From Climate Change dispatch, by Kerry Jackson
Generally speaking, the first person in a debate who compares their opponent to Hitler or the Nazis at that moment loses the argument.
When the Third Reich is invoked, it’s usually clear evidence that that person’s position is so weak that they have had to resort to a gross misrepresentation of the other’s position.
There are exceptions, of course, because sometimes the Nazi label fittingly applies. Sometimes the lineage of a movement, institution, or political figure can be traced right back to the German fascist regime.
This is the case with today’s environmentalism, according to a one-time British investment banker.
“If you look at what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s, in their environmental policies, virtually every theme you see in the modern environmental movement, the Nazis were doing,” said Rupert Darwall, author of “Green Tyranny,” in a recent interview with Encounter Books.
“I think actually the most extraordinary thing that I came across was this quote from Adolf Hitler where he told an aide once, ‘I’m not interested in politics. I’m interested in changing people’s lifestyles.’ Well, that could be … that’s extraordinarily contemporary. That is what the modern environmental movement is all about. It’s about changing people’s lifestyles,” said Darwall, who is no crackpot on the fringe and whose background includes duties as a special advisor to the United Kingdom’s Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Fuhrer’s interest in “changing people’s lifestyles” is, not at all shockingly, similar to the goals of today’s climate fanatics who want to destroy capitalism and replace it with an economic system — run by them, naturally — that would certainly change lifestyles in the West.
Darwall further notes in the interview that “the Nazis were the first political party in the world to have a wind power program,” and were also opposed to eating meat, a delightful and nutritious activity that the warming alarmists consider a sin.
Read the full report here
The book: Green Tyranny: Exposing the Totalitarian Roots of the Climate Industrial Complex
is available on Amazon. Click image for more:
The word “lifestyles” does not ring true in the Hitler quote. I believe that word is a more recent usage.
Bear in mind that Darwall was likely paraphrasing an English translation of a German quote…
rip
Then he should not have called it a quote and put it inside quotation marks. As printed, it erodes his credibility.
Yeah, no, I understand your point…but…this is a transcript of an interview with Darwall. You can watch it yourself to see where he makes that statement. So, I don’t personally feel like there’s any lack of credibility based on the way it’s written or presented.
rip
Actually it does sound like Hitler. He believed that German society had been weakened by corrupting influences and looked back fondly to the medieval Germanic heroes. In his mind, Germany could only be great again if the people sloughed off the corruption and started living a more ascetic lifestyle. He, himself, was a vegetarian.
Neo-nazis are fascinated by all things medieval. It drives actual medieval scholars crazy.
Medieval values are pretty juvenile and really kind of dysfunctional, maybe even pathological. Things improved a lot with the enlightenment. The postmodern feminists who want to cancel the enlightenment should study history more thoroughly. link
Correct Bob. Anyone interested should read Robert Proctor’s ‘The Nazi War on Cancer’ or Anna Bramwell’s various writings on the subject. There was even an organic garden at Dachau – a nice touch! My favourite illustration is the poster of grateful laboratory animals marching past Goering, arms raised in salute, thanking him fro adopting an ordinance prohibiting vivisection.
That said, I think the similarity can be taken too far, and should only be applied to those who advocate for autocratic means to achieve objectives. The connection is neither necessary nor sufficient – though sometimes accurate.
The german word is Lebensstil. But it might not have been in use in the 1930s. Lebensfhrung (way of life) was in use back then and is sometimes translated as “lifestyle.”
Lebensstil roughly translted as lifestyle and lebensraum or should I say und lebensraum were Hitler’s obsessions I seem to remember reading.
Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole . . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought.”
Ecofascism
http://monbiot.scrapthetrade.com/ecofascism.html
“Ecofascism”? Sounds like New Age gibberish to me.
Then you’ll love this: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wdbgyq/ecosexuals-believe-having-sex-with-the-earth-could-save-it
We can control the weather by erecting wind-powered whirligigs and space-age solar panels
Now there’s some New Age gibberish.
What do we have now?….how many windmills and solar panels?…..and they tell us the weather is getting worse
…..obviously not working
Latitude
Eco: “Ah, but we don’t have enough windmills and solar panels to affect the climate.”
Latitude: “Well, how many do you need?”
Eco: (whenever asked) “One hundred thousand more”
It would.
@Dave Magill
That is the unfortunate reason gov. policies fail, we didn’t do enough of them!
Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform
Re: Agenda 21 and post 1992 information on Agenda 21.
This includes renewable energy among other issues such as climate change.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/outcomedocuments/agenda21
Select any item on the menu.
‘I’m not interested in politics. I’m interested in changing people’s lifestyles.’Source? I doubt Hitler said that.
Get the book.
The traditions and groups engaged in community service work are in rapid decline and are being replaced with community activist groups targeting and smearing rather than building in any normal sense of the word. The caring activity is going away and the assaulting activities are in vogue. The same transition is taking place in policy circles as seen in policy implementation and policy statements provided by the activists.
The story of a currently on-going tragedy caused by fat-head hubris:
“For decades,” David Hathaway, author of The EMP Hoax writes, “a gallon of gas was set at a nickel in Venezuela.
“The real gas price was out there to be discovered by the market, if it had been allowed to do so.”
And, to this day, the Venezuelan central planners are still on the case. Still trying to hunt down that mythical “Goldilocks” price. Except now, no price… food, gas, water, wind… will go unset.
In the meantime, of course, its citizens (who were dependent on the government managing such things) are, in a much more expedient fashion, hunting down dumpsters, animal shelters and cattle farms because the food supply chain has been blown to bits.
Without honest market signals, Venezuela is groping in the dark.
At best, the central planners make guesses in full knowledge they don’t know what they’re doing. At worst, their guesses are what they deem to be “educated.”
But, either way, they scoff at the idea that the economy, something so infinitely complex and rich, could ever be managed by anything but the infinite wisdoms hiding betwixt their ears.
And if the old birds aren’t as wise as they once thought?
Yoho. Not to worry, friend.
Not a single living skin cell is removed from their backs.
At the end of the day, it’s only those on the rungs lower — those who catch the overcast of the ivory towers — who feel the pinch.
(Genius!)
“The same goes,” Hathaway adds, “with interest rates in the U.S.”
The only interst rate that the government sets is the rate being paid for T-bills. They do that by determining how many they are going to sell or buy.
Don’t let the “Nazi” connection turn you off reading this book as it is actually a very small (and not really that essential) part of the book. It is really worth the time to read as it connects a lot of dots and provides a good explanation for how and why the climate change agenda is being pushed so hard.
I second the recommendation. The symbiotic relationship of the national socialists and environmentalists has received detailed attention in at least three previous books, and Darwall’s is a a needed concise presentation. I for one would not hesitate to emphasize the connection. There is a similar and parallel strain of foreboding in F.A. Hayek’s thorough analysis of garden-variety socialism. No pun intended, of course. Both philosophies can succeed only with absolute control over society. The three more concentrated studies, all fairly new, are:
Nazi Oaks: The Green Sacrifice of the Judeo-Christian Worldview in the Holocaust, by R. Mark Musser Dispensational Publishing 2017)
How Green Were the Nazis? Nature, Environment, and Nation in the Third Reich, Bruggemeier, Cioc and Zeller, editors (Paperback Ohio University Press, United States (2006)
The Green and the Brown a Study of Conservation in Nazi Germany (Studies in Environment and History), by Frank Uekoetter (Cambridge University Press, 2006)
This is a seriously good read. In fact Darwall notes that in 1941 Our Adolf stated that wind “was the power of the future”. Darwall also notes that if you strip out the global military domination and killing the Jews, the Nazi party manifesto looks similar to those of the Greens today.
I’m sure Al Gore has read the United States Office of Strategic Services’ description of Hitler’s psychological style:
“His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”
The problem is, climate catastrophists seem to have mistaken this diagnostic classic for a Best Practice Guide.
Not mistaken, official policy.
Sooooo… Trump?
I don’t think Al Gore ever got the chance to put that into practice.
On the other hand, I’d say it’s a succinct description of the strategy of the current POTUS
“people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”
Paul,
“On the other hand, I’d say it’s a succinct description of the strategy of the current POTUS
“people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”
I don’t understand why you would expect anyone to take that seriously if you don’t give some examples . . It looks (to me) like you don’t have any worth mentioning, when you don’t.
Pretty sure that paragraph is describing Trump.
H!tler: “People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one”
An Inconvenient Truth: “Rising sea levels have forced entire nations in the Pacific to evacuate to New Zealand”
Paul Butler: “I don’t think Gore took a leaf from the Third Reich Style Manual. Sorry, I just don’t see it.”
Of course you don’t, Paul.
To be fair, the Nazis based many of their policies on the Democrats. But cut back on the racism, because they thought the Democrats went too far.
[This wins the coveted “Make the Moderators Laugh Out Loud” Award. Congratulations! -mod]
They used that as advocacy in the Nuremberg trials.
Actually, this isn’t that ridiculous.
It is a historical fact that in the 1930’s several (eventually) prominent Nazis studied at schools in the USA and were impressed by the policies of the Democratic party.
When it came to formulate policy in Nazi Germany, these Nazis turned to the Democrats in the USA for guidance, and adopted their policies as their own. However, they found the Democrats racial policies too extreme, so watered them down.
Danish D’Souza gave a lecture on this about a year ago. (Don’t have link right now)
https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/dsouza-shocks-audience-with-democrats-racism/
A few questions that are logical here:
– Are the Warmians/CAGWers/Greenbeans willing to give up all their modern conveniences (which they take for granted), e.g., internet / telecommunications, plentiful food supplies, rapid transportation, clean water, modern sewage disposal and treatment, plentiful electricity, HVAC on demand, etc, etc, etc.?
– Are the Warmians/CAGWers/Greenbeans willing to give up the clothing they wear (all of it) including the wide variety of materials which include synthetics?
– Are the Warmians/CAGWers/Greenbeans willing to live on strictly rationed food, permanently?
– Are the Warmians/CAGWers/Greenbeans willing to give up modern medicine – all of it, including emergency medical help and disease preventives like vaccines and antibiotics?
– Are the Warmians/CAGWers/Greenbeans IDIOTS willing to give up living, period?
If they can’t answer “yes” resoundingly to these reasonable questions, they are phonies. All of those are things that we take for granted. There are other, similar questions, but these are the first that come to mind. We take these things for granted, especially heating a dwelling in the winter to stay alive and preparing food that is readily available. We might go camping to ‘get back to Nature’ but aren’t most of us glad to get back home? Going to a Renaissance Faire is a lark and I thoroughly enjoy it, but I do not wish to live in an environment where nightsoil is thrown into the streets and dreadful diseases are treated with bleeding and holy water.
Idealism is always great, isn’t it? But reality is a harsh mistress, and the reality that will hit these people if they want to live that way might shut them up.
I have said, and will continue to say it, that they need their own planet or a compound where they can find out what it’s really like to live that way. They need a hard, harsh dose of their own medicine to shut them up. I have yet to see any other answer to the problem.
I can’t remember where I first heard the quote but:
“There are only two groups of people who are in favour of subsistence farming.Those who don’t know any other sort and those who have never tried it.”
Seems to sum up the eco-warrior situation fairly well.
When I was in college, there were two girls in my biology class from an Amish town about 40 miles away. They were nursing students. When I talked to them about why they were taking nursing degrees, their answer made enormous sense: they may live in an “antique” way, but their community ALWAYS wants the best in medical aid.
I think we could learn a lot from the Amish/Mennonite people about real living and not really needing modern junk, but some things, they have agreed, are necessary to your well-being. And yes, they still make iceboxes.
Well said Sarah. It is not an accident CAGWers are from developed nations, and have no clue what it’s like to live in a backward developing nation. They have no empathy for people with poor living standards, and deep-down, I suspect, feel those people are disposable anyway, because there are “TOO MANY people” on the planet. CAGWers have no intention of sacrificing any of the things you listed in your remarks, that is for others. If CAGWers were serious about changing the world, they would set the example for others, but they don’t sacrifice a thing, not a thing.
How many of the CAGWers understand that the direction they are proselytizing will lead directly to the re-institution of institutionalized slavery? A double time march to the rear, as it were.
As long as they are not the ones being enslaved, I doubt they would object very much.
Sarah, I don’t agree with you that ” we can learn a lot from the Amish/Mennonite people about real living” If you think so, then do what you think CAGWers should do – make those sacrifices – live it. You won’t, because you like modern conveniences, all that “modern junk”. Yes there is some junk we don’t need, but not enough to worry about, our society works pretty well. We live in a clean environment, mitigate our impacts, because everyone cares about the environment. We certainly aren’t trashing the planet, and we never will come close to that, despite what anti-human environmentalists say and how much they exaggerate, speculate, lie, and mis-inform.
Ah! Well, hollybirtwistle, you apparently missed the point which is that the GREENIES want everyone else to do what they themselves are unwilling to do, which is go into subsistence living. Unless THEY do it first, they have no reason or right to expect others to do it ahead of them.
In regard to ‘make those sacrifices’ – you know nothing about my background or what my childhood was like but I can tell you that feeding 150 chickens every day and collecting their eggs, helping my parents with planting and weeding a five acre garden, and helping my parent with harvesting. canning and freezing the produce from that garden and some fruit trees is how my brother and sister and I earned our allowances. Also, having to use an outhouse until a bathroom could be installed is not my idea of a good time at all. And you haven’t lived until you have to put up with a three-party phone line and wait for those gossipy farmwives to get off the line so that you could make a call.
I also earned money during hay baling season, at 10 cents a bale for hay and 5 cents a bale for straw.
I see no reason for you to think that I don’t know what subsistence living is, when I grew up with it. Your comprehension skills are sadly lacking if you think that I need to live like people in Elizabethan England to make a point.
EXACTLY! Spot on!
No surprise here…
“TOWNSEND: I was making a speech to nearly 200
really hard core, deep environmentalists and I played
a little thought game on them. I said imagine I am the
carbon fairy and I wave a magic wand. We can get rid
of all the carbon in the atmosphere, take it down to
two hundred fifty parts per million and I will ensure
with my little magic wand that we do not go above
two degrees of global warming. However, by waving
my magic wand I will be interfering with the laws of
physics not with people – they will be as selfish, they
will be as desiring of status. The cars will get bigger,
the houses will get bigger, the planes will fly all over
the place but there will be no climate change. And I
asked them, would you ask the fairy to wave its
magic wand? And about 2 people of the 200 raised
their hands.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/25_01_10.txt
thanks.
Says it all
Thanks Will. Read through the transcript. Some good discussion there…even if it was all predicated on an absolute certainty of CAGW.
It’s remarkable how certain myths and lies are propagated, though. In one section, the discussion veers into how putting science in front of people has failed, and it just doesn’t work to change behavior. This is such a reoccurring theme that nobody seems to even question it anymore.
But, I don’t believe it’s true at all. Consider, as counter examples, driving with seat belts or smoking cigarettes. I both cases there was a major behavioral change on the part of individuals and society based on the “science”. And these were examples that instantly popped into my head. I’m confident we could come up with scores of additional ones if we tried.
So, to assuage their grief at their failure to convince people of a faulty, broken theory, they fall back on the lie that people just won’t accept science to change their behaviors. Sigh…
rip
ripshin, I can quickly come up with a couple more.
Eating fat is bad for you, many accepted this as the gospel truth.
Exercise at least 20 minutes a day, seems to be well embedded in society these days.
Slip Slop Slap, Australian version of sun protection adds. Very prevalent with schools these days.
Wearing of bicycle helmets. One of my pet hates.
“Slip Slop Slap, Australian version of sun protection adds. Very prevalent with schools these days.”
Huh? What “lie” is this based on? That repeated exposure to heavy sunlight can give you sunburn and melanomas over time? Then medical researchers are lying, too.
Australia and New Zealand have the highest mortality rates from skin cancer in the world, which increased from the 1950s to the 1990s and stabilised after the very effective Slip Slop Slap campaign from the early 80s. High mortality rates because many citizens have pale skin under strong sunlight at those latitudes, where indigenous people have quite dark skin and are less susceptible. They are better adapted to the environment.
Slip Slop Slap was good for Australians’ health (Kiwis adopted the campaign, too.)
I’m as skeptical of ad campaigns as the next person. Slip Slop Slap doesn’t belong on a list of cons.
Exercise is good for you, too. Wearing bike helmets statistically saves lives. I don’t like wearing them, but that doesn’t mean I have to deny the facts. I smoke, but I’m not so blind in my habit that I have to deny that I risk my health by doing so.
ANother tidbit…
“ROWLATT: I noticed early on in my year of living
ethically that all sorts of the advice you get from
greens has little if anything to do with tackling global
warming. Organic food, for example, is often more
carbon intensive to produce than super-efficient
industrial agriculture; locally produced goods can
sometimes have a higher carbon foot print than
imported goods. Greens are concerned about these
other objectives because the environmental
movement has been around a lot longer than the
climate issue indeed most of its preoccupations and
themes predate it, says the sociologist Lord Anthony
Giddens. “
Locally produced goods such as leafy greens are frequently run as labor-intensive projects, many of them on rooftops in cities, and are completely dependent on humans to plant, fertilize and harvest them at just the right time, never mind wash and bag them.
The cost to produce these plants on a half acre city rooftop may be considerably higher due to space rent, water requirements, fertilizers, and human wages than the same product from a large multiacre produce farm in Florida or California, where the seeds are planted as seed tapes, in long rows that are irrigated, fertilized by one or two farmhands on a tractor, and the labor involved in harvest and prepping for the market is almost always migrant workers.
This is a fascinating book, Ute Deichmann, Biologists under Hitler. 1996. Based on a dissertation at the University of Cologne. Epilogue has an interesting letter, one line near the end– “You didn’t want to see it, it was too inconvenient.”
https://www.amazon.com/Biologists-under-Hitler-Ute-Deichmann/dp/067407405X
Everybody wants to be Medieval “king”, “queen” “prince”, “princess” or “knight”, but nobody ever thinks about being a “serf”
– Been said:
KIP’s LAW: Every advocate of central planning always—always—envisions himself as the central planner*.
kipesquire.powerblogs [dot] com posts 1195619277 shtml
– And everyone else as shmucks, it might be added.
Amit Varma: indiauncut [dot] com iublog
{ – *and therefore entitled to his ZIL and his dacha, needless to say. They proselytize these things because as the elite of global society, THEY won’t have to live without anything – WE will. – }
I think this is totally wrong. Many of them expect just sensible decisions, ones that they themselves would accept. That the result is sensible to others and not to them, doesn’t come to them.
It is chilling that once Trump, Le Pen, Farage and many others had surprise wins, the MSM started to talk about the danger of democracy, that is, people voting. They wanted to replace democracy with some sensible central planning people. Now we all know how that would end up. In the first set, Europe and the US would be sacrificed for greater good. In the end, there stands a Mugabe/Chavez/Mao leading a corrupt UN.
That’s how it worked-out in Russia and China, isn’t it, where central planning killed tens of millions of people? And Venezuela, where it’s doing more of the same as we write this?
Another one – “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Replacing democracy, and democratic republics, has a much longer history amongst intellectuals.
Cass Sunstein’ “Nudge” stuff, and “Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech” have been out there for a while. But yes it seems to be hitting a level of acceptance in the public discourse, generally.
Alternate voting schemes have been out there, along with “alternative” models to capitalism, and new takes on the role of government – not to sustain freedom and pursuit of liberty, but to maximize quality of life for all: yes, the government, in this view, is obligated to dedicate itself to making you, and everyone else, all happy – – and all at the same time.
“I think actually the most extraordinary thing that I came across was this quote from Adolf H*tler where he told an aide once, ‘I’m not interested in politics. I’m interested in changing people’s lifestyles.’
A single out of context quote from which the author draws conclusions that are a stretch. H*tler said all sorts of things at various times. What were the things that H*tler sold that took root? Socialism. Hate. Superiority of the Aryan race. The promise to “make elbow room for the German people”.
This book is as much nonsense as blaming the Syrian conflict on climate change.
Let’s look at each word you wrote.
Socialism – Pretty much the liberal and warmist agenda.
Hate – Sure sums up the liberal and warmist actions toward anyone that doesn’t agree with them.
Superiority – Definitely a major part of the liberal and warmist viewpoints.
Elbow room – They sure don’t want anyone living anywhere that doesn’t live the way they say they should.
What’s the difference between a developer and an environmentalist
The environmentalist already owns a house in the woods.
What’s the difference between a greenie and a conservationist?
The greenie swaggers into the pub boasting that he protested to save the Daintree.
The conservationist is still out in the field planting trees.
And what do you think all that lebensraum was needed for? It was to allow the Aryans to quit their debased modern existence in cities and return to their racially-pure roots in the open spaces, farming and hunting like their heroic forefathers.
New-age and environmental ideas were commonplace amongst the Nazi leadership (and, presumably, at least some of their followers). Environmentalism was one part of the Nazi legacy that was not stamped out during the Allied occupation.
whilst your comment is valid, your reaction is not.
Nazism was about a new vision of humanity, in particular the German (Aryan) ‘race’ and encapsulated a new morality bases on its fundamental precepts – namely that Germans were the best the world had to offer, and Jews, Romanians, Poles etc etc were little better than vermin, and should be gassed out of existence like rats.
Where this parallels the New Left environmentalist is that here too we find the concept of a fundamental morality used to justify the imposition of a lifestyle and worldview on the masses.
It is this fundamental faux moral dimension that marks the New Left and the Environmental movement out from the forces of conservatism,. which in essence is completely amoral, preferring to leave that to religion. Conservatism is simply the pragmatic application of basic common sense principles like
“If it works, use it”
“If it ain’t broke, dont fix it”
“If it is broke, fix it till it isn’t”
“Don’t bite off more than you can chew” (small government)
and so on.
Never forget that as many Gypsies were killed as Jews.
But on the other hand the Nazis were obsessive environmentalists, wanting the German people to return to an agricultural existence, they practised clearing “inferior” people out of forests so that they could keep them as shooting playgrounds for the likes of drug addict Goering, the Nazis had the strongest anti-vivisection laws ever seen in Europe but happily disposed of those unfortunate people they regarded as less than perfect and Hitler was a militant vegetarian. Hmmm….
For an absolutely brilliant parody written (dangerously for the author) at the time, read Ernst Junger’s “On the Marble Clifftops” in which Hitler is mocked as “the Head Gardener”.
Perhaps. But perhaps not. When you have a theory that is difficult to support with science, like CAGW, you must resort to propaganda, appeal to authority, ad hominem, etc.
Maybe the climate was manipulated (Chemtrails Har rp space lasers) to enhance the drought to start the conflict.
I seen that interview last week and I am getting the book.
A website that has a lot about Nazi roots in the Environment movement is Environmentalism is Fascism:
http://ecofascism.com/index.html
This is anarcho primitivism, a hatred of all human progress which impinges on nature. Accepted by George Monbiot
Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf
“When people attempt to rebel against the iron logic of nature, they come into conflict with the very same principles to which they owe their existence as human beings. Their actions against nature must lead to their own downfall.” . Here, of course, we encounter the objection of the modern pacifist, as truly Jewish in its effrontery as it is stupid! ‘Man’s role is to overcome Nature!’
Millions thoughtlessly parrot this Jewish nonsense and end up by really imagining that they themselves represent a kind of conqueror of Nature; though in this they dispose of no other weapon than an idea, and at that such a miserable one, that if it were true no world at all would be conceivable.”
I thought that Hitler’s environmental policy was to blow the place up if the locals didn’t like him:s
If he didn’t like the locals, you mean.
By the way, did you know that a few Jew soldiers were fighting with German soldiers against the Soviet Union? This happened in Finland which had a working freedom of religion (but not freedom of communism) during the WWII. So liking the locals was more flexible than what people might think.
After the war, the Soviet Union wanted all prisoners of war back. Not to save them, but to punish them. They were sent to Siberia and killed. Allied-supported secret police worked heavily to do that, so that also some very regular locals were deported in the quota to the Soviet Union, and killed there in concentration camp -like conditions.
I just love the irony of history. Why did Hitler start a war with everybody? Did he think he was a superhuman leading a superrace? Maybe he did. But it wasn’t like his buddy in the Soviet Union was any nicer, he just managed to ally with the winners.
Didn’t he also declare the Japanese as “honorary arians” to get them to join the Axis? I guess flexibility in your beliefs comes in handy when your foe isn’t giving up as easily as you expected. ;->
Hitler started a war to avoid having to deal with the consequences of a failed German economy.
Leo I trust he wanted to retry the WWI and to build a German utopia.
The proper term is used in the subtitled of the book — “totalitarian”. There is no need to use scare tactics by dealing the Nazi card — this is the skeptic’s version of Overselling of Climate Science — The Overselling of the Evil of Climate Alarmism. It will have the same negative effect with the general public.
There is nothing “National Socialist” about climate alarmism — there are aspects of totalitarianism in the current overzealous environmental movement.
Kip, I think I would make your point differently: to wit, If you want to criticize a person or group, the way to do it is not to simply equate it with another group, particularly if the other group is the most hated group in modern history – i.e.Nazism. About the only similarity between Nazism and extreme environmentalism, (or climate alarmism) is that they are both political movements. And use of propaganda in some form is common to all political movements.
One can read Mein Kampf and find statements that could have been made by any movement or political leader. It’s not so much what was said by Nazis that was evil and hateful – it’s what they did. One can find things done by extreme environmentalists that were hateful – but that doesn’t get them anywhere close to the nihilism practiced by the Nazis.
This post trying to link the two movements is over the top, and is becoming typical of the identity politics that is practiced today. WUWT is better than this, and I hope we see no more of it..
Kip,
If you accept Johan Goldberg’s definition of fascism (mentioned somewhere else here in the comments), essentially, IIRC, that the importance of the State is elevated above that of the individual, then I would argue it’s an even more appropriate label than totalitarian.
And certainly there should be caution when invoking a comparison with Hitler and the third reich, but…it should also be a major warning sign when you find an ideology or movement or {fill in the blank} that employs tactics or has goals which are non-trivially similar to the Nazis. As such, I believe it’s fair game to invoke them. After all, we don’t hesitate to invoke Communism or Marxism, and surely those are of a similar evil as Naziism (at least on a purely quantitative level).
rip
“…it should also be a major warning sign when you find an ideology or movement or {fill in the blank} that employs tactics or has goals which are non-trivially similar to the Nazis. As such, I believe it’s fair game to invoke them. After all, we don’t hesitate to invoke Communism or Marxism, and surely those are of a similar evil as Naziism (at least on a purely quantitative level).” rip
Yes, if this author successfully documents the NaSi Party connection to worthless wind, this would be interesting to many of us. The list of causes shared by progressives with WWII Germany is already non-trivial: gun registry, gun control, gun seizure; gov. doctors; belief in Darwinian racism; anti-semitism; gov control of property, production and prices; population control; vegetarianism imposed top-down; nationalized education; etc etc.
Exactly. The European “Progressive Movement” was all about Fascism. The first American Progressive Movement was Theodore Roosevelt that started the Progressive Party because the Republican Party wouldn’t back his ideologies. By that era the US had a big European immigrants policy. That brought their ideologies over here with them. People that were already accepting big government control over everything. The Progressive Movement moved into the Democratic Party as more people wanted more from the Government as they were being taxed. WWI brought more European immigrants here and by the time FDR was elected after the Global Stock Market Crashed and the Great Depression set in…more people became dependent upon government. So the New Deal was mimicking the Progressive Movement of European Fascist Ideologies as they were mimicking what FDR was doing. Such is the progress of faster media by phones and radio and TV that brought news from weeks to days to hours across the Atlantic. After WWII more “Refugees” from Europe immigrated from the war torn and collapsed economies to the USA. More of the “When you bring there to here, here looks more like there.”
johchi7 brings up some wonderful points.
It is heartening to remember that after WWI, the Republicans refused to join the League of Nations, and won the national argument against giving up American sovereignty to a supranational body. And they kept a very close eye on Pres Woodrow Wilson, too. (:
But the political class is now made up of progressive globalists, both sides; I admit it. I have my regrets just like every one else. Remember, Pres DJT ran against wars in the ME and the trillions spent with nothing to show for it. He ran against MS 13 and nafta and ttp. So maybe we can all find some common ground for a while, I don’t know!
Guess where the NAZIS party got it’s “eugenics” program?
The early American progressive movement and psychiatric profession.
i’m not buying that one yet, mr sam.
being as how ‘blood lines’ have been at root of all the royal families forever.
you don’t get more racially oriented than that.
world wars have been family feuds.
then, when darwin published ‘origin’ the wedgewoods started selective breeding among themselves – which didn’t work out so well.
(some of the above is hearsay cuz i wasn’t there, but the main thought is that heredity has been a principal component of society since the day after got granted humans the grace to rope a goat.
The Nazis themselves used that as advocacy at the Nuremberg trials.
Gnomish: Sam is right. Read: “Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era” by Thomas C. Leonard
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691169594
Also:
“The Passing of the Great Race: Or, The Racial Basis of European History is a 1916 book of scientific racism by American eugenicist, lawyer, and amateur anthropologist Madison Grant.” … “It is considered one of the main works in the 20th century tradition of scientific racism and has been described as “The Manifesto of Scientific Racism”.” “Among those who embraced the book and its message was Adolf Hitler, who wrote to Grant to personally thank him for writing it, referring to the book as “my Bible.””
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passing_of_the_Great_Race
See more generally: “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change” by Jonah Goldberg
https://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0767917189
Walter Sobchak February 13, 2018 at 1:05 pm
i have no doubt that everything you cite is accurate and true
nevertheless, the philosophy was not born of progressives even if the best propaganda was.
family disputes lead to world wars but most of the royal bloodlines remain intact.
http://projectbritain.com/royal/succession.htm
that doesn’t change for many thousands of years
family bloodlines, as always. has it ever not been about eugenics?
you are in the wrong tree gnomish. Read your assignments.
The links between the activities of the Second Reich and the Third were never investigated until, conveniently, after many of the WWII guilty parties were already dead. German supremacy was certainly a huge component in the willingness of the Germans to create the largest army on the Continent in preparation for WWI. Aryan doctrines, Aryan archaeology, and the destiny of German rule were certainly already being developed long before WWII, and was providing some of the morale for WWI. I say this because the scale of the military build-up in Germany prior to WWI was totally disproportionate to the other European nations. There had to be high morale amongst the public to support such a massive shift to universal conscription in a time of peace, under the Kaiser’s Second Reich.
The blind spots that prevent linking WWI and WWII Germany are not there just because it was not researched, but are also generational. The Boomers do not allow themselves to think that dear sweet quiescent Germany tried to take over Europe twice. It is totally unrealistic to expect any Boomer to be able to recognize or acknowledge that plain fact. Somehow, adolf was Britain’s fault.
Furthermore, one of the objections made in the famous Scopes trials against Darwinism is that it would lead to racial doctrines and policies that favor so-called superior races and attempted to control and reduce so-called inferior races. And that was truly prescient. Was that not a useful warning for the early 1900s? Who was making those objections? And it is true, wherever Darwin was, there was eugenics also. There were some in every country who found the doctrine of racial Darwinism and eugenics attractive. Of course there were some f-scists as well in every country at the time WWII broke out. (Where did all the Nzis go after WWII?) But the people rejected the ridiculous doctrine as both bad science and as also godless. They were horrified at the outcome of eugenics uncovered after the War. The resistance of the civil society to these genocidal pet philosophies has traditionally been very strong in the English speaking republics. And there is still some strength to resist it even now, thank God, for the time being.
It is chilling to read post WWII genetics papers from the US. Eugenetics is still not dead, it’s just hiding in disease prevention. There is also a continuous tradition of racism/elitism hiding in complaining about genetic depression and consanguinity in small groups like Amish, islanders or villagers of remote places in the medical literature.
To make it clear – I think some fetuses can be aborted due to huge genetic defects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanatophoric_dysplasia
Eugenics. Can I spell? No.
IMHO this post is not a positive contribution to the climate debate and will be sited by detractors to tarnish WUWT’s excellent reputation.
Citing Godwin’s Law then breaking it is asking for it and critics of this websites will question the political agenda. Its just asking for it.
Godwin’s law doesn’t state that the first person who compares the the N@zi’s looses It just states that as a debate gets longer a reference to N@zi’s becomes inevitable.
Concern trolls are concerned.
A decade ago I was not allowed to speak in comments in these terms on this blog.
How times change.
Now I am not allowed to speak about the Democrats influence on crimes against humanity.
In the next couple of decades, perhaps?
Deja Vu…
“IMHO this post is not a positive contribution to the climate debate”
Yep! There are plenty of other, lower-quality sites that could have carried this.
There is also the fact that merely because someone — ANYONE — says or does something is not an argument. It is, however, frequently invoked as one by lazy or dishonest advocates and is closely related to “97% of scientists …”.
“When the Third Reich is invoked, it’s usually clear evidence that that person’s position is so weak that they have had to resort to a gross misrepresentation of the other’s position.”
What bothers me is that comparing everybody and everything to you know who trivializes the evil of you know who and his friends. That being said, there are scary parallels. Read this book and draw them yourself.
https://www.amazon.com/Garden-Beasts-Terror-American-Hitlers/dp/030740885X
“In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler’s Berlin” by Erik Larson.
Berlin 1933. True story.
Yes. Excellent book.
Yes, it is a pretty good book. What I found most fascinating was the ease with which people were seduced by both the National Socialists and the Communists. “The greater good” is the handiest weapon for a tyrant no matter his position on a political gradient. I think a case could be made that the battle between Fascism and Communism was more sibling rivalry than a clash of opposites.
Yes, people were easily seduced. And Hitler was the perfect guy to exploit German politics.
On the other hand, the book makes clear that Hitler was openly regarded as a lunatic by Americans in Berlin when the new ambassador arrived in 1933. And an isolationist U.S. government gave them almost no support.
Toto,
Good book recommendation. But maybe not for the reasons you seem to believe?
The story of the Dodd family’s politics and beliefs is a near perfect parallel for today’s AGW in-crowd.
Martha Dodd, the daughter of the family in the book, worked for the Soviet communist intelligence service. Her “admiration” of the Nazis, and sleeping with some of them, was a cover story to allow her to do her communist espionage work more effectively. Martha eventually defected to the communists, decades later, when she was accused during the “Red Scare” and McCarthy’s revelations. Of course, there was no “Scare” about it, McCarthy was right. The US government was infiltrated from top to bottom with communist agents, all bent on destroying American culture, government, society, and economy.
http://www.pennilesspress.co.uk/prose/strange_case_of_martha_dodd.htm
Being part of an international organization that trumpets its goal of “Saving the Planet” from evil (American) capitalism was then, and is now, the ultimate virtue signal. The true believers of the Comintern were carbon copies of today’s Green-anti-CO2-anti-capitalism hate-filled “do-gooders.”
Nothing Nazi about Dodd’s family. Nothing Nazi about Michael Mann and his PC-Progressive crowd.
Martha’s, and Mann’s belief system is straight out of Moscow. Their beliefs came to the USA carried in the Popular Front organizations covertly created and run by the Comintern. The aura of virtue that came from believing the “right” things, and the in-crowd that shared those beliefs, was so attractive, and such a successful approach to manipulating a culture, that the beliefs carry on till today. Mann today, and Dodd then, despise the Normal-Americans and our economy. They both were/are willing to lie, cheat and steal loudly, publicly, on the record attack our economy, and our way of life in an attempt to destroy it.
The “Green” hatred of capitalism, and the engine of the capitalist economy, “fossil fuels,” is a direct descendant of the Comintern operation to destroy the American economy. Dodd was a Willing Accomplice then, the CO2-hating crowd is now.
Nothing to do with Nazis or Hitler.
For a fuller story of Martha Dodd, see here:
http://www.pennilesspress.co.uk/prose/strange_case_of_martha_dodd.htm
Is there a tipping point in the number of refugees coming out of Venezuela before liberals, Hollywood, and the UN knowledge a problem exists? Just round off the number to the nearest 100,000 people with you answer
You can’t make a socialist paradise without breaking a few peasants.
Besides, according to the lefties I know on the Internet, the collapse isn’t due to socialism, it’s due to the falling price of oil.
Of course, those who blame the falling price of oil for the collapse were claiming that the ‘success’ of Venezuela over the last few years was due to socialism, not the high price of oil. And most of them want to destroy the oil business because ‘Global Warming’.
But, then, SJWs always lie.
If you read Mein Kampf you will see the similarities with the way environmentalists work
Before home computers I spent many hours a week in my local libraries. Time Life had a series about WWII with – if memory serves – was 32 volumes. Part of it was on how Hitler had an Environmentalists Conservation ideology that nationalised forests and other land’s taken from the citizens private property. This was a lot like what Theodore Roosevelt did to the Western State’s when they became State’s. Then there was how Hitler was a vegetarian and he forced this ideology on the population and had a big problem with it as the main food was the sausages of Germany. It was German scientists that linked some cancer to tobacco and Hitler banned tobacco because the healthcare for people dying of cancer was too expensive to care for people that were going to die anyway. Being socialized healthcare they sent those with cancer home to die without any form of treatments, even to ease their pain. Today Germany is the most outspoken about climate change and it goes back to how Hitler had changed their country. Those ideologies are still a big part of their society. And like a virus it has spread globally. Jonah Goldberg has a book “Liberal Fascism” that is well researched and point’s out how America, through FDR, brought Fascism here. Note that Fascism is different in every country by the degree it is implimented.
“Note that Fascism is different in every country by the degree it is implimented.”
There’s a classic book on that theme, over 50 (?) years old, titled Fascism: Left, Right, and Center.
As a form of government it is different in every country that has established it. Spain was different than Italy that was different than Germany that was different than the USA that is different than Tribalism Fascism of the Middle Eastern countries. This was all because each country had different ideologies of what Fascism was and what each country would allow by the leader’s of those countries. Our Constitution wouldn’t allow a lot of FDR’s New Deal because of our congress and Supreme Court.
The main difference between Fascism and Communism is that in Communism the Government owns everything, distribution of everything and the absolute control of everything and everyone. Whereas in Fascism the population owns most of everything that has extremely regulated production and quality and quantity by intergovernmental departments and licensed and taxed as it controls every aspect of our lives by the Government.
Without control, ownership is meaningless.
Never forget A.N.T.I.F.A.:
Adopting
Nazi
Tactics
Instead of
First
Amendment
On a side note. We posters should take a moment to thank the moderators who no doubt are being overwhelmed by comments held for review due to the frequent mentions of Na-zees and Hipler.
Thank you overworked underappreciated mods.
[Sheesh! You have no idea how right you are. I’m like…who’s idea was it to post a story about Nazi’s anyway?!? Durn, said Nazi…now I have to moderate my own post! -mod]
I’ve always wished there was a way to have selective naughty word filtering based on the topic of the original post.
The most important blog that constantly attacks this blog is the https://www.skepticalscience.com/
Beware of anything they say because they are not skeptics abou AGW they are skeptical of us. and here is an example of their logic from their website
“Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they’re simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.”
This is so flawed that even a child would recognize the fallacy.
This must be a new meaning of the word “important” that I wasn’t previously aware of
Important, as used in the leading sentence, is to say that Skepticalscience.com was an interesting place to explore before CAGW took hold. Now it’s not sceptical, or science.
I think a 404 is more interesting and important.
I’ve only been saying this since the beginning.
Funny how all the sociology professors – for whom it should be most obvious – seem to want to focus on the ‘phenomenon’ of ‘denialism’.
I often wonder why so many of the “Warmians” have German names.
Mann, Schmidt, Rahmstorf, Stieg, Hansen, Schneider.
Hansen is a Danish name, but close enough.
No surprises here
In my opinion, elitist intellectuals have always had totalitarian, top-down government control dreams.
From Plato’s Republic, on down. Just as Darwin came up with a science-y explanation that could allow the intellectuals to get rid of God, they were already there, intellectually, and so had an appetite for Darwin’s ideas.
They already had been dealing with the pesky problem of The Poor for a while, as society boosted productivity, encouraging people to drift to urban areas, and as religion had its monopoly on charity taken away, little by little, by government. Our leading thinkers in the nature of man – Locke, Rousseau, etc., were prompted by the debates of what to do with ne’er-do-well begger-thiefs, and their women, having babies they could not financially take care of.
Hitler was just another stripe of elitist totalitarian, but one who actually accomplished more than publishing his views.
Mr. Darwell is quite brave.
Thanks for posting this.
I look forward to buying a copy and reading it.
The True Face of Fascism is Socialist Big Government Not Conservative Small Government
If you read nothing more than this sentence of the article, the common denominator of almost all self-inflicted humanitarian atrocities requires a strong centralized Government that doesn’t respect human rights. Without a strong central government, there would have been no Holocaust, no Holodomor, Killing Fields, Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, North Korean continued mass starvation, … Continue reading
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/12/10/the-true-face-of-fascism/
+1. But small government needs a strong army and foreign policy not to become nonexistent government.
Yep…unlerss you have America as your neighbor. Just look at Canada. They don’t spend anything on military and direct it all towards social services…and their healthcare is still worse than our VA….and that isn’t saying much.
Canada has a small government?
“and their healthcare is still worse than our VA”
I spent a couple of weeks in a VA hospital a few months ago, and could not have been treated better. I don’t know if Trump had anything to do with the good service, but I was very pleased with the treatment I got from the VA employees.
Frankly, I don’t think Gaia Worshipping Malthusian EcoWarriors are like a certain historical group from Germany.
They are a brand new species of despicable noxious scum, mutating from a mélange of disproven and evil concepts from past centuries and carrying a brand new sort of deadly virus. In the mélange is not just the two evils of the twentieth century but the defeated evil of the nineteenth century (slavery) and the slumbering evil of the eighteenth century (extreme radicalism – i.e. Robespierre) mixed with Malthusian loathing of humanity in general.
Why is it that every new century brings some new evil?
The point was comparing their methods, not comparing individuals.
I watched an interview of Rupert Darwal on C-SPAN’s BookTV channel and was very impressed by his indisputable knowledge of the subject, his erudition and his obvious intelligence. On that basis alone, I recommend reading the book.
I requested a copy of Darwall’s book from my local public library. Naturally, given my residence in the Sovereign Socialist People’s Republic of ________, that library branch didn’t have a copy. They sought to locate a copy via the inter-library loan system (which is supposed to include all university-level educational institutions and other public libraries in said Sovereign Socialist People’s Republic).
Apparently, there is not a single copy residing anywhere in the Sovereign Socialist People’s Republic. Quelle surprise !!
There are always people and groups of people that crave power and control over the masses. The labels attached to such tyranny doesn’t matter. It is the methods used to herd the “sheople” that matter and that they have in common.
None of those methods result in freedoms for the “sheople”.
If you don’t understand your enemy, then you have lost before the battle has begun.
If you see people as enemies because they disagree with you, you have lost what winning a battle can’t replace.
‘The Climate Industrial Complex’
+1
Kerry Jackson says, “Darwall further notes in the interview that “the Nazis were the first political party in the world to have a wind power program,” and were also opposed to eating meat, a delightful and nutritious activity that the warming alarmists consider a sin.”
Seriously, are you apologizing for Nazi’s? That’s just not cool….
After some consideration… I don’t think the current environmentalism has “roots” in Nazism, but rather, it is the same mindset.
Little wonder history repeats.
i like this aphorism better:
history doesn’t repeat itself. it rhymes, tho.
This is silly.
What made nazis awful was not their paganism, obsession for purity, and all those things that greens share with them. It wasn’t their goal.
What made them awful was there willingness to use whatever it took, including brutal violence, to achieve these goals.
Most greens wont do that, and reject violence. Lots of them DO talk, a lot, about humans being as bad for the planet as Untermenschen were said to be for Germany, but they don’t act accordingly as nazis did. They are willing to use State violence to force other into their ways, but no more and no less that any political force, so they are no better for sure, but no worse either
The vast majority of German’s weren’t brutal monsters either.
The fact remains that the environmental movement as a whole is willing to use these methods to achieve their ends, even if some of the shock troops haven’t fully bought in.
OK, Mark W, give me a couple of concrete examples of using “these methods to achieve their ends”. I want to know if you’re serious.
scraft is right, they won’t camp us. As No pressure 10:10 shows, they just liked to see some blood, in a comical way. It is only that status quo keeps this way as long as they don’t start believing in 50 million climate refugees and all other lies they spread.
Just look at what they say they want to do, once they get the power to do it.
Guilt by association. We don’t approve or like it when the warmists do it to us, so please don’t do it to others. I am a vegetarian for ethical reasons, but I assure you it had zip to do with H*tler. Why so many skeptics keep on taking potshots at people like me (also a skeptic) is beyond my understanding. An ethical vegetarian HAS to oppose warming alarmism because of the bird and bat slicing turbines and the torture birds to death solar thermal plants. And also because CO2 is plant food and creates food growth for humans and wildlife. WE are the real environmentalists, we skeptics. So please, please stop shooting our movement in the foot with anti-environment, anti-vegetarian nonsense.
The inspiration of the CAGW propaganda
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KRrOhjB4mC4/UiDxu_LU7RI/AAAAAAAAIOs/fqKbBP4mFoA/s400/Why-people-believe.jpg
OK, I’ll bite. Who says that, and with what evidence?
I suspect it really depends very much on the audience and the arena. If it happens on Facebook or Twitter or at The Guardian you might get called such things for simply, say, supporting some of the policies of the current US President. The person insulting you may receive thunderous applause from the gallery, and your reply may be deleted or not published at all even if it is truthful/correct. Is that really a win?
(side comment:
I understand why my comment above, re-quoting the article, went straight into moderation, but it must make a lot of extra work for the moderators with articles like this. When the topic and article itself contains key words which trigger auto-moderation is there no way of preempting the problem with the software currently in use (Is it WordPress? Someday I might start a blog of some sort and it is interesting to know these sort of things in advance).)
[Life happens. Then you die. 8<) True, political and hysteresis-evoking-emotional threads are the most difficult. We'll manage.
But please, do leave the square [] brackets for us. It's how we tell the outside world what has been cut, pruned, twinned, or corrected. .mod]
“Who says that, and with what evidence?”
One of those everybody-knows things. See also Godwin’s Law, practically as old as the internet, so I won’t repeat it here. Two parts to it, first the high probability of someone saying it, second the high probability that the discussion then jumps the tracks, ending the original discussion. Everybody loses.
The climate consensus triggered Godwin’s law decades ago when they chose to call skeptics “deniers”.
Good work in the last few posts. The trick that Nazis did was to raise the importance of “the cause” above everything else. This is similar for many tyrants and the green movement bears similarities in placing nature above humans. Pol Pot had much the same philosophy as die hard greens. Once the general public accept “the cause” above all else then all manner of atrocities against humans become possible. Good societies tend to protect their individuals of every kind above everything else.
“Darwall further notes in the interview that “the Nazis were the first political party in the world to have a wind power program,” and were also opposed to eating meat, a delightful and nutritious activity that the warming alarmists consider a sin.”
Where did all the Nzis go after WWII?
I think they disappeared in a political sense. But totalitarianism did not disappear, it grew well under communists. I do think totalitarianism is being watched for, but it grows behind your back. Putin is an example. He just turned the ruins of the Soviet Union into a new dictatorship. And Russians, never been able (in several senses) to vote, are again restricted to one option.
“Nazi tactics” are the wrong words to use. “Extremeist tactics” are better, employed by both the extreme left and the extreme right.
But as a check: did leftist or right regimes murder most people during the 20th century?
Answer: Leftists by a country mile. (Think Stalin plus Mao plus Pot)
I would add the names Kim, Chavez and Maduro to that list as the most resent.
What does “Left” mean?
What does “Right” mean?
These terms, even when applied to the past, but especially an attempt to apply them to today’s political environment, are worse than useless.
The terms are deliberately twisted and merged, made to mean anything, to justify any action.
We’ve always been at war with ______________. (Oceania/Syria/Eastasia/Iraq/Eurasia…..)
The struggle has two sides: Freedom/individualism/free enterprise is one side. The other side is slavery/communitarianism/planned economy is the other.
The dichotomy of Right/Left is false.
Everything about the major players on both sides in the European war was AGAINST the American way of Freedom/individualism/free enterprise–both the USSR and Germany were FOR slavery/communitarianism/planned economy.
In fact, after America was dragged into the European war, we supported the most heinous of the slavery/communitarianism/planned economy sides–the USSR. Before and after WW2, the USSR slaughtered, by several multiples, millions of more innocents than H*tler’s wildest dreams.
ALL the democides in the 20th century were carried out by regimes based on slavery/communitarianism/planned economy.
Right vs Left has no meaning.
I would make the argument that there is a difference in what Conservative means to other countries as to that of the USA. Conservative in general means to preserve. So in a European country it would mean to preserve what it once was like a Monarchy and pre-European Union. Where in the USA it would be like our Constitution created it to be, with limited federal government and more power to the people and their State’s.
Left has always been Socialist as Hagel and Marx and Mussolini defined them. Just as you pointed out. And Right also as you pointed out in the USA but not in other countries. But…in the USA it is hard to separate the Democratic Party from what the Republican Party has been doing lately.
“I would make the argument that there is a difference in what Conservative means to other countries as to that of the USA. Conservative in general means to preserve. So in a European country it would mean to preserve what it once was like a Monarchy and pre-European Union. Where in the USA it would be like our Constitution created it to be, with limited federal government and more power to the people and their State’s.
“Left has always been Socialist as Hagel and Marx and Mussolini defined them. Just as you pointed out. And Right also as you pointed out in the USA but not in other countries. But…in the USA it is hard to separate the Democratic Party from what the Republican Party has been doing lately.”
Well, you don’t even want to get started on the meaninglessness of “Conservative” and “Liberal.” Neither of those have any meaning at all now.
“Left” does NOT equate to “Socialist,” especially in the USA.
Crony Capitalist Globalist Internationalists describe BOTH political parties in the USA.
The core belief system of the Politically Correct Progressive Party (still using “Democrat”) is hatred for Normal-America. They express this overtly and loudly.
The Republicans, on the other hand, flaunt “patriotism,” but their actions are much different from their words.
The Establishment Republicans share the PC disdain for Normals.
Both Parties accept the hybrid, crony-based quasi-free enterprise economic system that awards spoils to their favorite cronies.
Both are all-in on war-forever-in-the-middle-east.
Both, more or less, are just fine with massive regulations and control that the AGW “carbon trading” schemes introduce.
Republicans are more likely to publicly voice skepticism about the whole scheme, but that’s mostly just for the schmucks back home who vote them in. Once they’re in DC, they get a piece of the crony action, and they’re off to the races!
Left vs Right?
Conservative vs Liberal?
Republican vs Democrat?
Precious little meaning to any of those dichotomies. Precious little difference.
Trump appeared to be an exception–an anti-Establishment friend of Normals . And that is why he was elected. In office, however, he’s morphed into more of an Establishment crony. Not quite, but not as advertised, either.
I see what you did there. There is a world of difference between Left and Right, and they have completely different histories. The problem is that there are fewer and fewer individuals who will execute their campaign promises once they get into office. Either they say one thing, and then go native on the Hill, or they are not saying what they are really doing.
We see many examples of this in the Wikileaks emails. HRC fully supported TTP and open borders when giving 2-hundred-thousand-dollar-speeches to the Banks..Whereas Pres. Trump actually brought up bad trade deals, which Paul Ryan(R) was fast tracking for the Democrats, and then promptly withdrew from TTP as soon as elected.
The crisis is in the lack of integrity in individuals. There is hardly any politician who falls outside of those two categories. But if any one does what he actually says when running for office, then government of the people, by the people, and for the people will not perish.
Zeke,
“There is a world of difference between Left and Right, and they have completely different histories.”
Perceived history does not matter. It’s constantly changed and rearranged for current purposes.
Eg: Prior to FDR entering WW2 to help the Brits and Stalin, “Conservative” would have meant that we stuck to the constitution and did not meddle in foreign intrigues. In 2018, the belief system of the most prevalent flavor of “Conservativism” is totally based on the exact opposite–that America MUST intervene anywhere, any time, anyhow, with any force for…..democracy?…freedom? girls’ schools…? ….counter-terrorism?
It would be quite helpful if you could explain the difference between Left and Right today.
It’s best to focus on realities and actions, NOT on words and speeches.
Thanks.
Kent Clizbe says, “Prior to FDR entering WW2 to help the Brits and Stalin, “Conservative” would have meant that we stuck to the constitution and did not meddle in foreign intrigues.”
You know as well as I do that the US attempted to stay out of both WWI and WWII for those reasons.
The Zimmerman Note, in which Germany offered Mexico US territory for aiding them in an invasion, changed our response. The US did not even enter the war until Apr of 1917.
While Germany was bombing Britain and sinking ships during WWII, including ours, to starve Britain, we stayed neutral. The reason we became involved in WWII was because our base was attacked in Hawaii — we declared war on Japan. Germany then declared war on us.
Folks, don’t forget there was a mutual disarmament treaty with the US, the UK, Italy and Japan before WWII. The US and the UK followed through and reduced their naval and armed forces, while Italy, Germany and Japan secretly built up their militaries. So get with it. Countries with very very aggressive intentions have historically weakened us first by hook or crook.So the lesson here is that people who are engaged in weakening our military, our ability to make steel and to manufacture goods, are probably going to start a war. After you get bombed or invaded, you can either win, or lose. “Peace at any cost” only works until it doesn’t.
What nonsense (without having read the book, just going on the quotes in the article).
Another book that provides an excellent example that totally destroys the silly theory that today’s capitalism-hating CO2-scared-virtue-signallers are based on a H*tlerian belief system was raised in another comment above. The book is about an American 1% family–the American ambassador to *itler’s Germany as the war broke out, Dodd.
The book purports to show how alluring the N*zi beliefs were–why even young Martha, Dodd’s twenty-something socialite daughter, was sucked into the Aryan whirl! The book leaves out the whole story though.
The story of the Dodd family’s politics and beliefs is a near perfect parallel for today’s AGW in-crowd.
Martha Dodd, a rich and pampered American socialite, worked for the Soviet communist intelligence service. Her “admiration” of the Nazis, and sleeping with some of them, was a cover story to allow her to do her communist espionage work more effectively. Martha eventually defected to the communists, decades later, when she was indicted during the “Red Scare” and McCarthy’s revelations. Of course, there was no “Scare” about it, McCarthy was right. The US government was infiltrated from top to bottom with communist agents, all bent on destroying American culture, government, society, and economy. Martha died in communist Czechoslovakia
http://www.pennilesspress.co.uk/prose/strange_case_of_martha_dodd.htm
Being part of an international organization that trumpets its goal of “Saving the Planet” from evil (American) capitalism was then, and is now, the ultimate virtue signal. The true believers of the Comintern were carbon copies of today’s Green-anti-CO2-anti-capitalism hate-filled “do-gooders.”
Nothing N*zi about Dodd’s family. Nothing N*zi about Michael Mann and his PC-Progressive crowd.
Martha’s, and Mann’s belief system is straight out of Moscow. Their beliefs came to the USA carried in the Popular Front organizations covertly created and run by the Comintern. The aura of virtue that came from believing the “right” things, and the in-crowd that shared those beliefs, was so attractive, and such a successful approach to manipulating a culture, that the beliefs carry on till today. Mann today, and Dodd then, despise the Normal-Americans and our economy. They both were/are willing to lie, cheat and steal loudly, publicly, on the record attack our economy, and our way of life in an attempt to destroy it.
The “Green” hatred of capitalism, and the engine of the capitalist economy, “fossil fuels,” is a direct descendant of the Comintern operation to destroy the American economy. Dodd was a Willing Accomplice then, the CO2-hating crowd is now.
Nothing to do with N*zis or H*tler.
For a fuller story of Martha Dodd, see here:
http://www.pennilesspress.co.uk/prose/strange_case_of_martha_dodd.htm
What nonsense (without having read the book, just going on the quotes in the article).
Another book that provides an excellent example that totally destroys the silly theory that today’s capitalism-hating CO2-scared-virtue-signallers are based on a H*tlerian belief system was raised in another comment above. The book is about an American 1% family–the American ambassador to *itler’s Germany as the war broke out, Dodd.
The book purports to show how alluring the N*zi beliefs were–why even young Martha, Dodd’s twenty-something socialite daughter, was sucked into the Aryan whirl! The book leaves out the whole story though.
The story of the Dodd family’s politics and beliefs is a near perfect parallel for today’s AGW in-crowd.
Martha Dodd, a rich and pampered American socialite, worked for the Soviet communist intelligence service. Her “admiration” of the Nazis, and sleeping with some of them, was a cover story to allow her to do her communist espionage work more effectively. Martha eventually defected to the communists, decades later, when she was indicted during the “Red Scare” and McCarthy’s revelations. Of course, there was no “Scare” about it, McCarthy was right. The US government was infiltrated from top to bottom with communist agents, all bent on destroying American culture, government, society, and economy. Martha died in communist Czechoslovakia
Being part of an international organization that trumpets its goal of “Saving the Planet” from evil (American) capitalism was then, and is now, the ultimate virtue signal. The true believers of the Comintern were carbon copies of today’s Green-anti-CO2-anti-capitalism hate-filled “do-gooders.”
Nothing N*zi about Dodd’s family. Nothing N*zi about Michael Mann and his PC-Progressive crowd.
Martha’s, and Mann’s belief system is straight out of Moscow. Their beliefs came to the USA carried in the Popular Front organizations covertly created and run by the Comintern. The aura of virtue that came from believing the “right” things, and the in-crowd that shared those beliefs, was so attractive, and such a successful approach to manipulating a culture, that the beliefs carry on till today. Mann today, and Dodd then, despise the Normal-Americans and our economy. They both were/are willing to lie, cheat and steal loudly, publicly, on the record attack our economy, and our way of life in an attempt to destroy it.
The “Green” hatred of capitalism, and the engine of the capitalist economy, “fossil fuels,” is a direct descendant of the Comintern operation to destroy the American economy. Dodd was a Willing Accomplice then, the CO2-hating crowd is now.
Nothing to do with N*zis or H*tler.
For a fuller story of Martha Dodd, see here:
http://www.pennilesspress.co.uk/prose/strange_case_of_martha_dodd.htm
Fascists are on the left anyway, so this is not at all surprising. The obvious clue is in the Nazi party name of course, as in: National Socialist Workers Party but there are certain other unavoidable facts too – aside from Nazis..
For a start, Mussolini pretty much started fascism, yet he was a dedicated socialist who saw that his fellow socialists fought for their countries against socialists on the other side, so decided it needed a nationalist element to make it work. His friend and socialist philosopher Giovanni Gentile was also instrumental in creating fascism too,
In fact, pretty much ALL of the founding members of fascism were socialists!
It’s funny how the left in general have managed to fool everybody that the opposite is true but let’s face it, what’s the difference between fascists and communists? Hardly anything. They both strut about in smart uniforms and insist on adherence to ‘the state’ as Mussolini always made clear. They both rely on secret police, informers and fear to keep everybody cowed. They both insist on uniformity of thought and deed with complete loyalty to the state.
However, Hitler accentuated the ‘nationalist’ part of fascism to an extent beyond which other fascists wanted and in effect created a new form of fascism – an offshoot really
And although Hitler hated Marxists it was because of his disagreement with their own hatred of the individual and of private ownership. But his love of those things was only ever in the context of them being used for the betterment of the state. The Nazis looked more inwardly whereas Marxism was internationalist.
Whatever, at the end of the day, living in a socialist state or national socialist state had very little difference to people’s lives in terms of liberty and freedom of expression. Both are authoritarian in nature.
None of which is surprising. How else are you to coerce a nation into adopting an ideology except by force?
“How would you…” it’s by a process called “Slowly boiling the frog.” by politicians slowly implementing policies that some people don’t want but have to accept because some people do want them, the country slowly changes.
An excellent history of environmentalism and the UN here:
http://ecofascism.com/article18.html
Utter nonsense and trash. Why publish this stuff? It only gives this site a bad rep.
How revolting. Does anyone really believe this trash? Scary. Michael’s right, this kind of rhetoric only debases this site.
Being concerned about the future – including economic effects of warming – has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to destroy capitalism. It doesn’t matter if the two aims overlap in some people, they are distinct.
I have never seen anyone suggest humans should completely stop eating meat for the sake of the climate, although I suppose there are those who do.
It’s an enormous logical fallacy to pretend that everyone who supports AGW theory thinks the same, or is a fanatic. The statements made in this op-ed are themselves examples of fanaticism.
“Being concerned about the future – including economic effects of warming – has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to destroy capitalism. It doesn’t matter if the two aims overlap in some people, they are distinct.”
So, if your intentions are good/clean/pure, then the “unintended” results of your actions are okay?
There’s a couple of old-sayings that you might profitably study:
1. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
2. Walter Duranty, paraphrasing Lenin: To make an omelet, you’ve got to break a few eggs.
Your de-linking of the results from the actions demanded by your alarmist-activist clique is either evil, or abjectly naive.
The screeds of the modern-day central planner geniuses about “de-carbonizing” the economy are virtually identical to Lenin’s New Economic Plan geniuses.
They published their plans. Their intentions were pure. They were bringing utopia to Earth. When reality didn’t fit their plans, or real people didn’t cooperate–then heads rolled. Millions died.
The same results will occur if the AGW alarmists were ever to seize power.
You really haven’t been paying attention at all to the rhetoric of your own side, have you?
The statements here are NOT fanaticism. They are a response to fanaticism. Pretending otherwise, is carefully maintained willful ignorance.