<\/p>\n
I recently have come across some <\/p>\n The secular left attacks <\/span>The right does so because anything that does not serve their adoration of power The religious right adds to this Given that we get from sloppy scholars in both <\/p>\n Nature and Nazism<\/b><\/p>\n Before and immediately after WWI in Germany there was a strong interest in many issues that would be familiar to today’s NeoPagans, as well as to environmentalists in general. Many were worried that technological society would It is also true True as all this Errors Both Left and Right<\/b><\/p>\n These six basic I.<\/b> T<\/span>he political That portion of What is II.<\/b> <\/span>The views Staudenmaier, Biehl, Bramwell But Roosevelt On the other What shall we First . . . set Second, . . . <\/span>their houses be razed and destroyed.<\/p>\n Third, . . . all Fourth, I advise Fifth, I advise Using Bramwell, III.<\/b> <\/span>The term “Nature” needs to be very The word There is no evidence of awareness IV.<\/b> <\/span>Bizarrely, these various critics leave Anti-democratic V.<\/b> <\/span>What environmentally aware German Nazis As I believe I Is There EcoFascism in America?<\/b><\/p>\n There is a … political Tom Friedman,
\narguments about a supposed “eco-fascist” threat to America. <\/span>It is usually paired with claims that
\nPaganism has fascist implications.
\n<\/span>Both the secular Left and the classical liberal and religious Right have
\nbeen making these claims. <\/span>Since my
\nsearch on Google revealed no serious rebuttals except a quick one I penned some
\nwhile ago, I am adding a lengthier more deeply argued reply in the hope
\nothers will find it useful.<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\nenvironmentalism and Paganism because it remains infatuated with the image of
\nscientific control over our future, and regards earth-centered spirituality as
\natavistic. <\/span>Peter Staudenmaier and
\nJanet Biehl’s Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience<\/a><\/i> <\/a>is a recent broadside from that direction. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nover Nature (and beyond the libertarians, in many cases over other people) is the
\n“enemy.” <\/span>On the right, at a
\nserious intellectual level we have Anna Bramwell’s <\/span>Ecology in the
\nTwentieth Century<\/a><\/i>. But Bramwell is not anti-environmentalist enough <\/a>for some, as the “ecofascism<\/a>” website demonstrates. William Kay the principle writer at this site also finds a disturbing fascist
\nconnection to Pagans and Deep Ecologists<\/a>. <\/span><\/p>\n
\npoisonous mess their demand for total spiritual domination by their Sauronic
\nMaster. Anything suggesting Nature is valuable in itself, let alone that there are other approaches to spirituality, send them into conniptions. Among the less bad of a pretty bad lot, see Michael Coffman’s Environmentalism:
\nThe Dawn of Aquarius or the Twilight of a New Dark Age?<\/a> <\/i><\/p>\n
\ndirections, who may convince their followers that they know what they are talking about, we need to know what is wrong with this strange claim.<\/p>\n
\n<\/span>People were interested in preserving nature, natural medicine, organic
\nfood, and getting out into nature.<\/p>\n
\ndestroy the natural world and our connection with the other than human
\nworld. <\/span>Many also argued
\nthat secular instrumental reason was a prime mover in these disturbing trends. Some
\nGermans also became interested in pre-Christian Germanic deities. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nthat many of these people later became members of the Nazi Party, and that a number
\nof leading Nazis, though by no means all, were sympathetic to these values. <\/span>When in power the Party promoted a number of ecological
\nmeasures, particularly in agricultural policy. <\/span>All of this has been extensively demonstrated by a number of
\nwriters arguing for a connection between environmentalism, NeoPaganism, and
\nNazism.<\/p>\n
\nis, it falls far short of evidence there is any<\/i> causal link<\/i> between NeoPaganism
\nor environmentalism and Nazism or fascism.
\n<\/span>The authors who claim otherwise, are picking and choosing those elements
\nthey need to make their case from among the ideological currents of this complex, disturbing and fascinating time in European history.
\n<\/span>At the same time they ignore evidence that shows their claims to be
\nseriously over blown and sometimes complete rubbish. In a kind of intellectual
\nMcCarthyism they try and prove causation through guilt by association. <\/p>\n
\nclaims in time will eventually grow into an article by me. <\/span>But I think they stand by themselves pretty well even in
\nthis attenuated form.<\/p>\n
\nconclusions people drew from their concern with nature were interpreted through
\ntheir pre-existing<\/i><\/b> political
\nviews<\/b><\/span>. How could it be otherwise? Today <\/span>Libertarians and
\nclassical liberals have tried to develop “free market environmentalism<\/a>” because
\nthey come to these issues from a libertarian perspective. <\/span> <\/span>Indeed, years ago that is where I started. <\/span>Socialists have tried to develop a “socialist environmentalism<\/a>,” having previously been Socialists. This is what we would expect. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nGerman society which was most critical of the rise of secular industrial
\nmodernity and most friendly to ecological values tended to have always been
\nanti-liberal, nationalist, and anti-Semitic. <\/span>These were old currents in European culture, long preceding
\nany environmental concerns. <\/span>They
\nalso long preceded any concern with earth centered spirituality.<\/p>\n
\nsignificant about what is happening today in America and Europe is that concern
\nwith these issues is arising among people who accept modernity, accept liberal
\nvalues, and who almost universally are seeking ways to address their concerns
\nwithin this framework. <\/span>This was
\nnot the case in Germany.<\/p>\n
\nand others find so significant among National Socialist Germans were found in
\nmany places, and held by many people who were in no sense of the term National
\nSocialists or fascists.<\/b> <\/span>For example, Theodore Roosevelt was
\ndeeply concerned with conservation and admired John Muir. <\/span>He also thought that contending with
\nwild nature would help to reverse what he saw as a softening of American
\ncharacter brought about by urban living.
\n<\/span>Roosevelt admired military values and as president flexed America’s
\nmilitary muscles. <\/span>If America had become fascist, or if
\nRoosevelt had done so later on, his concern with nature would presumably have
\nbeen used by these people as evidence of how conservation and fascism had some
\nconnection.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nwas a committed democrat, one who spoke out strongly against Woodrow Wilson during World War One.
\n<\/span>As <\/a>he put it<\/a>, “To announce that there
\nmust be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the
\npresident, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally
\ntreasonable to the American public.” No F\u00fchrer Prinzip<\/i><\/span> there. <\/span>In addition<\/span>, Roosevelt and
\nthe Progressives in general were strongly in favor of equal rights for
\nwomen. <\/span>His “Bull Moose” Party gave
\nwomen more positions and emphasized their issues more than any previous
\nAmerican party had managed. <\/span>By
\ncomparison, the Nazis emphasized women’s traditional role as breeders for the
\nVolk.<\/p>\n
\nhand, beliefs absolutely essential to Nazism such as anti-Semitism existed with
\nno relationship towards Green values. <\/span>Anti-Semitism has a
\nlong and sordid history in Europe and one could make a better claim that
\nanti-Semitism played a causal role in the rise of Nazism than any other single factor except, perhaps, nationalism. <\/span>The German Martin
\nLuther said<\/a> of the Jews<\/p>\n
\nChristians do with . . . the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not
\ntolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and
\nblaspheming. . . . I shall give you my sincere advice. <\/p>\n
\nfire to their synagogues or schools and to bury or cover with dirt whatever
\nwill not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of
\nthem. <\/span>This is to be done o=in
\nhonor of our Lord and Christendom . . .<\/p>\n
\ntheir prayer books and Talmudic writings . . . be taken from them.<\/p>\n
\nthat their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and
\nlimb.<\/p>\n
\nthat safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nStaudenmaier, Biehl, and others’ logic, Protestant Christianity is far more
\nobviously a precursor of Nazism than is Pagan spirituality or concern for Nature. <\/span>Yet to any sane<\/i> thinker this is obviously wrong because many areas
\nof the world have had Protestantism, even Lutheranism, and not become
\nNazi. <\/span>The same is equally true
\nwith concern for Nature.<\/span><\/p>\n
\ncarefully understood when reading the writings of the time.<\/b> <\/span>Words
\nlike “Nature” change meanings in important ways over time. <\/span>Right wingers and left wingers, for
\ntheir opposite reasons, like to say our Founders disliked democracy, never ever
\nmentioning that the word meant something different at the time they wrote than
\nit means today, or that James Madison defined the American republic exactly<\/a> as
\nwe now define representative democracy (a term that did not then exist). <\/span><\/p>\n
\n“Nature” has the same problem. <\/span>As
\nused during that that time “Nature” had a strong survival-of-the-fittest
\nflavor, with conflict and struggle being the primary value within life. <\/span>People argued over the units that
\ncompeted and struggled, from Social Darwinists who initially emphasized individuals
\nto Hitler and the Nazis who emphasized races. Nazis justified their violence in part by claiming it was in keeping with “Nature.”<\/p>\n
\nof symbiotic relationships being particularly important, though Peter Kropotkin
\nhad drawn initial attention<\/a> to them. He was largely ignored at the time, but today we know symbiosis (cooperation) is fundamental to evolution<\/a>. “Nature” like so many important words can only be understood in context and
\nwith sensitivity to the times. <\/p>\n
\nunmentioned the fact that at the same time there was another powerful
\ntotalitarian movement rising in Europe: Communism.<\/b> <\/span>Firmly established in
\nRussia, Communist Parties subservient to the Soviet Party were powerful forces
\nin German and other politics.
\n<\/span>Stalin’s Russia was as violent, expansionist, and murderous as the Third
\nReich. <\/span>Before Germany attacked it,
\nRussia had invaded and annexed Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, half of Poland, and
\nwas attempting the same in Finland.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nCommunist ideology was the exact opposite<\/i>
\nof the ecologically oriented “Green Nazis.” <\/span>Communists glorified human power over nature, ultimate human
\ncontrol over our history, and the wonders of industry, technology and science.
\nTo claim that Nature oriented values led to authoritarian politics while its
\nopposite did not is one of the most historically ignorant <\/span>claims it is possible to make.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nand Communist advocates of total control over nature shared in common was
\nmutual antipathy to liberal society and its values.<\/b> <\/span>In my opinion, both the
\nauthoritarian romantics on the political right and the Communists and
\nanarchists on the political left correctly identified important problems within
\nliberalism as it was then advocated. But tragically, both made the fundamental
\nand disastrous error of concluding these problems could not be addressed within
\na liberal context of respect for individuals and democratic values. <\/span>Their cures were far worse than the
\nills they saw.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nhave shown in other writings that can be downloaded here<\/a> and here<\/a>, the weaknesses in liberal ideology that made it vulnerable to critiques from
\necological and earth spirituality perspectives can be addressed within a
\nliberal framework. <\/span>The same holds
\ntrue for the valid criticisms from the Marxist and anti-capitalist left. <\/span><\/p>\n
\ntheoretical threat of eco-fascism in the US, although not one we need at
\npresent to worry about, nor do I think there ever will be except in Glenn Beck’s imagination. <\/span>Simple fascism
\nis a vastly bigger threat. <\/span>Robert Paxton,
\nin his exhaustive study The Anatomy of Fascism<\/a><\/i> concludes that at its core, under its various national differences,
\nfascism can be defined as<\/span><\/p>\n
\nbehavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation
\nor victimhood, and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which
\na mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but
\neffective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties
\nand pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints
\ngoals of internal cleansing and external expansion. (p. 218)<\/p>\n
\nwhose judgment helped give us the Iraq War, with a similar depth of understanding has urged the Tea Party movement to
\n“go green<\/a>.” If the Teabagger movement were to become ecologically aware, then something
\nwith similarities to the precursors <\/i>of
\nNazism would have arisen in the US.
\n<\/span>It would be culturally and probably racially focused, concerned with
\nkeeping our country free from contamination, mostly by Mexicans. <\/span>It would be populist in tone,
\nnationalistic, and superficially opposed to big corporations and banks. <\/span>It would want an aggressive foreign
\npolicy. <\/span> It’s symbolism would be
\nconservative Christian, not Pagan. <\/i>
\n<\/span>As it has demonstrated over and over again, it would have little use for
\ndemocratic values and the rule of law. <\/span>What would
\nstill be lacking is actual violence against Americans who disagreed, and the
\nrise of a single leader. <\/span>The Teabaggers
\nare not fascist, but they are the closest thing to it post WWII America has yet
\ndeveloped.<\/span><\/p>\n