmental pogrom is well underway:
“(A) working paper published by the UK’s Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes.
The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases …
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/15/uk-aid-forced-sterilisation-india
When Obama says he is doing it for the children’s children, exactly who’s children is he taking about?
Who decides?
What are the parameters, blue eyes & blonde hair?
You might enjoy this (found via Judith Curry site):
“US town rejects solar farm after residents say it would suck up all the sunlight”
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/us-town-rejects-solar-farm-after-residents-say-it-would-suck-up-the-sunlight-20151213-glmqa6.html#ixzz3uoxD4zSw
Woodland, North Carolina is in the northern part of the state, about 80 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. Closer is Albemarle Sound. Talk about sucking up sunlight.
These people are morons. Literally.
They are an embarassment to America.
Of course they are. How many of them were there? A couple. Some of your neighbours are probably as dumb. Now go and read about the town. There are several solar parks near by, and the Town didn’t need any more. The majority of the citizens will be well-informed and make rational decisions. Looking for dumbies? Try the mirror next time you generalize.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/12/14/paris-and-the-poor/
Donna linked to this (follow her to Australia-based MercatorNet ) with a Google translation.
Stefan Schultz is the author.
Bundesnetzagentur: Rund 350.000 Haushalten wurde der Strom gesperrt
SPIEGEL ONLINE – Wirtschaft – 15.11.2015
Die sozialen Probleme bei der Energiewende vergrößern sich: Im vergangenen Jahr wurde so vielen Haushalten der Strom abgeklemmt wie nie zuvor. Grund sind die steigenden Preise für
Well, Malthus was right – IF one adds that any “sustainable population” number is only postulated while not allowing for any other changes whether man-made or other. With no changes in climate, agricultural practices, transportation, et cetera the world Malthus knew was indeed near[ing] maximum human sustainability.
Look at the ad at the bottom of the page of the German newspaper. So Palmolive (which seems to sell liquid for handwashing dishes now) was an old German brand, here advertising shaving cream!
This Ayn Rand quote sums up the difference between Commies and Nazis.
Different paths to the same destination.
Please, someone quote a definition of fascism an then we check it against the climate movement today. Does nobody here have the slightest clue about a scientific method?
Claiming that the Nazis were socialists (you will find basically no serious source for this absurd position) does not help your course either. It is a 100% consent on this very page, that the climate movement is HURTING the poor and that for is also the opposite of a socialist movement.
The basical logical reasoning here is: The NAZIS were socialists , the climate movement are socialists, that for the climate movement are NAZIS is based on false assumption and false logic. It is just completely false.
Sod you cannot be so daft. Fascism and Socialism are essentially the same creed. There are two real differences. One is nationalistic in it’s outlook, the other internationalist. They both demand total government direction of the economy and society. The other difference is that Fascism is much more tolerant of private industry, as long as they do what they are told.
Germans talking about Nazis. Who needs it?
You poor sod, it is absolutely amazing to see how your fanaticism distorts your perspective of circumstances in the world.
If you think that fascism is anticommunismm how do you explain that ‘Das Kapital’, by Karl Marx, was required reading in the high schools in Nazi Germany? I know, because although I missed a chance to go to high school during the Nazi regime, my older brother Hans and my older sisters did not, and I read his and my older sisters’ text books.
Other than that, thank you for another installment of the entertainment you persist in providing at this blog.
Oh, come on. Sod is not a “fanatic.” Sod is one of the beautiful people.
//sarc//
Also, John Ray says this about Hitler and Marx…
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html
“The thinking of Hitler, Marx and Engels differed mainly in emphasis rather than in content. All three were second-rate German intellectuals of their times. Anybody who doubts that practically all Hitler’s ideas were also to be found in Marx & Engels should spend a little time reading the quotations from Marx & Engels archived here.”
Thanks for the confirming that.
Interesting confusion or disagreements about what “fascism” and “socialism/communism” now means to people. Historical attempts at creating governments on the principles of one or the other are mixing up the original philosophies with their real-world exercises for all of us.
Both communism (extreme socialism) and fascism are totalitarian expressions in which the alleged underdogs of society are better treated and represented at the top. The only difference I can see is that fascism, IN PRINCIPLE, accepts free-market capitalists as self-regulating innovators and drivers of the economy, however much they must bend to the State’s will as decided by the self-defined governors. Extreme socialism/communism sees individual action independent of top-down control as disruptive; fascism sees it as efficacious and efficient IF those moving and shaking are doing so within the guidelines of top-down controllers. I would suggest that the eco-green movement does not trust self-regulation or self-motivated programs for social improvement; a coherent program for (environmental and social justice) improvement must, in the eco-green philosophy, come from the top down. This would be because the eco-green see people as intrinsically bad for the planet, and in principle need to have their activities REDUCED. Fascism, in this view, sees people as, in principle, able to improve things for others in the process of improving things for themselves, provided that the general direction of improvement follows the State program.
Under my worldview, the eco-green, environmental movement is therefore not fascist but extreme socialist/communist. Still very much totalitarian, but off the belief that people are intrinsically bad, self-interest is intrinsically harmful for others and the environment, and even enlightened self-interest can only exist at the top where rewards and punishments are not reflective of individual effort but following protocol and procedures as per humanist values.
Opposition is not tolerated in either system, of course, but it appears historically that opposition that is effective, that gets the “program” going faster has some level of tolerance in a fascist, but not extreme socialist/communist system. Again, the eco-green seems more extreme socialist/communist: nuclear power, fusion, is a no-go for the Oreskes et al because it goes against the nature-is-best ideology, not because it doesn’t “solve the problem”. Technology is man at arm’s length. Nature is man removed. The eco-green seem to favour the removal of man rather than the technological “fix” of man’s activities.
Stalin is said to have said, “Where there is a man, there is a problem. Where there is no man, there is no problem.” This seems to sum up the eco-green environmental movement. Don’t fix things so that 7 billion people can live upon the Earth with high levels of consumption, of travel, of energy use. Instead, drop us to 1 billion and make everyone eat beets salads and bicycle to work in the local daycare.
Actually, only “us”. The leaders still get to have their Lear jets, homes in the Hamptons and friends with yachts in the Mediterranean. But wasn’t that the same with the Stalinists and their dachas and Mercedes-Benz, chauffeur-driven luxury cars?