Fascism and Left Dhimmi Ecology

Saving the whales is not an inherently bad thing. Those who take an interest in saving whales are not fascists, per se. But regardless of how we slice it, ecologism is not a Left agenda. Environmentalism comes nowhere near the Left, and it is in fact and history a Rightist programme. One can fairly say that saving whales is better than wasting whales. The difference between Left and Right on the issue of ecology is one of the importance of the place of people, the Left, historically, being on the side of Human supremacy. As we read the next installment of the essay below we can keep in mind the Right fascist conflation with such so-called Left leaning ecologist as Earth First supporters. The fascism is obvious once one is attuned to the historical base.

In this third installment on fascist ecology we'll look at the tip of the Nazi affinity with anti-Humanist rural Romanticism and nature worship. We've kept our comments out for now, as tempting as it is to interrupt with opinions at nearly every turn. In coming posts, as we deal more fully with fascist concepts we'll deal with anti-Humanism, Romantic relationships with Nature-as-being, anti-urbanism and so-called cosmopolitanism, and a number of other themes that show up here and in other related posts.

What is of importance here is to see the roots of Left fascist dhimmitude and to see that we as a general cultural entity, as it were, have common ideas that come from fascism directly. This is not to say we are fascists, but it is to say that we naively and unconsciously have fascistic ideas that we passively accept because they seem nice on the face of it. Who wants to wipe out whales? Who wants to destroy forests and little owls and what-have-you? None of us do. But with that sentimentalizing of nature comes a fascistic anti-Modernity and anti-Humanism that can lead to denigration of Humanism and human supremacy, a particularist view of authentic identity, any number of so-called post-modernist fascisms that we take as normal and moral in our time. We must be particularly cautious in our assumptions, many being as they are fascist in principle if seemingly benign.

(Yes, the photo above is the "phoney Indian" Ward Churchill.)
***

Nature in National Socialist Ideology

The reactionary ecological ideas whose outlines are sketched above exerted a powerful and lasting influence on many of the central figures in the NSDAP. Weimar culture, after all, was fairly awash in such theories, but the Nazis gave them a peculiar inflection. The National Socialist "religion of nature," as one historian has described it, was a volatile admixture of primeval teutonic nature mysticism, pseudo-scientific ecology, irrationalist anti-humanism, and a mythology of racial salvation through a return to the land. Its predominant themes were 'natural order,' organicist holism and denigration of humanity: "Throughout the writings, not only of Hitler, but of most Nazi ideologues, one can discern a fundamental deprecation of humans vis-à-vis nature, and, as a logical corollary to this, an attack upon human efforts to master nature."25 Quoting a Nazi educator, the same source continues: "anthropocentric views in general had to be rejected. They would be valid only 'if it is assumed that nature has been created only for man. We decisively reject this attitude. According to our conception of nature, man is a link in the living chain of nature just as any other organism'." 26

Such arguments have a chilling currency within contemporary ecological discourse: the key to social-ecological harmony is ascertaining "the eternal laws of nature's processes" (Hitler) and organizing society to correspond to them. The Führer was particularly fond of stressing the "helplessness of humankind in the face of nature's everlasting law."27 Echoing Haeckel and the Monists, Mein Kampf announces: "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."28

The authoritarian implications of this view of humanity and nature become even clearer in the context of the Nazis' emphasis on holism and organicism. In 1934 the director of the Reich Agency for Nature Protection, Walter Schoenichen, established the following objectives for biology curricula: "Very early, the youth must develop an understanding of the civic importance of the 'organism', i.e. the co-ordination of all parts and organs for the benefit of the one and superior task of life."29 This (by now familiar) unmediated adaptation of biological concepts to social phenomena served to justify not only the totalitarian social order of the Third Reich but also the expansionist politics of Lebensraum (the plan of conquering 'living space' in Eastern Europe for the German people). It also provided the link between environmental purity and racial purity: Two central themes of biology education follow [according to the Nazis] from the holistic perspective: nature protection and eugenics. If one views nature as a unified whole, students will automatically develop a sense for ecology and environmental conservation. At the same time, the nature protection concept will direct attention to the urbanized and 'overcivilized' modern human race.30

In many varieties of the National Socialist world view ecological themes were linked with traditional agrarian romanticism and hostility to urban civilization, all revolving around the idea of rootedness in nature. This conceptual constellation, especially the search for a lost connection to nature, was most pronounced among the neo-pagan elements in the Nazi leadership, above all Heinrich Himmler, Alfred Rosenberg, and Walther Darré. Rosenberg wrote in his colossal The Myth of the 20th Century: "Today we see the steady stream from the countryside to the city, deadly for the Volk. The cities swell ever larger, unnerving the Volk and destroying the threads which bind humanity to nature; they attract adventurers and profiteers of all colors, thereby fostering racial chaos."31

Such musings, it must be stressed, were not mere rhetoric; they reflected firmly held beliefs and, indeed, practices at the very top of the Nazi hierarchy which are today conventionally associated with ecological attitudes. Hitler and Himmler were both strict vegetarians and animal lovers, attracted to nature mysticism and homeopathic cures, and staunchly opposed to vivisection and cruelty to animals. Himmler even established experimental organic farms to grow herbs for SS medicinal purposes. And Hitler, at times, could sound like a veritable Green utopian, discussing authoritatively and in detail various renewable energy sources (including environmentally appropriate hydropower and producing natural gas from sludge) as alternatives to coal, and declaring "water, winds and tides" as the energy path of the future.32

Even in the midst of war, Nazi leaders maintained their commitment to ecological ideals which were, for them, an essential element of racial rejuvenation. In December 1942, Himmler released a decree "On the Treatment of the Land in the Eastern Territories," referring to the newly annexed portions of Poland. It read in part: The peasant of our racial stock has always carefully endeavored to increase the natural powers of the soil, plants, and animals, and to preserve the balance of the whole of nature. For him, respect for divine creation is the measure of all culture. If, therefore, the new Lebensräume (living spaces) are to become a homeland for our settlers, the planned arrangement of the landscape to keep it close to nature is a decisive prerequisite. It is one of the bases for fortifying the German Volk.33

This passage recapitulates almost all of the tropes comprised by classical ecofascist ideology: Lebensraum, Heimat, the agrarian mystique, the health of the Volk, closeness to and respect for nature (explicitly constructed as the standard against which society is to be judged), maintaining nature's precarious balance, and the earthy powers of the soil and its creatures. Such motifs were anything but personal idiosyncracies on the part of Hitler, Himmler, or Rosenberg; even Göring—who was, along with Goebbels, the member of the Nazi inner circle least hospitable to ecological ideas—appeared at times to be a committed conservationist.34 These sympathies were also hardly restricted to the upper echelons of the party. A study of the membership rolls of several mainstream Weimar era Naturschutz (nature protection) organizations revealed that by 1939, fully 60 percent of these conservationists had joined the NSDAP (compared to about 10 percent of adult men and 25 percent of teachers and lawyers).35 Clearly the affinities between environmentalism and National Socialism ran deep.

At the level of ideology, then, ecological themes played a vital role in German fascism. It would be a grave mistake, however, to treat these elements as mere propaganda, cleverly deployed to mask Nazism's true character as a technocratic-industrialist juggernaut. The definitive history of German anti-urbanism and agrarian romanticism argues incisively against this view: Nothing could be more wrong than to suppose that most of the leading National Socialist ideologues had cynically feigned an agrarian romanticism and hostility to urban culture, without any inner conviction and for merely electoral and propaganda purposes, in order to hoodwink the public [ . . . ] In reality, the majority of the leading National Socialist ideologists were without any doubt more or less inclined to agrarian romanticism and anti-urbanism and convinced of the need for a relative re-agrarianization.36

The question remains, however: To what extent did the Nazis actually implement environmental policies during the twelve-year Reich? There is strong evidence that the 'ecological' tendency in the party, though largely ignored today, had considerable success for most of the party's reign. This "green wing" of the NSDAP was represented above all by Walther Darré, Fritz Todt, Alwin Seifert and Rudolf Hess, the four figures who primarily shaped fascist ecology in practice.

http://www.social-ecology.org/article.php?story=20031202115218246

We'll return to this essay in our next post, some of us via the autobahn, created by the Nazis with an eye to it blending with the environment and causing as little damage to the wetlands and forests as possible in its construction and details.

No, we do not kill rabbits for amusement. Nor do we have the slightest regard for rabbits or chickens. We eat their dead bodies. Yum. Rip off their roasted flesh. People are primary; not chickens. If we are environmentally concerned it is for the sake of people and not because we give a damn about the inner child of the average rabbit. And that is one place where the modern Left has lost touch entirely with its classical roots: that Man is primary, that life is for Man, that life is not an equal or sensitive group-grope of relatively different but equally worthwhile animals and other life-forms. We rationally kill animals for the better life of Mankind. We don't rightly kill people for the sake of the mystic soil or to purify the blood of the nation.

We have to understand where our ideas, as nice as they might seem when bounding across a field or as pathetic as they might be when locked in a cage, lead us in our relationship to greater ideas that we might not see the end of till it's too late to turn back the clock. Nature is not our friend. Nature is not our Mother. It is, as a pathetic fallacy, a fascist bitch that kills everything. We must be careful of those who laud it.

We'll look at this again more next post. Please feel free to contribute your opinions.
***