How to counter eco-fascism?

[Dimentio]

http://www.penttilinkola.com/pentti_linkola/ecofascism/

As the environmental situation will continue to degrade, and the current establishment will fail to adress the situation due to the fact that they are dependent upon perpetual growth and cannot make the necessary investments to change the course, it is my belief that ecofascism will most probably be seen as an alternative by more than mere loons.

People who are probably productive for a movement could be swayed into ecofascism by the direness of the situation.

What strategy should be used against the ecofascists?

[Agrippa]

lol somebody has a crush on Linkola.

The best way to counter eco-fascism is to point out how fascists, like all bourgeois "environmentalists", see "nature" primarily as an ideal, a static rather than dynamic force, a Platonic constant separate from themselves, a tourist retreat, something that exists primarily to give emotional benefits to humans. This is opposed to the Earth as imagined as a complex system of organisms, which, IMO, is more realistic.

The practical effects of this philosophical outlook can be easily seen. Bourgeois environmentalists of a more democratic stripe forcibly evicted indigenous people and impoverished agricultural workers, in both the US and Africa, from their homelands in order to create parks and wildlife reserves. Similarly, Nazi ecological programs involved ethnically clensing a Lithuanian forest's indigenous population, and subsequently wiping on the indigenous wild animal life in order to import German game animals. In other words, "environmentalism" was just an excuse for Nazis to exploit the people and rape the Earth in order to make a safari for their ruling class.

[Dimentio]

lol somebody has a crush on Linkola.

The best way to counter eco-fascism is to point out how fascists, like all bourgeois "environmentalists", see "nature" primarily as an ideal, a static rather than dynamic force, a Platonic constant separate from themselves, a tourist retreat, something that exists primarily to give emotional benefits to humans. This is opposed to the Earth as imagined as a complex system of organisms, which, IMO, is more realistic.

The practical effects of this philosophical outlook can be easily seen. Bourgeois environmentalists of a more democratic stripe forcibly evicted indigenous people and impoverished agricultural workers, in both the US and Africa, from their homelands in order to create parks and wildlife reserves. Similarly, Nazi ecological programs involved ethnically clensing a Lithuanian forest's indigenous population, and subsequently wiping on the indigenous wild animal life in order to import German game animals. In other words, "environmentalism" was just an excuse for Nazis to exploit the people and rape the Earth in order to make a safari for their ruling class.

I think it would be a mistake to view Linkola and his fans in Finland (of whom many are formerly serious and even progressive young environmentalists) as the same as nazis. Linkola is more concerned about reducing population and turning technology back to year 1700, than to create some sort of Aryan paradise. It is quite hard to try to argument against Hitler when you are encountering an ecofascist. Partially because ecofascists don't very often like Hitler (he was'nt enough nazi according to them) and because they then start to call you a hater and refer to data about overpopulation and other environmental problems.

[NecroCommie]

The best way to counter eco-fascism is to point out how fascists, like all bourgeois "environmentalists", see "nature" primarily as an ideal, a static rather than dynamic force, a Platonic constant separate from themselves, a tourist retreat, something that exists primarily to give emotional benefits to humans. This is opposed to the Earth as imagined as a complex system of organisms, which, IMO, is more realistic.
If you had read Linkola you would know that his view of nature is not that of a usual enviromentalist. He among the most radical enviromentalists see nature exactly as a dynamic force, one that counters and shifts with the surrounding factors (such as humans). He thus sees that the nature cannot be destroyed, and with this he reasons that humanity will be destroyed by these natures defensive mechanisms, and that the only way to minimize the losses is his ecofascism.



The practical effects of this philosophical outlook can be easily seen. Bourgeois environmentalists of a more democratic stripe forcibly evicted indigenous people and impoverished agricultural workers, in both the US and Africa, from their homelands in order to create parks and wildlife reserves. Similarly, Nazi ecological programs involved ethnically clensing a Lithuanian forest's indigenous population, and subsequently wiping on the indigenous wild animal life in order to import German game animals. In other words, "environmentalism" was just an excuse for Nazis to exploit the people and rape the Earth in order to make a safari for their ruling class.
Again, Linkolas supporters dont see this as much of a problem, quite the opposite in fact. And his means of protecting the enviroment are different. He does not want to set up national parks or nature reserves. He wants nothing else than to destroy everything the humanity has invented during the past 200 years. Including medicine (goes with his idea of what nature is, hard to explain shortly).

The only real way to counter these ideas is to appeal to humanism, and to point out how it is particulary consumerism and capitalism that devour our planet. To elaborately explain how socialist society can easily overcome the challenges these ecofascists promote, and how technology in itself as a concept is not guilty of all the catastrophies. More like the abuse and excessive use of technology, dominant especially in a capitalist society.

[NecroCommie]

LOL, the link dimentio gave was blocked because of racism. (which Linkola is very neutral of. He does not care.)

[NecroCommie]

One can counter their statistics of overpopulation with the pension bomb of the western world, especially europe. It is quite common that as welfare increases, spouses and children change from matters of survival to... well, this might sound sexist but "entertainment" is the only english word that comes to mind. Sorry :blushing:...

In the third world a spouse is a "tool" of survival and social status, and children are ones pension. In the western world tere comes a complex set of strange rituals which have to be passed before you are good enough for a spouse. Also employed people might just be more interested about a career or a calling than getting a family, so yet again welfare counters population.

Then you can proceed to pointing out how socialism creates welfare ect, ect...

[JimmyJazz]

No comments, just dumping this here for consideration,

http://www.nazi.org/nazi/national_socialism/

[Agrippa]

If you had read Linkola

Are you implying it's a bad thing that I haven't read his works? Although I've always wanted to....


He among the most radical enviromentalists see nature exactly as a dynamic force, one that counters and shifts with the surrounding factors (such as humans). He thus sees that the nature cannot be destroyed, and with this he reasons that humanity will be destroyed by these natures defensive mechanisms, and that the only way to minimize the losses is his ecofascism.

So are his views of human society consistant with this? It seems to me that someone who has that radical and adament of a view regarding "nature [...] as a dynamic force, one that counters and shifts with the surrounding factors" would not have a problem with ethnic inter-breeding or mass-migrations.

[NecroCommie]

So are his views of human society consistant with this? It seems to me that someone who has that radical and adament of a view regarding "nature [...] as a dynamic force, one that counters and shifts with the surrounding factors" would not have a problem with ethnic inter-breeding or mass-migrations.
He does not take race as a serious subject. He opposes all breeding, and has a problem with migration because he sees that the immigrants would survive better in the first world, which they do, and which he does not want.

To be frank, the ecofaxcists are so few in number that I dont even take them as a serious force.