The far right Green party?

[Blagsta]

You're arguing a different point IMO. You supported the idea that there was a massive influence of Nazism on the modern green movement, and now you're trying to use common influences from decades earlier.

I was supporting this statement "second the green movement itself is massivly influenced historically and politically by very right wing and dubious ideas - some of which are rather obvious ( nazism for example )" which has some truth to it, if a little overstated.

 

[free spirit]

You too.

Arndt's environmentalism, however, was inextricably bound up with virulently xenophobic nationalism. His eloquent and prescient appeals for ecological sensitivity were couched always in terms of the well-being of the German soil and the German people, and his repeated lunatic polemics against miscegenation, demands for teutonic racial purity, and epithets against the French, Slavs, and Jews marked every aspect of his thought. At the very outset of the nineteenth century the deadly connection between love of land and militant racist nationalism was firmly set in place.

while the environmentalist movement as we know it is determindly internationalist in outlook, believing in concepts of equality of entitlement, sustainable development, think global act local etc.

the fact that some nazi's also understood about nature, carrying capacities of the land etc does not indicate that naziism influenced modern environmental thinking, more that environmental thinking influenced some nazi streams of thinking.

The fact that 2 different groups of people come to similar conclusions about land stewardship etc. doesn't necessarily indicate any link or influence, it could just be the logical conclusion of anyone studying that subject.

 

[Blagsta]

while the environmentalist movement as we know it is determindly internationalist in outlook, believing in concepts of equality of entitlement, sustainable development, think global act local etc.

the fact that some nazi's also understood about nature, carrying capacities of the land etc does not indicate that naziism influenced modern environmental thinking, more that environmental thinking influenced some nazi streams of thinking.

The fact that 2 different groups of people come to similar conclusions about land stewardship etc. doesn't necessarily indicate any link or influence, it could just be the logical conclusion of anyone studying that subject.

The far right has been attempting to infiltrate the modern green movement for years now. I know of at least one far right activist who was very active in Birmingham Friends of the Earth in the 90's. They knew about him too.

Denying these historical links is a bit weird really.

 

[Blagsta]

Libertarian National Socialist Green Party

http://www. nazi.org/

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Of course I'm not, don't be silly. Nothing has singular roots. However your denial of any link at all is most puzzling.

"Part of Nazi ideology was ecologically-based" does not imply "ecological groups today result from Nazi ideology". The Nazis were quite keen on science, too, but scientists are not necessarily Nazis. In fact, the article you posted, as mentioned above, quite explicitly states this; it mostly seems to be warning that ecology in a political sense is not some value-neutral concept historically.

 

[free spirit]

The far right has been attempting to infiltrate the modern green movement for years now. I know of at least one far right activist who was very active in Birmingham Friends of the Earth in the 90's. They knew about him too.

Denying these historical links is a bit weird really.

MI5 / special branch have been trying to infiltrate the green movement for years too...

the fact remains that the far right has had fuck all influence on the mainstream green movement, and I'm sure had you're known far right activist expressed any far right racist views he'd have been told to fuck right off even by the generally liberal as fuck FOE.

 

[free spirit]

Libertarian National Socialist Green Party

http://www. nazi.org/

so... there are facists who are also pro environment.

have any of them been invited to speak at a green party convention say, or big green gathering, or had their work used in environmental studies courses, or got lecturerships on environmental courses at respected universities, or contributed to the sustainable development commission, or the IPCC etc?

and for them to be 'massively influencing the green movement historically and politically' we'd need more than one example (I'm sure the odd one has slipped through the net here and there).

 

[bigfish]

Environmentalism is Fascism

...The Nazis were quite keen on science, too, but scientists are not necessarily Nazis.

Yes, that's right, for example, the Nazis were particularly keen on Eugenics. Genetics was the hot new science in the 1920’s, confirming Darwin’s theory of evolution. The proponents of eugenics promoted the idea that “bad genes” were a threat to mankind, in much the same way as today's proponents of "manmade global warming" promote the idea that certain atmospheric trace gases are “bad gases”.

Here's a useful resource for anyone wanting to learn more about the oligarchical forces behind the thoroughly reactionary environmental movement.

Environmentalism is Fascism
http://www.ecofascism.com/index.html

 

[free spirit]

Yes, that's right, for example, the Nazis were particularly keen on Eugenics. Genetics was the hot new science in the 1920’s, confirming Darwin’s theory of evolution. The proponents of eugenics promoted the idea that “bad genes” were a threat to mankind, in much the same way as today's proponents of "manmade global warming" promote the idea that certain atmospheric trace gases are “bad gases”.

Here's a useful resource for anyone wanting to learn more about the oligarchical forces behind the thoroughly reactionary environmental movement.

Environmentalism is Fascism
http://www.ecofascism.com/index.html

lol - welcome back bigfish, thought you'd forgotten about us for a while there.

The social movement abruptly appropriating “environmentalism” in the late 1960s was roughly 200 years old at the time. This social movement emerged in 18th century England in opposition to the Industrial Revolution. As the Industrial Revolution’s techniques and troubles spread out from England, so did this social movement. By the late 1700s the horizon of the Industrial Revolution encircled Western Europe and New England.
This is a large, complex social movement operating on shifting terrain over several generations; and hence, it is difficult to name. Over two centuries, not only did this social movement’s turf expand, the location of its internal centre of initiative and leadership moved about within the affected area. As well, this social movement was always an omnibus of inter-connected smaller single-issue social movements dedicated to: forest conservation, population control, eugenics, wetlands-protection, organic farming, soil pollution, air pollution, etc. Over time the social movement’s emphasis shifted from one issue to another. Nevertheless, this social movement has clear dynastic and ideological continuity – like the ol’ carpenter’s hammer which, after many heads and handles, is still working fine.

In addition, the Industrial Revolution facilitated the colonialist migration of herds of European peasants toward cheaper pastures. Not only were Europe’s great landed proprietors losing their best tenants, these same farmers were flooding the world market with cheap colonial produce.
Hence there emerged an action-orientated social movement of feudal reactionaries whose principal goal was the preservation of their own aristocratic status. They realized military and economic competition necessitated some technological development but they wanted slow, state-supervised industrialization to prevent Republican business interests from politically overwhelming land-owning dynasties.

The Continental European wing of this social movement mutated into the international Fascist movement in 1920s. In Italy, Spain, and Germany, Fascist movements, led by those nation’s first families, revolted against modernity. In 1941 Europe was Fascist.
The “sciences” of Geopolitiks and Ecology were Fascist propaganda pillars. Another feature of Fascist propaganda was the cynical “Big Lies” told by the Fascists to maintain relentless hysteria and mobilization. After 1945 the leading aristocrats and clerical reactionaries of this social movement were on the run in Eastern Europe and keeping a low profile in the West.

well it's an interpretation of history, but where does the 'land is ours' movement and such like fit in with this grand 'difficult to name' movement supposedly led by Europes landed gentry, and then morphing into facism.

btw just because some oddball posts up a site called ecofacism.com with the catchline 'environmentalism is facism', doesn't mean that it's true... particularly when they only manage to post one article since 2004.

 

[Blagsta]

If you look at the development of green ideas historically, there are some quite clear links between these ideas and Nazism. Acknowledging that and acknowledging the fact that the green movement has some misanthropic strands in it's thinking that crossover with far right thinking is not the same as saying that the modern green movement are Nazis. I find the inability of some people on this thread to look at this historically quite odd...but then again people don't like to admit things that maybe uncomfortable for them.

 

[greenman]

If you look at the development of green ideas historically, there are some quite clear links between these ideas and Nazism. Acknowledging that and acknowledging the fact that the green movement has some misanthropic strands in it's thinking that crossover with far right thinking is not the same as saying that the modern green movement are Nazis. I find the inability of some people on this thread to look at this historically quite odd...but then again people don't like to admit things that maybe uncomfortable for them.

But that is not what you were saying, nor Bigfish, nor Brasicattack - you were all implying that Green Parties now are far rightist. I do not deny that there are parts of the Green Movement that I do not agree with - Arne Naess is/was (is the old git still alive?) a completely reactionary shit, Bahro lapsed into purist romanticism, some elements of Earth First were primmo reactionaries etc. However, that is different from saying the current political manifestations of green ideas are far right, or even that far right ideas are a major influence - as I suggest they are largely centrist, something we ecosocialists are trying to combat! I, and most other ecosocialists reject primmo/deep ecologist ideas.

This silly namecalling can off course be applied to other political currents - we could say that Bakunin was an appalling anti-semite and therefore current anarchists should bear some responsibility for the Holocaust, or Marx led to Lenin led to Stalin and Pol Pot, so modern Marxists of all stripes should bear responsibility for the Gulag and Cambodian genocide........it gets us nowhere, but angry.

On the other hand, I am firing up ze Panzers right now und Ve know vere Bigfish lives.....

 

[Blagsta]

But that is not what you were saying, nor Bigfish, nor Brasicattack - you were all implying that Green Parties now are far rightist.

No I wasn't.

 

[chilango]

I think Dave Foreman (Earth First! US) had some fairly dubious things to say about letting people in the 3rd world die, for example.

A coupla points on this...

1) Foreman in no way represents the position of the Green Party. He developed his own ideas. Redneck environmentalism if you like, and afaik had no connection with any Green Party. Indeed, I've never seen him describe himself as Green anyway.

2) The views of Foreman and Ed Abbey are often brought up as a club to beat environmentalists with...yet few of these critiques actually put the supposed racist quotes in perspective. Sure, neither of these guys are exactly PC, but if you read in full what they actually say its very different from the smears.

Abbey for example is often tagged as a racist because he is quoted as being against Mexican immigration to the USA, yet you read him in full on these issues (and believe me, I have) it turns out that his position is that they should be turned away at the US border but given guns so they can enact the social revolution that would end the injustices and inequalities in Mexico that fuel mass emmigration.

 

[chilango]

while the environmentalist movement as we know it is determindly internationalist in outlook, believing in concepts of equality of entitlement, sustainable development, think global act local etc.

the fact that some nazi's also understood about nature, carrying capacities of the land etc does not indicate that naziism influenced modern environmental thinking, more that environmental thinking influenced some nazi streams of thinking.

The fact that 2 different groups of people come to similar conclusions about land stewardship etc. doesn't necessarily indicate any link or influence, it could just be the logical conclusion of anyone studying that subject.

Are Native Americans also infleunced by Nazism?

William Morris?

Kropotkin?

Ideas that contribute towards environmental thinking are many and varied and indeed go back way before the 19th century so to pick on a particular local varient that had some influence within the Nazis is disingenous.

 

[chilango]

The far right has been attempting to infiltrate the modern green movement for years now. I know of at least one far right activist who was very active in Birmingham Friends of the Earth in the 90's. They knew about him too.

Denying these historical links is a bit weird really.

There were attempts in the early 90s by the fash to infiltrate EF!.Even setting up a proxy EF! group (I forget exactly where) They were given pretty short shrift. EF! had close ties to anti-fascist groups in many places. The EF! Action Update and Do or Die, the two main organs of EF! both covered anti fascist topics.

As EF! was far more influenced by Foreman, deep ecology and primitivism than the GP is, much of the accusations here would best be applied to them. Yet EF!s record on antifascism is pretty good, no?

 

[shaneC]

Re Greens banning members for not paying poll tax.

Oh please. David Icke resigned from the Green Party just before his 'turquoise' phase as he foresaw the media reaction it would create. About the same time Green Party member Len Lucas, (who worked in the London GP office at the first CoolTan building in Brixton) wrote the book on how to avoid paying the poll tax 'To Pay or not to Pay' A guide to your legal rights, Hugo Charlton, the GP law officer defended Ken Livingstone in his poll Tax court case. Many Green Party member, including me, went through much of the 90's refusing to pay poll tax, setting up local anti poll tax group and were definately not excluded from the party, if anything it was seen as the thing to do and applauded.
Before Icke resigned he did write 'It Does'nt Have to be like This' a really good critique of conventional politics and explanation of Green politics. Since then he still has much to say but has taken verbatim a lot of dodgy crap from dodgy right wing sources that he's not cross referenced and checked. In particular he fell for the 'Protocols of Zion' which lost him a lot of credibility.

 

[Steve Booth]

Martin Heidegger

I'm not an expert on this, but I think there was a big influence. Deep ecology for example has had some pretty dubious ideas around letting weak people die for example, not a million miles away from the social darwinism of national socialism.

Martin Heidegger is one obvious cross-over point 'The Question Concerning Technology' for example (1949 - 1953) and his influence on the nascent Green movement in Germany.

Some people here have mentioned Arne Naess but Knut Hamsun might be another line of approach.

I think it is important to keep to the distinction between the green movement, and the Green Party.

A lot of the to and fro on this thread seems to be about the late nineteenth century volkish / blood and soil / far right influence on the Nazi Party and the alleged influence of these strands on the green movement. Some of the same themes held by one are also held by the other, but to take the example of vegetarianism for example there were also left wing people who held to belief in this. George Bernard Shaw.

Many greens probably know nothing about these strands / alleged influences.

In the same way, some people in the US Earth First! or the Primitivist movement might have accepted the Foreman eco-Malthusian line, but that doesn't mean that all greens have.

There was a bit about lebensraum here too, and on that point some mention could be made of the German garden cities / town and country planning people who tried to establish Aryan planned towns in the East. Does this discredit town planning?

 

[frogwoman]

Some fascists have always been attracted to green politics and the ideals of environmentalism and animal rights. It's easy to see how such views can get manipulated - keeping the land "pure" and so on . However, the fact is that there is a certain amount of overlap between the ideals of pretty much all political groups, and if you took any given party's politics and compared it with the BNP you'd come up with some things they agreed on.

 

[free spirit]

No I wasn't.

ok, you weren't saying the green movement now was far right, but you did agree with this statement stating that the green movement has been massively influenced by very far right ideas.

second the green movement itself is massivly influenced historically and politically by very right wing and dubious ideas - some of which are rather obvious ( nazism for example )

He's right about this actually.

If this is not what you meant, then you maybe should retract your agreement with brasicattack.

If you look at the development of green ideas historically, there are some quite clear links between these ideas and Nazism. Acknowledging that and acknowledging the fact that the green movement has some misanthropic strands in it's thinking that crossover with far right thinking is not the same as saying that the modern green movement are Nazis. I find the inability of some people on this thread to look at this historically quite odd...but then again people don't like to admit things that maybe uncomfortable for them.

sorry, you're wrong, there is no cross over between the modern day green movement, and the green strand of the nazi movement. They may have developed their green ideas from a common starting point, but at some point the 2 movements diverged and there's been pretty much zero influence from the facist branch of the movement over the mainstream side of the movement since.

Your arguement is a bit like saying that Judaism has been a massive influence over Christianity because they both have the same starting point - ie. it's bollocks.

ffs the most right wing environmentalist I've known is a labour councillor and antiracism campaigner.

 

[Blagsta]

It has been influenced by far right ideas as I have shown. It's in the historical development of thinking about our relationship to nature. I have not said that the current green movement is far right though so tbh, I'm not sure what your denial is about.

 

[Steve Booth]

One big difference between the present day Greens and the Volkish pre-Nazi era movements as described for example in George Mosse 'Crisis of German Ideology' [USA 1966] is the lack of the 'Furhrerprinciple' in today's Greens.

Somebody might see a similarity between a group like the 'New Band' of Muck Lamberty, active in Thuringia in the 1920s, and contemporary Primitivism. Lamberty advocated anti-Modernity, and called for people to be in tune with nature. The group held processions through the streets of towns, dancing. An ecstatic cult, they wanted to recreate the Millennial Cults of the Sixteenth Century, were vegetarian, worshipped the summer solstice and practiced sexual promiscuity. [George Mosse, page 274]

I think it might be possible to establish a resemblance between such cults and some fringe elements of the Green Movement, but some is not all...

 

[free spirit]

It has been influenced by far right ideas as I have shown. It's in the historical development of thinking about our relationship to nature. I have not said that the current green movement is far right though so tbh, I'm not sure what your denial is about.

no you haven't shown any influence at all, what you've shown is that the Nazi's incorporated a strand of environmental thinking into their ideology.

You have not shown that the environmental movement has been influenced by far right ideas, though like another poster mentioned I'd accept that individual concepts like the garden cities town planning practices developed under the nazi's, but that's like saying that NASA has been influenced by far right ideas.

my denial is about the fact that the right wingers appear to be attempting to smear the green movement, and/ or trying to make themselves look less bad - and the anti-environmentalists like bigfish are joining in under the banner 'environmentalism is facism'. It's bollocks, and dangerous bollocks at that, and I'm pretty surprised to see you swallowing it - or are you just trying to be controversial for the sake of it?

btw I note we've moved from 'massively influenced' to 'influenced' by far right ideas... fancy notching that down a few more pegs, sticking in some major caveats, and we may get close to agreeing on this.

 

[bigfish]

Some of the Big Money foundations funding the march to eco-fascism

The Rockefeller Foundation (www.rockfound.org) valued its assets at $3.1 billion in 2002. They've been doling out about $175 million per year in grants to various causes over the last several years.

Rockefeller Brothers Fund (www.rbf.org) had $622 million in assets in 2002 doling out about $5 million a year to environmentalists.

The Rockefeller Family Fund also doles out a few million dollars a year, but houses the Environmental Grantmakers Association (www.ega.org) - one of the central guiding agencies for the global green movement.

The Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation and the Geraldine Dodge Rockefeller Foundation also donate to green activist causes. All told, the Rockefeller dynasty probably donates about $50 million a year to environmentalist and population control activity.

The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (www.mellon.org) had $3.6 billion in assets in 2002 and doles out around $20 million a year to green groups and another $20 million on population suppression.

The John D. and Catherine MacArthur Foundation (www.macfdn.org) had $3.9 billion in assets in 2002. During that year they gave about $12 million to green groups, while $8 million was spent on population suppression.

The Ford Foundation (www.fordfoundation.org) had $9.1 billion in assets in 2002. The "Asset Building and Community Development" portfolio received $202 million dollars during the last year of record and probably somewhere near 80% of that fell into the coffers of the great green crusaders.

The Pew Charitable Trusts (www.pewtrusts.org) had assets of $4.1 billion in 2003 - a year during which it disbursed $42 million to the environmental movement. Their population control portfolio receives a about 15% of Pew largesse.

The Mott Foundation (www.mott.org) had $2 billion in assets at the end of 2002. They gave $11.9 million to the environmental movement in 2001 and $14.4 million in 2002. Similar sums were given to population programs.

The Hewlett Foundation (www.hewlett.org) had assets in 2002 worth $5.01 billion dollars. In that year they doled out $30 million in grants to environmental and population control programs.

The Turner Foundation (www.turnerfoundation.org) and the UN Foundation (www.unfoundation.org) have been powerhouses of support to global environmentalism over the last several years. Between 1991 and 2003 the Turner Foundation doled out $222 million in overall grants while Ted's UN Foundation handed out $575 million between 1997 and 2002. The bulk of this money went to environmentalist groups, including many extremist ones, and to Ted's other favorite cause - population control.

The Heinz Family Philanthropies (www.hfp.heinz.org) has assets worth over $1 billion and is controlled by Teresa Heinz Kerry. These funds annually dole out upwards of $60 million to various causes. The environment is clearly the primary obsession at HFP.

It's hard to overestimate the full affect the foundations are having on culture. ... Their corruption of academia and public officialdom is done in plain view. Many university professors and state-employed scientists line up for grants from eco-foundations yet continue to hold their day-jobs and freely lend their institutional reputation to the cause. For instance, James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute, the man the global warming hoaxers habitually quote, recently took $250,000 from Teresa Heinz Kerry, no strings attached, yet gets to keep his position.
....
On a still day you can just hear the plutocracy laughing. Environmentalism is a dark green tarp they have thrown over North America. They have decreed development be slowed to a crawl and enlisted a vast 'army of the night' to implement this command. Here in the trenches we never engage the Kennedys, the Trudeaus or the Windsors. No, down here we get to argue with kids with daisy-counting diplomas from community colleges in their hands and grant applications to the Ford Foundation in their hip pockets; and good luck trying to change the minds of people like this.

http://www.ecofascism.com/article12.html

 

[chilango]

The Rockefeller Foundation (www.rockfound.org) valued its assets at $3.1 billion in 2002. They've been doling out about $175 million per year in grants to various causes over the last several years.

Rockefeller Brothers Fund (www.rbf.org) had $622 million in assets in 2002 doling out about $5 million a year to environmentalists.

The Rockefeller Family Fund also doles out a few million dollars a year, but houses the Environmental Grantmakers Association (www.ega.org) - one of the central guiding agencies for the global green movement.

The Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation and the Geraldine Dodge Rockefeller Foundation also donate to green activist causes. All told, the Rockefeller dynasty probably donates about $50 million a year to environmentalist and population control activity.

The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (www.mellon.org) had $3.6 billion in assets in 2002 and doles out around $20 million a year to green groups and another $20 million on population suppression.

The John D. and Catherine MacArthur Foundation (www.macfdn.org) had $3.9 billion in assets in 2002. During that year they gave about $12 million to green groups, while $8 million was spent on population suppression.

The Ford Foundation (www.fordfoundation.org) had $9.1 billion in assets in 2002. The "Asset Building and Community Development" portfolio received $202 million dollars during the last year of record and probably somewhere near 80% of that fell into the coffers of the great green crusaders.

The Pew Charitable Trusts (www.pewtrusts.org) had assets of $4.1 billion in 2003 - a year during which it disbursed $42 million to the environmental movement. Their population control portfolio receives a about 15% of Pew largesse.

The Mott Foundation (www.mott.org) had $2 billion in assets at the end of 2002. They gave $11.9 million to the environmental movement in 2001 and $14.4 million in 2002. Similar sums were given to population programs.

The Hewlett Foundation (www.hewlett.org) had assets in 2002 worth $5.01 billion dollars. In that year they doled out $30 million in grants to environmental and population control programs.

The Turner Foundation (www.turnerfoundation.org) and the UN Foundation (www.unfoundation.org) have been powerhouses of support to global environmentalism over the last several years. Between 1991 and 2003 the Turner Foundation doled out $222 million in overall grants while Ted's UN Foundation handed out $575 million between 1997 and 2002. The bulk of this money went to environmentalist groups, including many extremist ones, and to Ted's other favorite cause - population control.

The Heinz Family Philanthropies (www.hfp.heinz.org) has assets worth over $1 billion and is controlled by Teresa Heinz Kerry. These funds annually dole out upwards of $60 million to various causes. The environment is clearly the primary obsession at HFP.



http://www.ecofascism.com/article12.html

Did any of this go to the Green Party?

...and how does this show that the Green Party is a far-right one?

 

[greenbrain]

I doubt if a cent of that reached the Green Party in this country. Although we might have got a free tin of beans from the Heinz Foundation

 

[Blagsta]

bigfish is nuts, he thinks the sun is made out of iron ffs